Thomas Foltz

History 214

Essay 4

Politics and Economics

December 3, 2017

Essay 4

War is not a carefree clash between nations or leaders. There is a goal that is trying to be

accomplished or prevented depending on what side you align with. Accomplishing this goal does

not come without a hefty price tag. War is not a cheap affair, it is only becoming more and more

expensive as time goes on.

As discussed in lecture it can be said the armies are the playthings of kings, politicians,

and religious movements. Otto Von Bismarck, ISIS, and North/South Korea being examples of

politics in warfare. Otto Von Bismarck being the leader of Prussia, although technically William I

was in charge, Bismarck effectively ran the show by manipulating the king with his intellect and

the occasional tantrum while using royal decrees to circumvent the power of elected officials.

Bismarcks goal of uniting the independent states of Germany was not a small feet by any means.

It took many wars and many years to do so, it also took being a master strategist who every

opportunity that presents itself to accomplish his goal. From waging wars to manipulating

correspondence between nations Bismarck displayed his Political prowess and his ability to utilize

his army for his political gain.

 ISIS is similar in concept to Otto Von Bismarck yet they are unproven and they are a

religious group whereas Bismarck was a leader. ISIS is a radical Islamic organization trying to use

a fear tactic to instill their beliefs into other lands and people. It is conceptually the same on the

premise that they are trying to accomplish their goal, be it a different goal, it is just not proven

whether they have accomplished said goal. One of the major differences between the two is that

ISIS is in the shadows compared to how Bismarck portrayed himself. They do not fight a

traditional war, they attack seemingly at random to install fear in nations around the world.

Although ISIS fights a different style of war than traditionally fought in history they have created

large political movements. One of the biggest being the War on Terror, which was not originally

created to fight ISIS specifically but to fight against terrorist organizations. ISIS is the latest

terrorist organization that is creating a political movement. Only the future will tell if ISIS

succeeded in their goals or if it was all for nothing.

Another way politics can play a part in warfare is nations influencing other nations for

their own personal gain. North Korea/South Korea is a great example of this. Instead of it being

a sole leader of a nation it is two nations themselves extending their political reach through

warfare. The United States and the Soviet Union both had their reasons for wanting to spread

communism or to stop it. Those reasons ended in North/South Korea as the country is now split

in two with a distinct difference when comparing both sides. This is just one example of the

United States extending political reach through war, another example was when the United

States acquired northern Mexico and the dominant political position in the Western Hemisphere

(Davis).
 The arguably most important part of war is the economics of it. A nation may have the

people to fight a war but if they cannot pay for it there is no war, no battle, and no skirmishes.

From the beginning economics of some sort plays a huge role in warfare: be it paying the men

fighting, or paying for the equipment used.

Every war has an economics side to it, its not free to send people to go fight. As

demonstrated by the Persians, who hired Greek mercenaries in large numbers to fight their wars

in Asia (Davis). Although these soldiers were a part of the Persian Army they were indeed

employed by the Persians for a price. It was a common theme to hire other nations men as

soldiers, demonstrated again in the Manzikert Battle. Although some of these were outstanding

fighters, such as the Varangian Guard, few were tied to the empire in any way but monetary

(Davis). Without the means to pay the soldiers these nations and armies discussed above would

not have existed and would not have been able to fight. It was not enough to just pay the soldiers

to fight, nations also paid for the training and transport of soldiers as well. On the march, the

legions displayed and the state to provide it with pay and material (Keegan). This quote is

referring to the Roman Empire and its expansion, and its ability to do so in a timely manner. One

of the biggest motivators throughout history is money, the ability to pay soldiers more than what

other nations can is a huge factor in whether or not the soldiers stay loyal.

Beyond paying for soldiers during war there are many other expenditures. These

expenditures continue to grow as World War II was the most expensive thing to this date. As war

progresses the costs will become greater and greater. Since war is becoming more and more

expensive it makes it so that countries like the United States and many others rely on levels of

debt to finance operations. Economics will always be a part of war.

 War is sometimes just thought of as fighting between two different groups but it is much

more than that. There as many different faces to war: economics and politics being two major

faces.

References

Davis, P. K. (1999). 100 Decisive Battles: from ancient times to the present. Oxford University

Press, USA.

Keegan, John. A history of warfare. Pimlico, 2004

History.com Staff. Otto von Bismarck. History.com, A&E Television Networks, 2009,

www.history.com/topics/otto-von-bismarck.

History.com Staff. Frederick II. History.com, A&E Television Networks, 2009,

www.history.com/topics/frederick-ii-prussia