Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink

Enlight me on the mercenary question.

• Message 1.Μύ

  Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Tuesday, 15th November 2005

  I've been fascinated by some of the messages posted about 'Mercenaries', particularly those that have appeared regarding US mercenaries in the Falklands. Pardon my ignorance, but just where, when, and on who's side where these 'mercenaries' fighting? Surely in such a conflict the mercenary combatants are fighting for the Idea or cause rather than the Country. This raises the question for whom or what do the Ghurkas serve, (or for that matter) the French Foreign Legion?. Can they be considered mercenaries in its true sense? Personally I don't believe anybody who feels strongly enough to fight and possibly die for a belief, or what they consider to be a righteous cause can be illegal combatants. What exactly is a Mercenary?? Someone who fights purely for financial gain perhaps?? I would like to get a few opinions, and possibly examples of mercenaries in conflicts. Thanks.

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Tuesday, 15th November 2005

  A mercenary is someone, who fights for the cash and will fight according to who pays. The Ghurkas are not mercenaries, since they are loyal to one side and their units form a part of the permanent line-up of UK forces.

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Tuesday, 15th November 2005

  It is the same with the word "terrorist"
  
  
  "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
  
  One man's mercenary is another man's ally".
  
  It all depends on which side you are on when discussing these terms.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by iPad (U2181937) on Tuesday, 15th November 2005

  Mercinary is a highly inaccurate term most of the time anyway. You get various paid, allied or special military forces in most continents. Military units paid in money, local war lords and millitias paid in territory or in drugs. Theres a wide gap from being little more than gangsters to being a proper military unit which are no different to any western national unit.
  
  The funniest one is the late Medievil mercinaries the Swiss Guard, who still exist to protect the Pope in full technicolour costumes and helbards. They were the hardest mercinaries at the time and its nice to see them prancing around still.

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Italophile (U2460529) on Tuesday, 15th November 2005

  I'm sure there must be an 'official' definition of what mercenaries are somewhere, - probably in the Geneva Convention documents or some such.
  
  However, I would have thought that a simple definition would be that mercenaries fight for money and no other reason. When the piper runs out of cash, mercenaries depart the battlefield.
  
  Maybe another way of looking at it, - because of the confusion caused by the existence of regiments such as the Gurkhas, French Foreign Legion etc., - is that mercenaries are always 'unofficial' or 'freelance' whilst the Gurhkas and FFL are 'official', i.e., they are part of the military estabishments of the UK and France respectively. They are also subject to the disciplinary codes of those nations, while mercs are only subject to the will of the mercenary leader who fixes their contract for them (assuming that he's strong willed enough and that they are willing to be subject to anything).
  
  The whole thing is further confused by the shennanigans of organisations such as the CIA (and dare I say our own dear SIS) who have an unfortunate habit of employing mercenaries in what may be termed 'semi-official' or 'deniable' operations.

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by iPad (U2181937) on Tuesday, 15th November 2005

  Talking about deniable assessets and we start going into utter realms of speculation and fiction.
  
  I'm sure in a dictionary or in international law there is a description.
  
  I think the Gurkhas are a proper English unit whilst the French Foreign Legion are "contract soldiers" which are not mercinaries.

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 15th November 2005

  ³Ύ±π°ωΒ·³¦±πΒ·²Τ²Ή°ωΒ·²β
  adj.
  
  Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
  
  Hired for service in a foreign army.
  n. pl. merΒ·ceΒ·narΒ·ies
  
  One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
  
  A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by gooserss (U1983611) on Wednesday, 16th November 2005

  i think some german units in ww1 used the excuse that the french foreign legion were mercs and they were executed after capture.
  
  expats definition could extend to soldiers operating under the UN, as they are often paid by the UN if they are from third world countries.
  see missions in somalia, rwanda etc.

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 16th November 2005

  gooserss,
  
  
  "think some german units in ww1 used the excuse that the french foreign legion were mercs and they were executed after capture."
  
  I wouldn't be surprised; the Germans executed US soldiers for using shot guns! Any excuse?
  
  The Great war was far from as chivalrous as some think.
  

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by iPad (U2181937) on Wednesday, 16th November 2005

  The Great war was far from as chivalrous as some think.
  Μύ
  
  Every war is, we just hear about what happens nower days. I do realise a lot of it isn't true and the media often spin it beyond any recognition.
  
  I don't think there has been any recent war where "our side" has faced an enemy that has adhired to the geniva conventioons.

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 16th November 2005

  Morning Mani,
  As you know the percentage of German nationals in the Legion has been historically very high. On being taken prisoner by the Regular German army they would be considered traitors and executed on the spot. I vaguely recall something about different factions of the Legion fighting against each other in WW2. Vichy verses free French.
  
  Cheerz

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Wednesday, 16th November 2005

  Before the age of nationalism and standing armies it was considered a lot more acceptable.
  
  Medieval armies, particularly from the Italian city states often contained a large number, the Swiss were considered especially good troops which is why the Vatican has it own mercs, the Swiss Guard.
  
  The British employed large numbers of German mercenaries, such as the Kings German Legion, well into the 19th century.

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Wednesday, 16th November 2005

  Thanks to everyone who has replied to my original post. Am I right in thinking that the Crown sent large numbers of German Troops/Mercenaries to fight for Britain during the American War of Independence?? Is there any particular explanation for this? Perhaps it was thought Brit regiments might be reluctant to fight our American cousins??

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Wednesday, 16th November 2005

  Placenoit, correct about Germans fighting for the British in the AWI. Any explanation. Well Britain needed troops fast, conscription was never popular, training would have taken time.
  
  Coincidentally Frederick II of Hesse Kassel had troops and needed hard cash in effect sold these troops to George III. (Hence Hessians, a term that was still to be in use certainly in the ACW nearly 100 years later). Later George III hired troops from other German rulers. These German troops made up somewhere aroung a third of all the "British" troops in N. America at the time.

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by Disgruntled_Renegade (U530059) on Wednesday, 16th November 2005

  I thought some of the German Troops, Hanoverian etc, were actually Germans who had a loyalty to George, since he was from the House of Hanover?

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Wednesday, 16th November 2005

  AND, wanted to add (ruddy laptop), not too be confused with the Kings German Legion of the Napoleonic Wars. They were a different kettle of fish.
  
  Mercenaries, well as you've found out, can mean different things to different people. The "Hessians" weren't mercenaries as such in my view as they were little removed from slaves.
  
  Cheers AA.

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message16

• Message 17

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 16th November 2005

  Hi Expat,
  
  "As you know the percentage of German nationals in the Legion has been historically very high" Vary true, most of the Legions 'anthems' are infact old Waffen SS songs....
  
  "I vaguely recall something about different factions of the Legion fighting against each other in WW2. Vichy verses free French." Indeed, if memory serves me correctly, it was in North Africa? During or after the torch landings??
  
  Both British, Commonwealth and US forces took casualties from the French in North Africa...

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message17

• Message 18

  , in reply to message 17.

  Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Wednesday, 16th November 2005

  
  Both British, Commonwealth and US forces took casualties from the French in North Africa...Μύ
  
  And Syria/Lebanon, Dakar and Madagascar.
  
  Think there was French on French in Syria/Lebanon and Dakar as well, probably other colonies too.
  
  The Vichy really were contemptible.

  Link to this forum: Enlight me on the mercenary question.

  Report message18

Back to top