Historically, armies have at times engaged in plunder, as an incidental byproduct of war or as a deliberate strategy to finance campaigns. Although military theft seems to bethe prerogative of earlier centuries, the phenomenon has medieval roots and affects both combat and the way that militaries are perceived to this day.
Army Thieves Plundering: The Heretics Are Shouting
Stealing from armies is as old as organized warfare. Since antiquity, when fighters were often not well paid or equipped, plunder was seen as a legitimate form of remuneration. War, and the spoils of war (ranging from gold to food to livestock), were meant to be divided among soldiers as a reward for their service. This practice was critical for sustaining military campaigns for many, as army thieves typically lacked sufficient supplies.
Probably the most famous early example of military theft comes in the Roman Empire, where victorious soldiers were encouraged to loot the cities of their enemies. In 146 BCE, after Rome sacked Carthage, the victor’s forces pillaged the city looking for treasures. Spoils of war were so deeply rooted in Roman military tradition that commanders frequently perceived it as a means of discipline as well as a well-deserved reward for their troops.
As time progressed, however, conquest and army thieves plundering flourished throughout the medieval era. For example, soldiers were tempted during the Crusades that they could take land and riches from Muslim lands. The sack of Jerusalem by Crusaders in 1099 during the First Crusade ranks among the most notorious acts of military theft, as the Crusaders killed civilians and pillaged sacred objects in the name of divine conquest.
Army Thieves of an Aircraft: The Social and Psychological Factors
Why do soldiers pilfer, and what kind of army becomes a army thieves? There are multiple social and psychological variables you would have to consider.
Economic Imperative: Often, soldiers are underpaid or ill equipped to fight a war. When wages are delayed or insufficient, army thieves looting is compensatory. In some instances, armies — particularly when grinding over long campaigns — rely on the spoils of war to resupply, and looting becomes a vital logistical component.
Dehumanization of the Enemy: Soldiers may dehumanize the enemy during times of war to justify violent actions. The moral barrier to army thieves stealing from them then lowers significantly when opposing forces or use of civilian populations as shields is ignored. This mental gap provides soldiers with a justification for actions they would typically consider grotesque.
Under Military Discipline: Depending on the army and the time period, the discipline of soldiers can differ significantly from one another. In moments of chaos, like when an army is waging a drawn-out war with heavy losses, discipline can fray, and troops will plunder and pillage with abandon. Lack of strong leadership and oversight makes this situation worse.
Looting As Cultural Norm: In some cultures, looting is considered an acceptable form of conduct during warfare. Or, for instance, army thieves during the Viking Age, Norse raiders engaged in plundering as part of their raids. In the context of colonial expansion, power, however, looted indigenous populations additionally believing that it was their right to everything they conquered.
Military Leadership Roles Army Thieves
Whether military personnel loot army thieves will depend a great deal on the decisions and orders of military leaders. Throughout history some leaders have encouraged plundering as a strategy, while others have worked to prevent it.
As an example, Napoleon Bonaparte, even as a brilliant tactician, had a fairly strict code of conduct for the treatment his troops should have. Although his soldiers sometimes participated in looting, Napoleon did his best to stamp out indiscriminate theft, in part by creating military police and in part by establishing that war’s spoils should go to the state, not to individual members of the military.
Meanwhile, leaders such as Genghis Khan utilized plunder as a crucial tactic. For example, the Mongol army commonly utilized psychological warfare by permitting their men to plunder and pillage, which more often than not frightened people into surrendering (Wikipedia, 2018). The Mongols considered plundering to be an integral piece of warfare, not only a way to enrich their own soldiers, but also a way of psychologically dominating an opponent.
State of affairs and the Army Thieves consequences
Although looting offers immediate encouragement for soldiers, the long-term effects are detrimental, both for army thieves institutions and civilian populations.
A Destruction of Moral Authority: An army thieves should not rob it destroys its moral authority and legitimacy An army that engages in looting is perceived by civilians and other soldiers alike as one that is undisciplined, disrespectful and dishonorable. This leaves a blemish on the military and has the potential to create friction with the local populace.
Societies Destabilized: Looting and plundering can cause the destabilization of entire regions. When armies deprive civilians of their property and army thieves resources, it often makes populations vulnerable to starvation, disease and economic collapse. The impact of infrastructure destruction — especially from modern warfare — is long-lasting and detrimental not only to national economies but also to recovery efforts in many of the countries we work in.
Long-term Trauma for Soldiers: You train soldiers with the mind-set that if they loot, they will be the first one you kill because they will burn down the army thieves building, and then everyone will scatter, and they will be the only one with a looting problem. Stealing, which usually includes acts of violence, would lead to guilt and post-traumatic stress. As the days go by, the normalization of such actions can lead to the blurring of lines between right and wrong, which can have dire impacts on the moral fabric of an army.
International Consequences: Military theft can also lead to international condemnation and criticism if the actions of the thieves are seen as violating international law. International agreements, like the army thieves Geneva Conventions, have been established to prevent under war the plunder and destruction of the civilian property. If the laws are ignored by armies, they run the risk of sanctions and prosecution for war crimes.
Army Thieves in Modern-Day Military Aerospace Program
Looting may have been much more widespread in earlier centuries, but modern armies are constrained by tighter ethical and legal codes. This military theft was a serious problem up until the emergence of international law, the Geneva Conventions and the vigilance from organizations, like the United Nations. Army thieves institutions today broadly take steps to address this problem:
Code of conduct: The majority of modern armies have a stringent code of conduct which forbids its soldiers from stealing or pillaging. These codes reflect a broader understanding of the laws of war that places a high value both on the protection of civilian property and the need to honor human rights.
Education and Training: Soldiers are taught the significance of discipline and the moral aspects of war. Modern army thieves training programs emphasize a distinction between combatants and non-combatants, along with a need to protect civilian infrastructure.
Code of Conduct: The military organizations have a code of conduct that outlines what is expected from soldiers, which is accompanied by strict disciplinary action for violations. Military police, internal investigations and reports from international bodies also ensure that any incidents of looting are immediately addressed.
Holding Individuals Accountable: International justice mechanisms, such as the ICC, have already shown that individuals committing army thieves crimes — including looting and theft — will be held to account for potential future crimes. It has been a disincentive for soldiers who might have considered stealing as a legitimate form of remuneration.
Conclusion
Army thieves has a complicated past that speaks to the relationship between war, human behavior and the systems that govern military conduct. It is easy to see how looting has been a part of warfare, but modern militaries have made great strides in stopping looting from taking place. In the past the armies plundered widely, now with codes of conduct, education and international law this has changed for the better.
Still, the practice of military theft remains a part of many societies’ history lessons, the way humanity remembers the actions of its armies in battle that continue to inform the larger story of war. This reflects the complexity of human behavior and the socio-cultural contexts within which armed forces operate, insights that can only be gleaned through an understanding of history and psychology.
