American Mercenaries

[gladius]

Here's an idea that's been bouncing around my head for a few days. Please forgive my ignorance of the details of the period, and we can focus on the broad strokes. Lets say that after the ACW, conditions for former soldiers on both sides is far worse than OTL. No pensions, no settlements, no back pay. (Maybe the fighting went on longer, the devastation was worse, the treasuries were emptier, more hard feelings against the men who were the instruments of warring governments). Basically, it's a bad time to be a veteran in America.

Basically, a group of charismatic/smart/crafty former officers rally their troops, and organise a mercenary force. Instead of drifting towards the West, many hardened veterans, frustrated with the government and disenchanted with America in general, flock to their banners, with perhaps ten thousand or so joining up.

Afterwards, the unit contracts to a foreign nation, South America, Asia or Europe. In any case, they are highly effective, their employers and opponents impressed by their mastery of mobile, industrial warfare. Their exploits are reported back home, capturing the nation's imagination, and it becomes fashionable/laudable for young men or retiring soldiers to travel overseas and join the force, or start their own. Before long, serving as mercenaries becomes a national tradition, with American troops gaining a reputation as mercenaries not seen since the Swiss pikes retired ...

So, possible? Unlikely? Simply stupid?

 

[mowque]

Afterwards, the unit contracts to a foreign nation, South America, Asia or Europe. In any case, they are highly effective, their employers and opponents impressed by their mastery of mobile, industrial warfare.

But would they be without the massive might, logistics and beurcracy of the USA behind them?

That said, I do know some Americans fought in the Boer war as volunteers.

 

[Allen81]

Afterwards, the unit contracts to a foreign nation, South America, Asia or Europe. In any case, they are highly effective, their employers and opponents impressed by their mastery of mobile, industrial warfare

I'm not an expert on this period, more like an interested amateur...but as far as I know american soldiers weren't exactly considered "good" at the time. "Highly effective", "masters of mobile and industrial warfare" aren't exactly terms that at the time could be used to describe either side of the Civil War armies.

Especially if we consider that even with their respective government's infrastructure and resources the two armies weren't exactly apt at "mobile warfare" and weren't particularly "industrialized"...or, better, not above the standard for the time. A private mercenary company can't rely on any kind of national infrastructure/industry, so they'll be even less "industrialized" than their regular counterparts.

 

[historyfool]

The US army of the time was together with Prussia leading in modern land based logistics. As fighting soldiers though a few units and generals might have been considered gifted amateurs. The broad mass was seen as armed mobs. Thus an underdeveloped power may hire staff officers as military advisors, but even those would hire units only for political reasons, say if they can´t trust the own population. European powers might hire them as colonial troops if they are cheap enough. But then going west might be safer and more profitable. Basically you can extend otl American mercenaries a bit (Mexican intervention, single advisors abroad) but not incredibly much more.

 

[gladius]

But would they be without the massive might, logistics and beurcracy of the USA behind them?

That said, I do know some Americans fought in the Boer war as volunteers.

I'm not an expert on this period, more like an interested amateur...but as far as I know american soldiers weren't exactly considered "good" at the time. "Highly effective", "masters of mobile and industrial warfare" aren't exactly terms that at the time could be used to describe either side of the Civil War armies.

Especially if we consider that even with their respective government's infrastructure and resources the two armies weren't exactly apt at "mobile warfare" and weren't particularly "industrialized"...or, better, not above the standard for the time. A private mercenary company can't rely on any kind of national infrastructure/industry, so they'll be even less "industrialized" than their regular counterparts.

The US army of the time was together with Prussia leading in modern land based logistics. As fighting soldiers though a few units and generals might have been considered gifted amateurs. The broad mass was seen as armed mobs. Thus an underdeveloped power may hire staff officers as military advisors, but even those would hire units only for political reasons, say if they can´t trust the own population. European powers might hire them as colonial troops if they are cheap enough. But then going west might be safer and more profitable. Basically you can extend otl American mercenaries a bit (Mexican intervention, single advisors abroad) but not incredibly much more.

Good points, all.

I was under the impression that the ACW had taught the Americans lessons regarding the use of rapid-fire rifles and the mobility offered by trains that Europe would not learn for decades or longer, being largely still fixed on the same Napoleonic school of warfare the Americans had started the Civil War with.

 

[LSCatilina]

I was under the impression that the ACW had taught the Americans lessons regarding the use of rapid-fire rifles and the mobility offered by trains that Europe would not learn for decades or longer, being largely still fixed on the same Napoleonic school of warfare the Americans had started the Civil War with.

The Crimean War and German unification were already a strategical changer for european schools. And for people that failed to understood that, the Franco-Prussian war made a clear point. After the 60's, you can't seriously claim that Napoleonic school was still dominant (that the mental structure lasted longer being another debate).

 

[carlton_bach]

An American mercenary force (assuming such a thing could be created under US law and hold together effectively without the pressures of a federal bureaucracy) could be appealing to all kinds of non-European countries. I doubt any European states would hire it because, as was pointed out, it would import its weaknesses (poor discipline, patchy command structure and a part-time officer corps) while leaving its strengths at home (knowledge of terrain and resources, excellent logistics, high quality of equipment).

What Latin American countries or African colonies might be interested in acquiring a force of experienced soldiers, most of them with a farming background, literate, numerate, and - perhaps most important by nineteenth-century standards - white? These guys would be as appealing for their value as colonists as for their fighting skills. I could see some governments waving the promise of homestead plots in newly conquered 'white man's country'.

 

[BeardedHoplite]

I know there was a few CSA cavalry men who went into service with the Ottoman empire after the American Civil War; perhaps eastern powers like the Ottomans and Persia would be willing to receive several battalions of Civil War veterans?

 

[David S Poepoe]

I know there was a few CSA cavalry men who went into service with the Ottoman empire after the American Civil War; perhaps eastern powers like the Ottomans and Persia would be willing to receive several battalions of Civil War veterans?

I was going to make the same observation. There were a few ex-Union officers that served with Charles Gordon down in Equatorial Africa against the slave trade IIRC. The movie 'The Last Samurai' showed an example of such expatriate officers serving foreign powers. There is at least one example of a Union naval officer serving under the Chinese.

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Would the irregular/cavalry forces be more appealing to non-Europeans? They might have a smaller logistical need. Pre-1900 is not my specialty, though.

 

[aktarian]

What Latin American countries or African colonies might be interested in acquiring a force of experienced soldiers, most of them with a farming background, literate, numerate, and - perhaps most important by nineteenth-century standards - white? These guys would be as appealing for their value as colonists as for their fighting skills. I could see some governments waving the promise of homestead plots in newly conquered 'white man's country'.

There was a TL where a lot of Confederates leave for Australia which turns Australia into superpower down the road.