What makes a mercenary?

This issue arose in another thread, and became unfortunately polemical, so I thought I'd start another thread on this.

Question:

What makes a mercenary?

Context:

Some have accused US soldiers in Iraq of being mercenaries. The dictionary (www.dictionary.com) defines mercenary in two ways:

n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies

1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.

2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.


I would also point out that the etymology here is significant:

Middle English mercenarie, a mercenary, from Old French mercenaire, from Latin mercnnrius, from mercs, wages, price.

The connotation of the word, in common parlance, is negative: calling someone a mercenary is usually an insult.

My interest is theoretical rather than polemical. I personally do not find any negative connotation in the word, though I can obviously understand why most people do. My interest is more academic. I have done essays on mercenaries in medieval Europe, when the distinction between regular soldier and mercenary was even more difficult to make. At that time, mercenaries were in many ways better than 'feudal' troops-- they trained collectively and stuck together over long periods of time (rather than serving only for 40 days a year), and in a sense were more 'regular' than the knights summoned by a feudal ban (who appear more like reservists than regulars). These mercenaries often had a highly developed code of honour (their lives would be lost without it) and were recognized as more professional than other troops.

In the research I did, however, there was always a nagging question that I was never able to answer: what constitutes a mercenary? Are knights mercenaries if they are serving anyone other than their liege lord? Do they have to be foreigners? What about when knights started receiving pay for their services, even when fighting for their own king? Did that make them mercenaries? Are all those who are paid for their services--including modern, professional armed forces--mercenaries? What about if they only signed up to get money for college? To me, the idea of defining them by motivations is inherently problematic. Who knows why anyone fights, except the fighters themselves? This seems a flawed as a method of definition.

Let me stress that my attempts to discuss some of these issues were not at all intended to demonize modern armed forces, nor US troops in particular. US troops are no different than Canadian or British or Iraqi troops in this regard. My question was theoretical, not polemical, in its intent. I'm still trying to reach a satisfying definition of mercenary, because I never have been given one.

Discuss.

Personally, I think the question of an individual fighter's motivation must be waived when discussing large groups. Not only are the reasons as diverse as the fighters and their backgrounds themselves, as it is extremely uncommon for anyone to record them (and even if one did the value of the data would be dubious - think job interviews, where the prospective employee tends to say what s/he think is expected) there's rarely any useful data available.

Of course, some of the techniques used by the sociel sciences rely heavily on specifically personal data gained through interviews and so on, but that probably isn't an issue here...

There is a legal definition in the additional protocol of the geneva convention

Quote:

---

Article 47.-Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

( a ) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

( b ) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

( c ) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

( d ) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

( e ) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

( f ) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

---

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocol1.htm

They ARE mercenaries. PERIOD.
They werent forced to go to Iraq, they werent serving their country out of duty and devotion, they are professional employed for money.
It makes me sick seeing all those coffins covered with the flag, what about the WWII veterans? Those who died for their country with no monetary gain (on both sides)? My grandfather fought against Mussolini not because the governement would give him money but because he was defending his family and his homeland. So its time to stop pretending that those mercenaries in Iraq are some kind of heroes because heroes dont fight for money...

Hellenes

US military troops and civilians working directly for the government are clearly not mercenaries, but there are a large number of mercs in the employ of various security organizations (ie Blackwater)

ichi:bow:

There is a thin line that seperates the Mercenary from a Regular (as in an official member of a national/federal army, who is not considered a mercenary. This definition, by the way, discludes Conscripts, who constitute a different class of soldier entirely.) The line is with the primary motivatioon:

-If a soldier decides to make a living by fighting wars; if he is motivated primarily by profit (since some mercenaries have national loyalties, and will tend to side with one nation), if he is paid and fights, then he is a mercenary.

-If a soldier decides to set aside his life to fight for his country; if he is motivated primarily by loyalty to nation, land or king; if he fights and is paid, he is a Regular.

That's my take. If you need clarification, I will try to explain further, but I think the line is pretty clear. It also firmly establishes that our regular soldiers in Iraq are not mercenaries; that the private mercenary comapnies are; and that the armies of the Crusades are a mixture (the nobles were mercenaries, but the lesser soldiers were regulars- a rather unique situation in history). A little food for thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

There is a thin line that seperates the Mercenary from a Regular (as in an official member of a national/federal army, who is not considered a mercenary. This definition, by the way, discludes Conscripts, who constitute a different class of soldier entirely.) The line is with the primary motivatioon:

-If a soldier decides to make a living by fighting wars; if he is motivated primarily by profit (since some mercenaries have national loyalties, and will tend to side with one nation), if he is paid and fights, then he is a mercenary.

-If a soldier decides to set aside his life to fight for his country; if he is motivated primarily by loyalty to nation, land or king; if he fights and is paid, he is a Regular.

---

That definition is far too nuanced to be of much value. Who can judge what an individual's motivations are? I find the criteria spelled out in the conventions pretty thorough, personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hellenes

They ARE mercenaries. PERIOD.
They werent forced to go to Iraq, they werent serving their country out of duty and devotion, they are professional employed for money.
It makes me sick seeing all those coffins covered with the flag, what about the WWII veterans? Those who died for their country with no monetary gain (on both sides)? My grandfather fought against Mussolini not because the governement would give him money but because he was defending his family and his homeland. So its time to stop pretending that those mercenaries in Iraq are some kind of heroes because heroes dont fight for money...

Hellenes

---

Wow, that's highly offensive- I'm just glad people who hate our troops like you clearly do are in a very small minority. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

That definition is far too nuanced to be of much value. Who can judge what an individual's motivations are? I find the criteria spelled out in the conventions pretty thorough, personally.

---

:stare: The one time I try to help you...

(Don't worry about it.)

Edit: Hellenes, that was very insulting, even to me. The soldiers in Iraq may be paid, but they are fighting for thair country, not profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

They ARE mercenaries. PERIOD.
They werent forced to go to Iraq, they werent serving their country out of duty and devotion, they are professional employed for money.
It makes me sick seeing all those coffins covered with the flag, what about the WWII veterans? Those who died for their country with no monetary gain (on both sides)? My grandfather fought against Mussolini not because the governement would give him money but because he was defending his family and his homeland. So its time to stop pretending that those mercenaries in Iraq are some kind of heroes because heroes dont fight for money...

Hellenes

---

Completely and utterly innacurate. Your idea seems to be that troops should receive no pay, or they are mercenary. Brilliant. That makes nearly everyone a mercenary, including conscripts who are then paid.

Those who have gone to Iraq in the military did not do so out of monetary gain (for the most part anyway.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

They ARE mercenaries. PERIOD.
They werent forced to go to Iraq, they werent serving their country out of duty and devotion, they are professional employed for money.
It makes me sick seeing all those coffins covered with the flag, what about the WWII veterans? Those who died for their country with no monetary gain (on both sides)? My grandfather fought against Mussolini not because the governement would give him money but because he was defending his family and his homeland. So its time to stop pretending that those mercenaries in Iraq are some kind of heroes because heroes dont fight for money...

---

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.

I´d like to add a bit about etymology:

In German language there is no "merc" related word they are called "Söldner". The German word for soldier is "Soldat". As you may notice there is a common core, the word "Sold". This means the pay, soldiers or mercenaries get.

Obviously, you can't just leave the "mercenary" definition hanging on its own. There are other relevant definitions alongside it for different types of forces (ones that come to mind):
1. Professional soldiers.
2. Volunteers.
3. Conscripts/draftees
4. Militia
in addition to
5. Mercenaries
6. Irregulars/guerrilla's

These classifications are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Each has its own definition and connotation though.

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.

---

Yes, that was what I found so humorous about his rant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Yes, that was what I found so humorous about his rant.

---

Yep - I to found it humorous - another individual that has bought into the far left definition of soldiers and mercenaries that floats around anytime soldiers are sent off to fight.

Criticize the government that sends the soldiers to fight when the ideas behind the conflict are not - as clear cut as they should be - but to call any soldier serving in a national army a mercenary - is a stretch.

BTW - Mercenaries are defined in the Geneva Convention the way they are for a specific reason - and that is what consitutes how I view Mercenaries. It is the legal definition under International Agreements. Take a good close look at the Subparagraph (C) - it clues you in to what defines a merc.

The most fundamental distinction in the Conventions would seem to be that the soldiers of national armies are not, legally, mercenaries, full stop.

Fair enough as a practical legal definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geneva Convention via Bastard Operator

Article 47.-Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

( a ) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

( b ) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

( c ) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

( d ) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

( e ) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

( f ) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

---

For all legal purposes, this is it. Anything else is just changing the definition to reflect some perceived negative characteristic, regardless of said characteristic being actually 'bad' or not being 'bad'. In fact, I can see no problem with the definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Obviously, you can't just leave the "mercenary" definition hanging on its own. There are other relevant definitions alongside it for different types of forces (ones that come to mind):

---

I disagree. If the definition is accurate, it can exist on its own. An understanding of mercenary does not require an understanding of soldier, just as an understanding of hot does not require an understanding of cold. I do agree that the other groups you list are different enough to require different names and treatment though.

Is this thread about what is the meaning of the word of mercenary or what one would think it is? I think its wrong to call a soldier of National standing army an mercenary. Mercenary is an fighter who sells his abilitys for anyone with the right money. Its same like calling a police officer an private security guard.
Thats my five cents anyway.~:)

What makes a mercenary ?
First you must build an Inn , then they may turn up and you can hire them and add them to your army , but beware as they are expensive and their loyalty is often low , plus you cannot upgrade or retrain them .

Lol! But sometimes you can hire them only by moving your general out of the city. And i also remember earlier situations where you just cant get those no matter what you do.~;)

All countries need a standing army, and what better motivation is there than offering money in return for serving your country?

So in my opinion, what Bastard Operator said pretty much sums what i think a mercenary might be.

Quote:

---

They ARE mercenaries. PERIOD.
They werent forced to go to Iraq, they werent serving their country out of duty and devotion, they are professional employed for money.
It makes me sick seeing all those coffins covered with the flag, what about the WWII veterans? Those who died for their country with no monetary gain (on both sides)? My grandfather fought against Mussolini not because the governement would give him money but because he was defending his family and his homeland. So its time to stop pretending that those mercenaries in Iraq are some kind of heroes because heroes dont fight for money...

Hellenes

---

What a bunch of crap. You want to know who were really mercenaries? All the soldiers who made up 'The Ten thousand' who fought under the Persians solely for money. Or all of Alexander's soldiers who were paid to march to India, subjecting peoples along the way.

Learn the difference.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

They ARE mercenaries. PERIOD.
They werent forced to go to Iraq, they werent serving their country out of duty and devotion, they are professional employed for money.
It makes me sick seeing all those coffins covered with the flag, what about the WWII veterans? Those who died for their country with no monetary gain (on both sides)? My grandfather fought against Mussolini not because the governement would give him money but because he was defending his family and his homeland. So its time to stop pretending that those mercenaries in Iraq are some kind of heroes because heroes dont fight for money...

Hellenes

---

go home seriously go home I dont ever want to see you agian you hypocrite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

They ARE mercenaries. PERIOD.
They werent forced to go to Iraq, they werent serving their country out of duty and devotion, they are professional employed for money.
It makes me sick seeing all those coffins covered with the flag, what about the WWII veterans? Those who died for their country with no monetary gain (on both sides)? My grandfather fought against Mussolini not because the governement would give him money but because he was defending his family and his homeland. So its time to stop pretending that those mercenaries in Iraq are some kind of heroes because heroes dont fight for money...

Hellenes

---

Ever hear of the US 101st Airborne Division? One of the more decorated US units in World War II - on the same side as your grandfather. Parachute infantry got extra pay every month because of the hazard of jumping out of "perfectly good airplaines." And one of the reasons cited by some of its (now retired) members for joining was the extra pay.

Are they mercenaries? They were volunteers who were paid more than conscripts to fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

I disagree. If the definition is accurate, it can exist on its own. An understanding of mercenary does not require an understanding of soldier, just as an understanding of hot does not require an understanding of cold. I do agree that the other groups you list are different enough to require different names and treatment though.

---

For some people here to fully understand the differences, they need a refresher in how these other types of troops are normally raised, what "motivates" them, etc.

EDIT: One could consider the Russian forces in the 1st Chechen War a bit "mercenary" with looser definitions, despite the fact that they were primarily conscripts. I'm not proposing to do that, but I did want to point out an interesting aspect and the disparity of the "for pay" motivation. There were a number of reports of conscript Russian soldiers selling their equipment to their enemies. They are an odd case, because from what I gathered on average they did not want to be in Chechnya. And they were paid conscripts rather than professional soldiers. No, I'm NOT calling them mercs, they don't fit the definition.

I always consider people who are part timers and/or not under permanent allegiance of the particular nation as mercenaries regardless their motivations are. Also, everybody needs money and everybody is motivated by money at some point. Sure, I could just go out there and claim that I love USA but why? It is because its rich "land" which translates to money. All the "mercenaries" who crusaded weren't of French or whatever. They were Genoese or whateverese. Basically your daily policemen, firefighters and coastguards are not mercenaries. So if US pilots are gun down, fallen onto desert and hiring a noble camelman of Syrian Sultanate to guide them or work with them, that is your mercenary. That's just me anyway.

I see it that a soldier has sworn an oath to obey his (or indeed her) ruler, so the Queen and her appointed government for instance. (Trying vaguely to remember my attestation).
A mercenary, on the other hand, swears no such oath, and is only bound by such reward as he or she gains from fighting. A mercenary can walk away and only lose his pay, a soldier would lose his honour (and probably be shot for desertion too).

Somebody Else, who are you?

Originally Posted by Geneva Convention via Bastard Operator
Article 47.-Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.


Does this mean the mercenaries marching around in Iraq are, in fact, unlawful combatants?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

Originally Posted by Geneva Convention via Bastard Operator
Article 47.-Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.


Does this mean the mercenaries marching around in Iraq are, in fact, unlawful combatants?

---

If captured they are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions - and in accordance with the Hague Conventions can be summarily executed when captured by the opposing force.

So in essence they are not lawful combatants. And yes as a former soldier I have a problem with them being in Iraq serving near or around soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Personally, I don't see what's wrong with the whole Mercenary stigma. I think Mercenaries are the way to go. A nationalized armed forces that can even constitute the possibility of a draft is the gravest of all threats on individual freedoms. In the spirit of capitalism, mercenary armies seem the best way to go.

---

You might want to checkout the history of the Mercenary armies in Africa from 1945 to about 1980. Not a good thing at all, rampanent rape and pilliage was being conducted by these mercenaries. Some broke down and became only organized bands of criminals.

They also have a history of cowboy type antics in some of the conflicts in Africa.

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.