US use of "soldiers of fortune"

**Kadagar_AV** · 10-11-2008, 16:11

The laws I was refering to was the laws of war. Mercs are not bound by them.

As mentioned earlier. A couple of times.

**Ironside** · 10-11-2008, 18:43

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Answered with:

So, what laws? Are there laws saying that mercenaries cannot be hired by the state? If so, I would be much obliged if you could point them out. There is nothing wrong with mercenaries as long as they are efficient, disciplined, and cost-effective.

Goes Machiavellian on EMFM.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

The Prince
by Nicolo Machiavelli

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER XII
How Many Kinds Of Soldiery There Are, And Concerning Mercenaries

[...]
I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; [...]

I wish to demonstrate further the infelicity of these arms. The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.

And if it be urged that whoever is armed will act in the same way, whether mercenary or not, I reply that when arms have to be resorted to, either by a prince or a republic, then the prince ought to go in person and perform the duty of captain; the republic has to send its citizens, and when one is sent who does not turn out satisfactorily, it ought to recall him, and when one is worthy, to hold him by the laws so that he does not leave the command. And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress, and mercenaries doing nothing except damage; and it is more difficult to bring a republic, armed with its own arms, under the sway of one of its citizens than it is to bring one armed with foreign arms. Rome and Sparta stood for many ages armed and free. The Switzers are completely armed and quite free.[...]

**Evil_Maniac From Mars** · 10-11-2008, 19:12

Originally Posted by Ironside

Goes Machiavellian on EMFM.

My argument is not for or against mercenaries in general, but on the right or necessity of the state to secure their use.

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

The laws I was refering to was the laws of war. Mercs are not bound by them.

As mentioned earlier. A couple of times.

Which makes my point. Thank you.

**KarlXII** · 10-11-2008, 19:56

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

My argument is not for or against mercenaries in general, but on the right or necessity of the state to secure their use.

Of course countries should be able to employ the use of mercenaries. However, these mercenaries need to have the agreement to operate where they are, must follow the rules of war, and should answer for their actions. So far, Blackwater is operating illegaly since Iraq forbade it to, and is now legally immune.

**Kadagar_AV** · 10-11-2008, 20:11

Swedishfish, I would have a lot less against mercs if they followed the requirements you set up. I would still be against it however, cause of one single reason: No one should fight for money, but for what they believe in.

EMFM, You are not making much sence.

**HoreTore** · 10-11-2008, 20:12

Sweden has soldiers in afghanistan?

What the heck happened to your neutrality?

**KarlXII** · 10-11-2008, 20:31

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Swedishfish, I would have a lot less against mercs if they followed the requirements you set up. I would still be against it however, cause of one single reason: No one should fight for money, but for what they believe in.

I think many of the common soldiers didn't sign up for "Patriotism" either. This is how these guys make money, and it is fine by me. However, they need to be held on a very tight leash.

Sweden has soldiers in afghanistan?

What the heck happened to your neutrality?

Reconstruction Teams I believe. Sweden isn't totally neutral, it's even leading an EU Battlegroup.

**Husar** · 10-12-2008, 02:51

Laws od war are a stupid idea anyway as war is usually when law and talking are not in effect anymore, war is when the rage of men gets so big that they are willing to kill others, applying laws to that is like putting a guard dog into a cage or chaining the legs of the horse you want to ride on, it goes against the true spirit of war, just like differentiating between soldiers(you may kill them) and civilians(you may not kill those) and then arming the whole citizenry in case of an invasion.

**KarlXII** · 10-12-2008, 05:26

Originally Posted by Husar

Laws od war are a stupid idea anyway as war is usually when law and talking are not in effect anymore, war is when the rage of men gets so big that they are willing to kill others, applying laws to that is like putting a guard dog into a cage or chaining the legs of the horse you want to ride on, it goes against the true spirit of war, just like differentiating between soldiers(you may kill them) and civilians(you may not kill those) and then arming the whole citizenry in case of an invasion.

When civilians bring up arms against armies, they are then combatants.

**Husar** · 10-12-2008, 12:25

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

When civilians bring up arms against armies, they are then combatants.

Exactly, which means if the US ever lose a war, they will be eradicated to the last man/woman/child.

**Mooks** · 10-12-2008, 21:38

Originally Posted by Ironside

Goes Machiavellian on EMFM.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

The Prince
by Nicolo Machiavelli

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER XII
How Many Kinds Of Soldiery There Are, And Concerning Mercenaries

[...]
I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; [...]

I wish to demonstrate further the infelicity of these arms. The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.

And if it be urged that whoever is armed will act in the same way, whether mercenary or not, I reply that when arms have to be resorted to, either by a prince or a republic, then the prince ought to go in person and perform the duty of captain; the republic has to send its citizens, and when one is sent who does not turn out satisfactorily, it ought to recall him, and when one is worthy, to hold him by the laws so that he does not leave the command. And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress, and mercenaries doing nothing except damage; and it is more difficult to bring a republic, armed with its own arms, under the sway of one of its citizens than it is to bring one armed with foreign arms. Rome and Sparta stood for many ages armed and free. The Switzers are completely armed and quite free.[...]

Correct me if im wrong, but didn't Florence's "citizen army" get annihilated on the field of battle using Machiavelli's advice?