What makes a mercenary?

[Hurin_Rules]

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.

[Watchman]

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...

[Haudegen]

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

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

[ichi]

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

[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

[Red Harvest]

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.)

[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):
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.

[GoreBag]

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.

[Red Harvest]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[hellenes]

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

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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?

[Red Harvest]

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?

[Strike For The South]

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

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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.

[Weebeast]

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.

[Reverend Joe]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

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.

[Reverend Joe]

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.

[Haudegen]

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.

[Devastatin Dave]

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