¶ … Parrott's the Business of War
Paraphrase Parrott's argument in two lines.
Dr. David Parrot's seminal treatise on the commercialization of warfare -- titled The Business of War -- is premised on the author's steadfast belief that the prevailing notion among historians regarding the Military Revolution in early modern Europe is essentially erroneous. Rather than subscribe to the traditional view, which holds that state-administered standing armies displaced the private military contractor and mercenary system of the 15th century, Parrott employs a meticulous research methodology to argue that local rulers and warlords throughout Europe never ceased to rely on military enterprisers during the advent of the modern era.
What was a military enterpriser and how was he different from a mercenary, according to Parrott?
Parrott differentiated between the two seemingly similar terms "mercenary" and "military enterpriser" by citing the distinct system of financial arrangement and the unique skill sets employed by both groups. According to Parrott, who informs the reader of his predilection to "use the term 'mercenary' sparingly, and reserve it for a unit commander who raised troops under a traditional contract in which the costs of recruitment and a substantial advance of wages are paid up front"1 (22), mercenaries were simply glorified recruiters paid in advance for locating
1. David Parrot. (2012). The Business of War: Military Enterprise and Military Revolution in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, p. 22-23.
able-bodied young men and convincing them to enlist. Parrott continues by clarifying between the two professions and their roles, observing that "in contrast to the mercenary captain or colonel, the 'military enterpriser' provided the organization and the military skill, but also advanced his financial credit to the warlord"2. The basic point of divergence between mercenaries and military enterprisers, in Parrott's estimation, lies in their very function within the early modern European system of warfare, as the former simply organized a labor force for a standard recruitment fee, while the latter applied their own financial wherewithal in the form of credit, along with expertise and experience, in order to wage a successful and profitable military campaign.
3.) What does Parrott mean by the term military devolution?
You’re 69% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.