Org Mobile Site
Thread: 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.
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...
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
Originally Posted by :
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.htmArticle 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.
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
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
ichi
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.
-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.
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.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.
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. 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
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.
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.
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.
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. 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
Those who have gone to Iraq in the military did not do so out of monetary gain (for the most part anyway.)
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.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...
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.Yes, that was what I found so humorous about his rant.
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.
Fair enough as a practical legal definition.
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.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.
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.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):
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.
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 .
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.
So in my opinion, what Bastard Operator said pretty much sums what i think a mercenary might be.
Originally Posted by :
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.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
Learn the difference.
Crazed Rabbit
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 hypocriteThey 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
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.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
Are they mercenaries? They were volunteers who were paid more than conscripts to fight.
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.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.
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).
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.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.
They also have a history of cowboy type antics in some of the conflicts in Africa.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO