What's the difference between a soldier, an assassin, and a mercenary?
 

I'm afraid this is not a joke. It's something I've been puzzling over for some time.

Assassin
Mercenary
Soldier

All three agree to kill people in exchange for money (let's leave conscription out of the debate). As far as I can see, the only difference is where the paycheck comes from. What do you see?

Hmm, there are substantial differences, but I can't word them at the moment

Let me think about it for a little...

On the face of it:

Soldiers are hired by one organization to which they remain loyal.
Mercenaries are hired to an organization they have no loyalty to other than
financial loyalty.
Assassins are hired by an organization they have no loyalty to, other than
financial loyalty, to kill particular individuals.


However, I suspect you knew that and are looking at a deeper question about
'blood money'.

It is clear that the assassin receives blood money. He only gets paid when he
kills.
The mercenary receives money and is expected to kill, if he needs to, in
order to achieve what ever objectives he has, but it seams to me that this
isn't blood money in the same way as the assassin. The mercenary isn't
usually required to kill if his objectives can be accomplished without him killing.
If the mercenary is hired, for example, for armed protection of the subsim
server he may have to kill any one who tries to destroy it, but if no one
ever presents him with such a serious attack and all he ever has to do is put
out the occasional fire he will still get paid.

The soldier is much the same as the mercenary in that he/she is hired to
complete objectives that may, but don't necessarily, include killing. I think
the major difference is that whilst the mercenary is, almost by definition,
there for the money, the soldier often has a interest in the goals he is trying
to achieve.


For example:

Lets say that Neal Stevens decides he needs protection.

First he hires a mercenary.
Before long Neal is attacked. The mercenary could have dealt with the
situation without killing anyone and still have got paid, but in this case he
decides to kill the attacker. He didn't stop the attacker because he likes Neal;
he just did it so he would get paid at the end of the day.

Next Neal hires a soldier from the forum members at subsim.com.
Before long Neal is attacked. The soldier could have dealt with the
situation without killing anyone and still have got paid, but in this case he
decides to kill the attacker. He didn't stop the attacker because he wouldn't
get paied if he let Neal die; he stopped the attacker because he has a
personal intrest in Neal's survival.

Annoyed at the lack of sucsess, the third attacker hires an assasin.
The assasin attacks Neal. There is no way he can compleate his objectives
without killing Neal. he has nothing personaly against Neal, he is only doing it
for the money.

Exactly.

While it is true that some soldiers perhaps take the job in the hope that they won't have to kill people, they do still (sometimes) have to kill people. They are sometimes ordered to kill people (ordered by someone who is ultimately a representative of the guy holding the paycheck) and at that point they effectively become assassins even by your definition, no?

And to put another twist on things:

Am I afforded the luxury of making these points by the lives of men with guns who have fought for the rights I now have?

Or am I affored the luxury of the time to even think about it by the lives that have been taken by men with guns in order to make my nation richer at the expense of other nations?

In either case, does it invalidate the point?

This stuff does my head in.

A soldier, as I see it, does not work for money, but rather is loyal to the organization (usually his country) for ideological/personal reasons. You might say a mercenary is a hired soldier as an assassin is a hired murderer.

A soldier operates in a war zone, where to achieve his objective he is usually threatened by others, does that not make it more self-defense than assassination? I don't think you can really compare soldiers to assassins...

Nil points. I don't see how the theatre or the organisation make it self-defense. If soldiers never went on the offensive there'd be no use for them, not even for defense.

Ugh, nevermind, I don't know how to put this in words :damn:

Historically you have to take into account that what separated a mercenary from a soldier is that the latter took the queen'S shilling in that he wears a uniform associated not with private enterprise or just any organisation, but his nation. This was a transition that slowly started Europe at the time the socalled "condottieri" formed many of Italy's mercenary armies of the 14th and 15th century. But even at the time of the 30-years-war, many factions fought with armies consisting of mercenaries, and soldiers not so much loyal to a given flag or nationality or king, but religion. This was one of the reasons why this nightmare lasted for so long. Mercenaries do not desire peace, but war - else they cannot make their income.

That's why I totally oppose the socalled outsourcing of military capacities to private enterprise.

Loyalty of a soldier is usually expected to base on his loyalty to his country, and this national loyalty more or less is attached to love and loyalty to for what this country stands for. This is an idealistic level of approach. A mercenary does not care for this quality at all, and only cares for who is willing to pay his price. A soldier in national service eventually will even - forced or voluntary - fight without being payed.

Low social class, lacking perspectives and lacking chances making people to sign in for a military career for not having other options, is not good. One should not choose a military career if not really desriring that, and the military should not depend on people who had no other choice. It also means (and we have seen this effect after the first two years of the Iraq war) that the scoial and educational balance of people in the military shifts to the worse. It indeed makes the separation between mercenary and soldier fading.

Yup, that's what I thought, Mikhayl. My uncle was in the (British) army for years, for much the same reasons.

The same could be said (and is said) about military organisations.

It might be useful if we differentiate those who are soldiers by job title, but
may or may not also be mercenary and those who are soldiers by job title and
are not mercenary.

SOLDIER: a professional, similar to a police officer, who is instilled with principles like Duty, loyalty, patriotism and Honor. He protects individuals of a sovereign nation from the aggression of foreign attack. he is paid to do more than "kill". he also is paid to builds bridges where there are none, he may shores up a swelling river when a town is in danger of flooding, he helps to evacuate or rescue the captive or stranded, he serves his community and helps inspire the principles of patriotism, duty and honor in others.

ASSASSIN: An individual - perhaps a professional - perhaps not; who, for their own personal political gains or the political gains of a group or nation murders a public figure such as a president, king, ambassador, etc. an assassin is not necessarily always facing monetary gain in performing this task.

MERCENARY: an individual or a group of individuals who fights for personal monetary gain only. This person does not genuinely care about the cause of his employer. he does not care whether his employer is a mass murdering genocidal fascist, nor does he care if his employer is a righteous nation seeking to liberate a neighboring nation of a dictator's reign. He does not care whether his employers motives for military action are good or evil; nor does he care who the "enemy" he kills might be... his only motivation is to work for whoever is willing to pay the most money.

:yawn:

you disagree?

If "duty" means "follows orders regardless of personal morality (if any)" then I can agree with that part.
The other three are all properties of an individual; they are not magically "instilled" (your word) in someone when they take a certain job.