Soldatenhandel

The use of auxiliaries dates to the Roman Empire.[3] Auxilia composed of non-citizens were provided by provinces. Following the collapse of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, Western Europe in the Early Middle Ages lacked a unifying imperial power, although the Carolingian Empire is known to have used both militias levies and auxiliaries.[4] Other powers, such as the Byzantine Empire, preferred trained mercenary forces to untrained peasants.[5]

Private mercenary groups played a significant military role in Medieval Europe, especially after the Kingdom of Germany was broken up.[6] But while mercenary forces provided professional military units when needed, they could not be controlled by individual states.[7] Even into the early modern period of European history, warring states commonly hired armed forces when needed. It was estimated, for example, that 70% of France's forces were foreign born in 1558 during the reign of Henry II of France.[1] It was during this era that Black Bands and Landsknechts were organized as trained military forces that could defend the Holy Roman Empire, but could also be hired as mercenary forces.[8]

The soldier trade grew during the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) and Franco-Spanish War (1635–1659).[9] Ernst von Mansfeld, for example, was paid to defend the Bohemian Rebels. One of the most successful practitioners during this time was Albrecht von Wallenstein, from Bohemia.[10] The Peace of Westphalia introduced the principle of Westphalian sovereignty, in which each state has exclusive control over its own territory. This was a significant step in the development of Soldatenhandel, because smaller states could now raise their own armies and negotiate contracts with larger countries.[2] The princes of the German states could establish mandatory service and offer cheaper prices than the private mercenary contractors.[10] This was a benefit to wealthier nations, who found such contracts cheaper than maintaining a large standing Army.[10][11] In the late 17th century, for example, France negotiated ready forces in Switzerland and Ireland.[12]

The Soldatenhandel practice grew in the 17th and 18th centuries. The Landgraviate of Hesse-Kassel, for example, leased Soldiers to Denmark and Venice, supported William III of England in 1688, and joined the Grand Alliance in the Nine Years' War.[2] Hesse-Kassel had forces fighting on both sides of the War of the Austrian Succession.[2] European legal experts such as Emer de Vattel argued that states could provide auxiliary forces to either side of a conflict without violating neutrality.[13] By the end of the 18th century, British Colonel William Fawcett wrote that it was no longer possible to recruit in Germany except with the permission of a state prince.[14]

The primary motivation of the soldier trade is often viewed as financial. However, keeping an armed force trained and equipped came at a high cost. Fiscal-military states could not always obtain long-term contracts to financially maintain their armies.[15] Even when contracts were made, they rarely resulted in payments that covered all the expenses of a mobilized army, so states would normally lose money on their contracts.[16] Furthermore, terms of payment were not always honored.[15] States that did not participate in the soldier trade also faced financial risks, however. Members states that did not provide forces to the Holy Roman Empire could be made to pay a penalty.[17]

Although the Soldier Trade rarely generated a profit, the use of armed forces was a key factor in establishing diplomatic ties. Smaller states established strong ties with imperial partners through the alliances established in their Soldatenhandel contracts.[18] States could also negotiate for diplomatic terms instead of money. Frederick I of Prussia, for example, earned the title of "King of Prussia" through a contract alliance with Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor.[19]

The United Kingdom, which fought the English Civil War near the end of the Thirty Years' War, did not keep a large standing Army.[20] Instead, it came to rely on Soldatenhandel in the 18th century. Sir Robert Walpole paid Hesse-Kassel an annual fee to keep it's army ready to be called up.[2] William Pitt would later criticize this arrangement, but was forced to pay for the use of Soldatenhandel during the Seven Years' War.[2] Due to the numerous contracts it funded throughout Europe during this era, the United Kingdom was known as the guarantor of the balance of powers.[17] It again relied on Sodatenhandel during the American Revolutionary War, compensating six German states to fight in North America.

Peter H. Wilson describes four broad categories of recruitment during this era.

1. Direct Recruitment involved the enlistment of men who resided in another jurisdiction to join an existing military unit.[21]
2. Foreign Regiments recruited men to form newly established military units, either directly or through intermediaries.[22]
3. Hired Auxiliaries were whole military units provided by a foreign provider, until the contract expired or until recalled by the foreign power.[23] Auxiliary units could be fully dependent on the acquiring nation they served, or could be subsidized and remain at least partially dependent on their own state.[24]
4. Subsidy troops were partially funded by a state's ally, but remained under control of their own state.[25]

Criticism of Soldatenhandel grew in the late 18th century. Playwrights such as Friedrich Schiller and Johann Krauseneck authored works with tragic characters forced to fight in the Americas.[26] Johann Gottfried Seume wrote a fictionalized version of his voluntary enlistment, in which Hessian officers captured him and sent him to Canada.[27] The Soldier Trade had also become less profitable for the states supplying the military units. Karl, Prince of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, was almost ruined by his support of the British in the American Revolution.[28] This may have influenced his new opinion that freeborn citizens could not be forced to take up arms except "to defend the fatherland."[27]

The Napoleonic Wars saw the peak use of Soldatenhandel, but also saw its demise.[29] Revolutionary ideas regarding nationalism and citizenship made it increasingly unpopular for rulers to send soldiers beyond their borders. In addition, as smaller states merged into the great powers of the late 19th century, the need for foreign auxiliary forces became less necessary.[30]

19th century German historians were critical of Soldatenhandel, and argued that the individual states' foreign alliances slowed the unification of the German nation.[31] The practice was not widely studied and often misunderstood by later historians.[32][33] The United States, in particular, remains influenced by revolutionary era descriptions of Hessian auxiliaries as "foreign Mercenaries" and "barbarous strangers."[34] Recent scholarship suggests that Soldatenhandel was a necessary practice in Early modern Europe, both for the small states providing military forces and for the larger kingdoms who were frequently drawn into wars.[35]