Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
P. 1
Desersi Menurut John Childs

Desersi Menurut John Childs

Ratings: (0)|Views: 200 |Likes:

More info:

Published by: Andreij Tjakraningrat on Aug 06, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Desersi menurut John ChildsDiterbitkan Januari 18, 2009 Uncategorized Tinggalkan a KomentaCorvisier, Andre (2007). “A Dictionary of Military History”, English edition edited,revised and expanded by John Childs, Translated by Chris Turner. Desertion. A soldier has deserted when, after officially enlisting, he subsequentlyleaves his unit without permission. Desertion was endemic in all professionalarmies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Its increase started after theopening of the Thirty Years’ War in 1618 coinciding with the reduction in thenumber of mutinies and mass refusals by soldiers to obey orders, outbreaks whichhad characterized the Spanish armies in the Low Countries during the Eighty Year’sWar against the rebellious Netherlands, 1567-1648. An officer who left the colours was rarely treated as a deserter, even if he enteredthe service of a foreign power. The deserter was nearly always a soldier or a non-commissioned officer who defaulted on his contract of enlistment made with hiscommanding officer in which he undertook to serve his sovereign and defend hiscountry. No distinction was made between the billardeur, a man’s who “cannoned”from one regiment to another in order to received several enlistment bounties, andthe man who vanished completely either back into civilian life or into a foreignarmy. The solder who deserted with his arms, equipment and uniform compoundedhis offence as his company commander was put to the expense of providing a newrecruit complete with his accoutrements and, in the British Army, the deserter would not have finished paying his commanding officer for his clothing. Companyofficers went to considerable lengths, including advertising in newspaper, torecover theirs lost sheep. Desertion was treated as a very serious offence in allarmies. It was, however, principally a problem confined to the ill-paid infantry; the better-off cavalrymen, usually from higher social strata, did not show the samedistressing tendency to run from their colours. Desertion was not a peculiarly military phenomenon. It as endemic in civilian lifeas well as in the army and the navy; servants ran from their employers, apprenticesescaped from their masters, sailors fled from their ships and soldiers left their colours. Society was under-legislated and their notion of contract and socialresponsibility was ill-developed. Also, many of these lower-class occupations werelittle better than penal servitude into which young people had been forced againsttheir wills. After 1693, British recruits were supposed to have their “voluntary”enlistment “attested” by a justice of the peace but, in reality, the majority of soldierswere directed into the army by poverty, destitution, the need to escape the law,
 press gangs, trickery and “crimpers”, kidnappers who took civilians forcibly fromthe streets before selling them to recruiting agencies. Soldiers took the firstopportunity to desert. A poor harvest might cause a dearth of agriculturalemployment leading to many labourers entering the army. In reverse, an upturn inagricultural employment could also lead to a spate of desertions. Desertion was alsoeasy. British soldiers were billeted in groups of three or four in public houses acrossthe country, irregularly supervised by non-commissioned officers. Soldiersquartered in London often had part-time jobs and did not see their officers for weeks on end. On active service, opposing armies were often in close physicalcontact making desertion to the other side a simple business. Indeed, most armiesencouraged such desertion as it depleted the enemy, augmented one’s own forcesand provided intelligence of enemy movements and intentions. Frederick the greatenlisted the entire Saxon army into his own after the surrender at Pirna in 1756.Most of it evaporated within the next twelve months. Despite the death penalty, service in the French galleys, flogging, running thegauntlet and other ferocious punishments, armies could not stem the flood of desertions. During the 1743 campaign in the War of the Austrian Succession (1742-8), it was common for forty Frenchmen to desert every day. Towards the end of theSeven Years’ War (1756-63), the French lost 10,000 men a year through desertiondespite a deserter having to run the gauntlet ten times for the first offence plus anadditional eight-year enlistment, if he was caught, and fifteen years behind the oarsof a Marseilles galley for a second offence. In the peacetime decade of the 1780s,an average of 3,000 men deserted every year. The Prussian army lost enormousnumbers from among its foreign soldiers. Infantry regiment no. 39 lost 1,650 betwrrn 1756-63, and the Guard Regiment of Postdam, one of the foremost in thewhole army, saw 3 officers, 93 non-commissioned officers, 32 musicians and 1,525men desert, besides 130 suicides and 29 executions. Prussian camps were guardedday and night to prevent desertion and a special detachment of the provost marched behind the rearguard to discourage deserters. Desertion reached its peaks amongdefeated and retreating armies. Thousands left the Prussian army during itswithdrawal from Bohemia in 1744 and after the Battles of Zorndorf in 1758 andKunersdorf in 1759, the Prussian army melted away from a combination of casualties and desertion. As the remnants of the Franco-Bavarian army fell back from Blenheim in 1704, it disintegrated amidst the mountain passes of the Black Forrest. Desertion was the bane of George Washington’s army during the AmericanWar of Independence. Even after the founding of the Continental Line Army, it proved almost impossible to prevent soldiers trickling homewards. The coming of the conscription during and after the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars largely brought the problem of massive desertion to an end. It hascontinued on a small scale, both in wartime and in peacetime. and a clear distinction
is now drawn between the deserter who simply leaves the forces without permissionand the defector who flies abroad. Universal conscription and short-serviceenlistment have also done much to reduce the need for desertion, along withimprovements in pay and status. Where all young males have to undergo a two- or three-year term of conscription, the duty becomes unavoidable and the social stigmaattached to obvious desertion unacceptable. The wider the military recruitment nethas been cast, the smaller has been the problem of desertion. During the nineteenthand twentieth centuries, the problem for European armies has been the avoidance of the draft rather than desertion. However, where foreign nationals have beenmobilized by another power, especially if the have been coerced, massive desertionhas continued to be the order of the day. Poles absconded from the Russian army,Czechs escaped from the Austrian and the Saxons deserted Napoleon. Desertion in peacetime is now a peripheral issue for armed forces but it remains a difficulty for certain armies in wartime. Hukum dan Perubahan SosialDiterbitkan Desember 14, 2007 Uncategorized Tinggalkan a Komentar Dalam suatu tinjauan terhadap perspektif teori di Bab 2, saya telah menunjukkan bahwa para pakar teori-teori hukum dan masyarakat pikirannya telah dipenuhidengan usaha-usaha untuk menerangkan hubungan antara perubahan hukum (legalchange) dan perubahan sosial (social change) dalam konteks sejarah pengembanganlembaga-lembaga hukum. Para pakar teori ini memandang hukum sebagai peubah bebas dan peubah tak bebas (independent and dependent variables) dalammasyarakat, dan menekankan keterkaitan antara system hukum dan system-sistemlainnya dalam masyarakat. Mengingat kembali teori-teori yang telah dibahas diBab 2, bab ini akan membahas kaitan (interplay) antara hukum dan perubahansosial. Sekali lagi, hukum akan dipandang sebagai peubah bebas dan peubah tak  bebas, yaitu, sebagai sebab dan akibat dari perubahan social. Bab ini juga akanmembahas keuntungan dan kelemahan hukum sebagai instrumen perubahan sosial,dan akan membahas serangkaian faktor-faktor sosial, psikologis, budaya, danekonomi yang mempunyai pengaruh terhadap efikasi hukum sebagai agen perubahan.Perhatian pertama dalam pengertian hubungan antara hukum dan perubahan sosialadalah pada masalah definisi. Apa perubahan sosial itu ? Istilah “perubahan”(change) dalam pengertian sehari-hari, sering diartikan dengan longgar sebagaisesuatu yang ada tetapi sebelumnya tidak ada, atau hilangnya atau terhapusnyasesuatu walaupun sebelumnya ada. Namun tidak semua perubahan adalah perubahan sosial. Banyak perubahan dalam kehidupan yang cukup kecil dandianggap tak berarti (trivial), walaupun kadang-kadang hal-hal yang kecil tersebut bila dikumpulkan akan menjadi hal yang besar dan berarti (substantial). Dalam pengertiannya yang paling konkret, perubahan sosial berarti kebanyakan orangterlibat dalam kegiatan-kegiatan kelompok dan hubungan-hubungan kelompok yang berbeda dengan apa yang telah mereka lakukan atau apa yang telah orangtuanya

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->