Despite their diplomatic function, the Residents in office between 1798 and 1818 often preferred intimidation to accommodation. To some extent, their interventionist attitude reflected wider assumptions about the prevalence of ‘tyranny’, ‘inhumanity’, and misgovernment in India. These moral imperatives, combined with the supposed ineffectiveness and untrustworthiness of Indian allies, led Residents to argue for the necessity of unequal alliances backed by force. These convictions shaped the Residents’ relationships to the military, leading them to try and assert control over subsidiary forces in the region, and to panic when forces were disordered or insufficient. Subsidiary forces might have posed problems for the Resident, not least in the form of open mutiny, but they were also seen as essential to his control. Residents explicitly equated military and political power, and were determined to make a show of strength, contrary to the governor-general-in-council’s emphasis on conciliatory conduct. These differences of opinion become most apparent in the controversies that occasionally erupted around the Resident’s acts of judicial violence. Whereas superiors in London and Calcutta worried about undermining the Company’s claims to civilizational superiority through brutal acts of corporal punishment, in the Residents’ view civilization was instead a hindrance to be cast aside.

The peculiar purpose and population of the Australian penal colonies presented a raft of problems for the administration of justice and the maintenance of discipline. There was a perceived need for a simplified and more coercive system of law, which however coincided with a desire that local law and justice be fairly applied and keep pace with metropolitan legal reforms. That bred numerous tensions and confusions. This chapter considers how the need to control convict populations in colonial New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land invited a myriad of compromises and peculiarities, including a chaotic application of English transportation law and the assumption of vast and informal powers by colonial magistrates. Although there was a broad shift over time towards the normalising of colonial justice and discipline, the imperial and local governments were slow to correct local informalities, injustices, and deviations from metropolitan law and practice.

Perceived threats to established social order can influence the willingness of those in authority to inflict punishments as well as the severity of those punishments. This chapter analyzes the case of summary punishment by flogging in the Royal Navy. Eighteenth-century reforms were intended to rationalize and normalize flogging and limit its severity. However, naval commanders saw the established order under attack after 1789 and, emphasizing moral offenses, imposed tighter discipline on their crews. Our analysis shows that greater penal severity is associated with several factors, including a period effect associated with the onset of the revolutionary age. Our findings are consistent with research that suggests that disorder influences the willingness to punish.

Violence was part of everyday life beyond the wars and rebellions for many Yucatecans, particularly in the countryside. This background provides clues to what was considered normal or expected behavior and should make it easier to understand why, for example, acting violently was not a remote form of settling affairs and why fleeing to the bush or joining the Caste War rebels were attractive options to many lower-class Yucatecans. Life was grim for the lower classes in nineteenth-century Yucatán. Their situation varied considerably depending on whether they lived in urban or rural environments, whether they were self-employed or not and whether they lacked or had access to some means of production. Physical force intensified the severity of these living conditions, in particular for the lower classes and dependents, i.e., wives, children, and domestics, all of whom were subject to patriarchal authority. As in most parts of the world at that time, violence was a day-to-day affair in nineteenth-century Yucatán. Lower-class males suffered physical aggression at the hands of superiors and were beaten regularly by hacienda overseers and parish priests.

Internal violence played a crucial role when it came to enforcing order and military discipline and as a deterrent against desertion. For many men in the armed forces violence began with their enlistment. Each Mexican state was obliged to deliver a contingent of soldiers to the federal army. Since recruitment practices were never precisely regulated, some soldiers were enlisted by bounty, while others were forced to serve for several years, as in the case of wrongdoers or vagabonds. Soldiers not only experienced ill-treatment during recruitment but were also subjected to various forms of hardship and abuse as members of military units.

Violence was part of everyday life beyond the wars and rebellions for many Yucatecans, particularly in the countryside. This background provides clues to what was considered normal or expected behavior and should make it easier to understand why, for example, acting violently was not a remote form of settling affairs and why fleeing to the bush or joining the Caste War rebels were attractive options to many lower-class Yucatecans. Life was grim for the lower classes in nineteenth-century Yucatán. Their situation varied considerably depending on whether they lived in urban or rural environments, whether they were self-employed or not and whether they lacked or had access to some means of production. Physical force intensified the severity of these living conditions, in particular for the lower classes and dependents, i.e., wives, children, and domestics, all of whom were subject to patriarchal authority. As in most parts of the world at that time, violence was a day-to-day affair in nineteenth-century Yucatán. Lower-class males suffered physical aggression at the hands of superiors and were beaten regularly by hacienda overseers and parish priests.

Internal violence played a crucial role when it came to enforcing order and military discipline and as a deterrent against desertion. For many men in the armed forces violence began with their enlistment. Each Mexican state was obliged to deliver a contingent of soldiers to the federal army. Since recruitment practices were never precisely regulated, some soldiers were enlisted by bounty, while others were forced to serve for several years, as in the case of wrongdoers or vagabonds. Soldiers not only experienced ill-treatment during recruitment but were also subjected to various forms of hardship and abuse as members of military units.