> >Fascinating read. I think this kind of points to the question of why
> >mercenaries have been phased out during modern times. Any takers?
>
> I found it fascinating as well. I suppose massive use of mercenaries brings
> up concerns that the mercenaries would take over. If you already have a
> Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu
Empirics: Do homegrown armies take over more often than mercs? IIRC,
the British tradition of not having a standing army was an accomplishment
because it eliminated the threat of tyranny.
Modern Third World nations seem to have a real problem controlling
their home grown armies. Maybe the idea that homegrown armies are
intrinsically better is an illusion. Home grown armies seem to
work only in countries where people have already bought into civilian
rule.
Any defenders of home grown armies?
-fabio
