Paid to Kill: A Historical and Contemporary Study of Combatants for Hire
The story of organized conflict is inseparable from the story of the fighter who wages war for compensation. From early human settlements defending scarce resources to the complex proxy conflicts of the modern era, individuals have long offered their skill in violence in exchange for payment, whether that payment took the form of gold, land, political privilege, or ideological reward.
Learn How to Leverage Your Story through our Story To Asset Framework.
This article examines that tradition across time. Drawing on historical accounts as well as modern debates, it traces the progression of these paid actors—from the covert political assassin to today’s high-profile, corporate-style Private Military Companies (PMCs).
Why This Article? Understanding the Present Crisis Through an Old Pattern
Recent developments in Nigeria and other African states, marked by rising religious violence and even public threats of U.S. military intervention under President Trump, raise a pressing question: What is happening beneath the surface?
According to multiple reports, elements within Nigeria’s political elite may have played a role in enabling militant groups as far back as 2015. This strategy, meant to weaken rivals, appears to have backfired; the actors once manipulated for political gain have grown into destabilizing forces now difficult to contain.
During the course of our research, one theme surfaced repeatedly: this is not a new phenomenon. Instead, Nigeria’s predicament reflects a much older global pattern, the use of combatants for hire, whether formal or informal, to achieve political ends. This article therefore expands beyond Nigeria’s current turmoil to explore the long lineage of paid violence across regions and eras.
The Core Incentive: Payment in Its Many Forms
At its most basic level, the act of killing for compensation is a transaction. But “payment” has never been only monetary. Across history, individuals have been driven to commit violence by whatever reward was most accessible or meaningful in their context. Sometimes compensation came wrapped in ideology.
For instance, certain extremist interpretations of jihad frame warfare against “infidels” as a sacred obligation that promises wealth and pleasure in the afterlife. Though intangible, this promise operates as one of the most powerful reward systems ever devised for mobilizing violence.
In other periods, assassins sought revenge, elevated status, or land, returns that were valuable precisely because they reshaped one’s position within society.
Meanwhile, the bounty traditions of many societies, ranging from the “Wanted” posters of the American West to today’s FBI Most Wanted List, reveal a more straightforward financial incentive. Even state militaries rely on salaries to secure the willingness of soldiers to fight and kill, reinforcing the idea that payment-for-violence is not an aberration but a normalized pillar of organized conflict.
Taken together, these examples show that throughout history, the surest way to mobilize violence has simply been to reward it.
Assassins and Political Violence: Precision Instruments of Power
Assassination, the targeted elimination of a specific individual, has long been a cost-effective alternative to open war. States and political factions throughout history have employed secret killers to shift power structures, topple rivals, or ignite rebellions.
Ancient strategic texts acknowledge this openly.
The Arthashastra, attributed to Kautilya (c. 300 BCE–300 CE), describes techniques for poisoning, infiltration, and covert execution. Sun Tzu’s The Art of War briefly discusses paying spies to carry out lethal missions. These manuals reveal that hired killers were not fringe figures but integrated tools of early statecraft.
The practice continued well into modernity. A now-declassified 1953 CIA memo, A Study of Assassination, provided instruction on methods, weapons, and techniques for covert killing.
Although formal bans on assassination were later introduced, most notably in the United States through Executive Order 12333 in 1981 signed by President Ronald Reagan, the document illustrates the enduring reliance of states on clandestine operatives.
The Sarajevo Precedent: How a Paid Killing Sparked Global War
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 provides one of history’s most striking examples of paid violence triggering a geopolitical chain reaction.
The operation was orchestrated by Dragutin Dimitrijević, head of Serbian military intelligence and leader of the secret society known as the Black Hand. Conceived as a blow against Austrian influence, the plot relied on young operatives, including Gavrilo Princip, who were trained and equipped by the organization.
You might like Legacy and Leadership: How Oba Erediauwa’s Story Merges Ancient Traditions with Modern Governance for Diaspora and Family Businesses
The deaths of the Archduke and his wife set off a cascade of declarations of war, ultimately igniting World War I. The event demonstrates how a targeted, resourced act of violence can achieve what entire armies sometimes cannot: dramatic and immediate political transformation.
From Warbands to Institutions: The Mercenary Tradition
If the assassin embodies precision, the mercenary represents scale. Before modern states developed permanent armies, wars were fought by professional fighters who sold their services to the highest bidder.
Because citizen militias lacked the experience and discipline needed for sustained combat, mercenaries filled a crucial gap. But this reliance came at a cost. Large mercenary groups, unemployed during peace, frequently turned to pillage and extortion to sustain themselves, most notoriously in France following the Hundred Years’ War.
The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 attempted to regulate this chaos by promoting the sovereign nation-state and the concept of standing armies. Yet mercenaries survived, often acting as auxiliary forces when states lacked the manpower or expertise for major campaigns.
The American Lesson: Why Mercenaries Fail Against Ideology
Britain’s use of approximately 30,000 German mercenaries (collectively called “Hessians”) during the American Revolutionary War demonstrates a core vulnerability of paid fighters: their loyalty is transactional.
The Continental Congress exploited this by offering land, livestock, and opportunity to Hessians who defected. Many accepted. Lacking an ideological stake in the conflict, they were no match for colonists fighting for independence.
This episode helped shape early American attitudes toward military structure and the dangers of relying on foreign hired forces.
The Modern Era: Legal Gray Zones and the Rise of PMCs
By the late 20th century, global opposition to mercenaries culminated in the 1989 UN Convention against their use and recruitment. Yet the treaty’s narrow definitions, and the refusal of major military powers to ratify it, opened the door for a new model: Private Military Companies (PMCs).
These entities offer governments a powerful combination of advantages:
- increased fighting capacity
- reduced political accountability
- plausible deniability
- circumvention of military oversight and international law
During the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Blackwater (now Academi) became the emblem of this new era, carrying out military-style operations with limited transparency.
Russia advanced this model even further.
The Wagner Group, operating with the protection of the Kremlin, functions as an external instrument of Russian power while giving the state the ability to deny involvement.
Iran has developed its own hybrid system, with organizations like the IRGC and Quds Force blurring the line between state military, intelligence service, and PMC. These groups have funded, trained, or equipped non-state actors across the Middle East, including support to Al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2006.
Today, countries including China, Pakistan, and India maintain similar forces, solidifying the PMC as a permanent feature of modern conflict.
Conclusion: The Enduring Logic of Paid Violence
Throughout history, violence-for-hire has adapted to every political, technological, and legal change. Whether in the form of assassins serving ancient rulers, mercenary armies shaping medieval warfare, or sleek modern PMCs operating across continents, the underlying logic remains the same: payment is a reliable catalyst for violence.
Attempts to eliminate these practices have had limited success. What history does show, however, is that public scrutiny and regulation can contain their excesses. Bans on assassination, restrictions on bounty systems, and heightened attention to PMC abuses have all emerged from collective pressure.
The challenge moving forward is not to abolish paid combatants, an unlikely goal given their long utility, but to ensure that their actions remain subordinate to law, accountability, and human rights. Only through sustained public oversight can societies limit the dangers posed by those who kill for a living.
Learn How to Leverage Your Story through our Story To Asset Framework.
