What makes a mercenary?

I think that the whole discussion on mercenaries are a bit wierd. I agree in basic with Cube on this. A mercenary fights wars for money. Most military men have chosen a carrier as a soldier based on the money and benefits. In my mind they have no reason to be ashamed for that either.
Furthermore, putting any soldier up as some kind of hero is also strange in my mind. It's job nothing more and nothing less.
The politics behind the wars, including Iraq, has absolutely nothing to do with the soldiers, mercenaries or not. The responsibility is fully upon the governments involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

There's a leap of difference between the Unites States of America, and some African dictatorship. In any case, at the very least, I believe our armies should be constitutionally voluntary. That'd be an amendment I would support.

---

Since the military is already voluntary by law - no constitutional amendment is necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

I think that the whole discussion on mercenaries are a bit wierd. I agree in basic with Cube on this. A mercenary fights wars for money. Most military men have chosen a carrier as a soldier based on the money and benefits. In my mind they have no reason to be ashamed for that either.
Furthermore, putting any soldier up as some kind of hero is also strange in my mind. It's job nothing more and nothing less.
The politics behind the wars, including Iraq, has absolutely nothing to do with the soldiers, mercenaries or not. The responsibility is fully upon the governments involved.

---

Correct the responsiblity for the politics behind the war is the responsiblity of the governments involved.

Soldiers fight for pay for a nation involved. Mercs fight for money for thier own personal gain. Major difference between the two concepts.

I wouldn't consider a citizen, subject, or vassal to be a mercenary if they were serving their own state, monarch, or feudal lord... even if they were being paid for that service. I don't think payment by itself makes someone a mercenary. A soldier is effectively being reimbursed by the entity to which he owes allegiance for the time he spends and the risk he undertakes.

Now a citizen soldier can have "mercenary" motivations, in that his primary interest is in receiving compensation for his service; but I don't think he can be considered a mercenary for serving in his own state's armed forces.

Someone serving for money in the armed forces of another state is certainly a mercenary.

I would also argue that someone who joins what is essentially a mercenary company (a business that contracts out soldiers for pay) is a mercenary even if his company is doing business with his home country. That's the case with the military professionals who are working for Blackwater and the other companies in Iraq. Even though many of the Blackwater employees are former US servicemen, they are not part of the armed forces structure of their country, and they are essentially being paid at private contractor rates through the mercenary company that employs them. Blackwater itself recruits worldwide, and its employees include mercenaries from all parts of the globe.

Like Red Harvest pointed out the many classifications that there's and others through etimology...Could it be just a didactical classification? Or maybe formal with no sustancial difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurelian

Someone serving for money in the armed forces of another state is certainly a mercenary.

---

What about the French Legion Entrangere? (Don´t the Spanish have something similar? British Gurkhas?) As far as I know they are part of the regular French army. But regarding the legal definition they can´t be considered mercenaries, I think. They are not specifically recruited for a conflict, they are a standing force.

But let´s get away from the legal stuff for am moment. Do members of these forces deserve to be treated like "normal" soldiers? If yes, what makes them better than other mercenaries? I think the main difference is that they have sworn their loyalty to a specific nation at least for a few years. So the best thing I can say about them is that they have put themselves under the control of a nation and not under the control of someone with the big money, like a mercenary.

It looks like the French Foreign Legion and the Ghurkas are a special case. Under international law they're not considered mercenaries because they're fully integrated into the French and British force structures and regulations.

However, they're both remnants of earlier mercenary recruitment. The origin of the French Foreign Legion is apparently tied up with foreign mercenaries serving in the Swiss Guard. The Ghurka tradition began when they were recruited as mercenaries by the East India Company.

The Foreign Legion apparently gets French citizenship in return for their service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

Somebody Else, who are you?

---

Nobody Important, why d'you ask?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

But your grandfather DID get paid, and so did all the other soldiers in WWII who weren't pressed into service. By your definition, your grandfather is a mercenary.

---

What is your basis of saying that?
Did anyone chatted my grandfather into joining the military?
Where there any officers with leaflets advertising?
NOPE.
Ive served in the Armed forces for 12 months so dont assume that the Greeks are like all the nice western mummy's boys who are not obliged to serve in the army.
And none said to me: Oh if you want to join the army its ok you get 2-3k euros each month but if you dont want its ok too.
If youre a male greek citizen of age 18 youre obliged to join the Army or be exempted for specific reasons (study mainly).
Those soldiers in Iraq are there not to defend their homes nor that they were serving their country out of DUTY but they have CHOSEN to be there for their own reasons. If you want to label them heroes or patriots or whatever its your right as it is mine to disagree.

Hellenes

Quote:

---

Those soldiers in Iraq are there not to defend their homes nor that they were serving their country out of DUTY but they have CHOSEN to be there for their own reasons.

---

You say you were in the military? Did they give you a choice of whether you want to fight or not? These guys were ordered there. They didnt choose to go. Is it really your opinion their there for personal gain? Because thats what seperates a merc from a refuse soldier. Most of these people could make far more as a civilian with a lot less danger involved. I was making three times the money the Marines paid me before I joined. So was I a mercenary because I volunteered?

Mmh. Keeping the geneva convention protocol in mind, how would the famous Hessian Mercenaries of our War of Independance hold up? Now these were conscripts of hessia, who were sold by their king to the british, who in turn used them to fight against the americans in the WoI. Many were fighting against their will (and in fact, many defected, --others turned into elite companies, however...), with almost no "regular" pay.

BTW helenes, there are still quite a few conscript armys left in europe ... and they don't get 2k+ euros.
I have no problem arguing about what may or may not be mercenaries or soldiering for profit. But calling all conscripts not living in your precious greece "mummy's boys" is low.

LOL, yup, I got soooo rich being in the Air Force as a "mercenary", let me tell you!!! ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

What is your basis of saying that?
Did anyone chatted my grandfather into joining the military?
Where there any officers with leaflets advertising?
NOPE.
Ive served in the Armed forces for 12 months so dont assume that the Greeks are like all the nice western mummy's boys who are not obliged to serve in the army.
And none said to me: Oh if you want to join the army its ok you get 2-3k euros each month but if you dont want its ok too.
If youre a male greek citizen of age 18 youre obliged to join the Army or be exempted for specific reasons (study mainly).
Those soldiers in Iraq are there not to defend their homes nor that they were serving their country out of DUTY but they have CHOSEN to be there for their own reasons. If you want to label them heroes or patriots or whatever its your right as it is mine to disagree.

Hellenes

---

Most folks choosing to go into the U.S military don't have to be chatted up, Mr. Conscript. Quite a few have a sense of duty. They do feel they are defending their homes and country, the same as they did in WWII...when again they were not fighting in the U.S.

None of my family was drafted in Vietnam or WWII. They volunteered. According to your perverted logic that makes them mercenaries. So now you are only not a merc if you are a lousy conscript that serves unwillingly and doesn't leave his homeland? ~:confused:

@Tricon: I think they couldn´t be seen as mercenaries. Were the Hessians part of the British Army? (the term "sold" suggests, that they are property of the English king ;) ) If so, then I´d say no because of letter (e) of the definition.

If they were in America as Hessian troops, then letter (f) of the defintion would apply. Alternatively Hessia could be considered a Party of the conflict (letter e), because they actively supported the Royalists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

You say you were in the military? Did they give you a choice of whether you want to fight or not? These guys were ordered there. They didnt choose to go. Is it really your opinion their there for personal gain? Because thats what seperates a merc from a refuse soldier. Most of these people could make far more as a civilian with a lot less danger involved. I was making three times the money the Marines paid me before I joined. So was I a mercenary because I volunteered?

---

You miss my point:
I HAD NO CHOICE OF JOINING OR NOT!!!
These guys had a choice they could avoid to join thus avoiding going.
In case that the Greek governmend would deside to send troops to Iraq at the time of my service I WOULD HAVE TO GO WITHOUT ANY CHOICE.
From the moment I was born and recorded at the army's male records after my 18 birthday I joined the ARMY ITS AN OBLIGATION.
Which it isnt in the USA IIRC...

Hellenes

I think a cow is an airplane with eight nuclear missles under each wing powerful enough to blow the world up five times each. Because I call said super-thingy a cow, that doesn't mean everyone else calls a cow what we all know it is. The same is true with 'mercenary';it has been legally defined for quite some time. If you want to say certain traits of our military personel are negative you can do that. However, it is corrupting our very ability to communicate when you call someone something which is patently not true. You are changing the definition of words.

Quote:

---

I think a cow is a flying airplane with eight nuclear missles under each wing powerful enough to blow the world up five times each. Because I call said super-thingy a cow, that doesn't everyone else calls a cow what we all know it is. You are changing the definition of words.

---

Did you post this in the right thread?

:knight: Of course...

errm, maybe not.

:hide:

I know and understand the conscription idea, I think most of us do. Saying that volunteers in the army are a group of mummy's boys is a)incorrect and b) just plain offensive to those who choose to join up because the feel a sense of duty to protect their country (or whatever, they aren't exactly joining as grunts for the pay you know?)

Things like the TA (a reserve formation) aren't exactly famous for giving you loads of kickbacks. They're generally not soft mummy's boys either...

I still don't understand your point. Because some volunteer professionals get paid they're mercs but conscripts are somewhat morally superior? I jsut don't get your line of argument other then...

a) you were a cosncript
b) Westerners who don't have to join up are mummy's boys
c) Americans serving in Iraq (who didn't choose to be there) aren't patriots or heroes.

personally, I don;t think that many of them are heroes, that's a special mark...but they are clearly patriotic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ah_dut

a) you were a cosncript
b) Westerners who don't have to join up are mummy's boys
c) Americans serving in Iraq (who didn't choose to be there) aren't patriots or heroes.

personally, I don;t think that many of them are heroes, that's a special mark...but they are clearly patriotic

---

Americans DID choose to be there its their CHOICE to join the army at first place since most know that they will have the responsibility to go anywhere their superiors will decide.
Thats the difference CONSCRIPTS are not volontary in Greece. Youre born male you join the army thats how it goes.
They could NOT to go to Iraq by NOT joining the army, if USA had the olbigatory service system like Greece then they wouldnt have any choice.

Hellenes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bastard Operator

@Tricon: I think they couldn´t be seen as mercenaries. Were the Hessians part of the British Army? (the term "sold" suggests, that they are property of the English king ;) ) If so, then I´d say no because of letter (e) of the definition.

If they were in America as Hessian troops, then letter (f) of the defintion would apply. Alternatively Hessia could be considered a Party of the conflict (letter e), because they actively supported the Royalists.

---

"Leased" may be the better term than "sold". The hessians were part of the british forces, they did not fight for hessian interests, they had no choice to decline, and received little or no extra pay (though there are recorded instances that pillaging rights were granted.. but only to select companies).
Basically they were poor conscript bastards who were leased by their king to a foreign power, who chose to use them in a colonial war. It was not a war between Great Britain and Hessia (and some other countries. I remeber reading about some italian companies fighting on behalf of the british, but I'm not sure now...) agaist the colonies. It was just GB ... with foreign fghters.
Mercenary -in our modern sense of the word- doesn't really fit...

I agree with you. They were forced to military service by the Hessian state. Maybe the Hessian Mercenries are best seen in this way: they were allies of the Brits. The main difference is that back in these days it was adaequate to convince allies with money. While today alliances are formed because of common interests that are not directly equal to the payment of cash, like that one the Hessian king received.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Americans DID choose to be there its their CHOICE to join the army at first place since most know that they will have the responsibility to go anywhere their superiors will decide.
Thats the difference CONSCRIPTS are not volontary in Greece. Youre born male you join the army thats how it goes.
They could NOT to go to Iraq by NOT joining the army, if USA had the olbigatory service system like Greece then they wouldnt have any choice.

Hellenes

---

A lot of US soldiers joined before the war in Iraq was even a gleam in our President's eye. They joined for whatever reason they had (post-9/11 patriotism, patriotism in general, college loans, etc.). If they disagreed with the Iraq war, they still couldn't get out of it. Their duty is to serve the country, regardless of how misguided it's leaders are. Would you still have this view about soldiers/mercs if these same soldiers were just posted around the world, going through training, doing various humanitarian tasks, starting bar fights, and whatever things soldiers do in non-combat zones? What about the National Guardsmen who signed up years ago for weekends and are now stuck in Iraq, away from their normal (higher paying) jobs. I have a feeling not many of them CHOSE to be in Iraq, but they are there because it is their duty. Are they mercs?

Helennes, when you are in a hole you are meant to stop digging. Simply put, if a person joins the military organisation run by a State, then he is not a mercenary. If he joins a private enterprise to fight, he is a mercenary.

Soldier = One who fights for the State

Mercenary = One who fights for business enterprise

Simple really.

Oh yeah, not everybody who is conscripted hates serving. Many would have joined up of their own accord.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

You miss my point:
I HAD NO CHOICE OF JOINING OR NOT!!!
These guys had a choice they could avoid to join thus avoiding going.
In case that the Greek governmend would deside to send troops to Iraq at the time of my service I WOULD HAVE TO GO WITHOUT ANY CHOICE.
From the moment I was born and recorded at the army's male records after my 18 birthday I joined the ARMY ITS AN OBLIGATION.
Which it isnt in the USA IIRC...

Hellenes

---

You could have left your country before turning 18. It has been done. You could have even come to the US. ~:rolleyes:

Anyone in the military, regardless of their method of joining (volunteer, conscription drafted, obligated by birth, etc.), is in the military. A mercenary is not in the military. Additionally US soldiers, in adherence to the Geneva Convention, don’t plunder (my least favorite part of the conventions). If they were mercenaries, they would plunder (I sure would) there are plenty of things in Iraq to take and sell but the soldiers don’t because they are not mercenaries. I can accept your opinions of the US and our military but admit that you made a statement without thinking it thru. The US military and any other military for that matter are not mercenaries. They are… militaries. The only exception could be if a military was rented, leased or borrowed by another country, not sure if this is ever done?!?!

One term Finnish sources occasionally use of "professional" armies (ie. the sort whose recruits are essentially 100% paid volunteers) translates as contract soldiers. Seems to me like that would be a decent enough name to throw around if one wanted.