What makes a mercenary?

[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.

[Kanamori]

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.

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.

[Kagemusha]

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.

[Tribesman]

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 .

[Kagemusha]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[Red Harvest]

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.

[Somebody Else]

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).

[Reverend Joe]

Somebody Else, who are you?

[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?

[Redleg]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Aurelian]

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.

[Haudegen]

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.

[Somebody Else]

Somebody Else, who are you?

Nobody Important, why d'you ask?

[Leet Eriksson]

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.