POLITICAL HEADS CHIEFS, KINGS, ETC. 725 



among the Sea Dyaks " ; and St. John says that, in some cases, it was 

 a custom, in oi'der to settle who should be chief, for the rivals to go 

 out in search of a head, the first in finding one being victor. 



Moreover, the need for an efficient leader tends ever to reestablish 

 chieftainship where it is only nominal or feeble. Edwards says of the 

 Caribs that, " in war, experience had taught them that subordination 

 was as requisite as courage ; they therefore elected their captains in 

 their general assemblies with great solemnity," and "put their pre- 

 tensions to the pi-oof with circumstances of outrageous barbarity." 

 Similarly, "although the Abipones neither fear their cacique as a 

 judge, nor honor him as a master, yet his fellow-soldiers follow him as 

 a leader and governor of the war, whenever the enemy is to be attacked 

 or repelled." 



These and like facts, of which there are abundance, have three 

 kindred implications. One is that continuity of war conduces to per- 

 manence of chieftainship. A second is that, with increase of his influ- 

 ence as successful military head, the chief gains influence as political 

 head. A third is that there is thus initiated a union, maintained 

 through subsequent phases of social evolution, between military su- 

 premacy and political supremacy. Not only among the uncivilized 

 Hottentots, Malagasy, and others is the chief or king head of the 

 army not only among such semi-civilized peoples as the ancient 

 Peruvians and Mexicans do we find the monarch one with the com- 

 mander-in-chief, but the histories of extinct and surviving nations all 

 over the Avorld exemplify the connection. In Egypt, " in the early 

 ages, the offices of king and general were inseparable." Assyrian rec- 

 ords represent the political head as also the conquering soldier ; as do 

 the records of the Hebrews. Civil and military supremacy were united 

 among the Homeric Greeks ; and in primitive Rome " the general was 

 ordinarily the king himself." That throughout European history it 

 has been so, and partially continues so even now in the more militant 

 societies, needs no showing. 



How command of a wider kind follows military command we can 

 not readily see in societies which have no records ; we can but infer 

 that, along with increased power of coercion which the successful head 

 warrior gains, naturally goes the exercise of a stronger rule in civil 

 affairs. That this has been so among peoples who have histories there 

 is proof. Of the primitive Germans Sohm remarks that the Roman 

 invasions had one result : " The kingship became united with the lead- 

 ership (become permanent) of the army, and, as a consequence, raised 

 itself to a poxcer [institution] in the state. The military subordination 

 under the king-leader furthered political subordination under the king. 

 . . . Kingship after the invasions is a kingship clothed with supreme 

 rights a kingship in our sense." In like manner it is observed by 

 Ranke that, during the wars with the English in the fifteenth century, 

 " the French monarchy, while struggling for its very existence, ac- 



