score:8
It can be hard to draw the lines between a corporation (or similar entity) which is hired to use force on behalf of a nation state and a corporation that is allowed to use force by a nation state.
Consider the Hanseatic League in medieval times. They raised forces and fought wars. Companies which ruled towns or towns ruled by their merchant class?
Upvote:3
Cecil Rhodes, the founder of South Africa's DeBeers Diamond Company, and the British South Africa Company maintained an "army" of 600 cavalry under Dr. Leland Starr Jameson that helped bring about the Boer War.
Upvote:4
In recent years, states (countries? Nations?) have had a monopoly on the use of force and violence to maintain power. States only recently (1800's) became the prime segment of governance, and states didn't truly have a monopoly on the use of force until the post WWII order.
Prior to this, nearly every segment of the population had the ability to use force and violence to resolve conflicts. The western genre of movies are a great case and point. Another example of this is the Mormon war in Missouri in 1838; which was essentially a violent struggle between two religious groups, with little government involvement. Other examples are the Johnson County War and the Aroostook War. These 3 incidents featured a government that tolerated use of weapons by the general populace. Compare this with the recent stand off in Oregon where the government quarantined and quickly ended the civil use of weapons.
An interesting example of a corporate army is the Pinkertons in the 1800's. This was essentially a corporate paramilitary organization in the US that was used to break strikes, unions, and enforce the will of business elites. In its prime, the Pinkertons acted much like the FBI does today, with government approval. The Pinkertons still exist as a detective agency, but the responsibility to use violence has since been given to government forces.
So are far as precedents go, between 1400 and the 1950's, violence was used by a variety of organizations for a variety of purposes. So yes, the British East India Company's army had many precedents.