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

Skybird · 06-10-09, 08:57 AM

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.

06-10-09, 08:57 AM	#8
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,647 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.