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

06-10-09, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

However, that decision is a political one, not a military one.

How exactly do you differentiate between the two?

onelifecrisis · 06-10-09, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

How exactly do you differentiate between the two?

Read the rest of the post you quoted.

06-10-09, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Read the rest of the post you quoted.

Well maybe I'd like to hear how he defines it in Germany because we here in Finland have problems with our 'military-industrial complex' meddling with day to day politics etc.

The way I see it there is no clear line between politics and the military in ANY nation. There is always a significant amount of overlapping, much more then is usually openly admitted.

GoldenRivet · 06-10-09, 10:59 AM

the argument of politics is invalid.

here is why.

the discussion is "what is the difference between the soldier, the merc, and the assassin?"

politics is defined as "the art or science of governing an entity like a nation or a group of people" (imho it is neither art nor science but thats another thread)

all three are affected by politics to some degree, perhaps equally so, politics alone does not determine the role each party plays, it simply justifies the necessity of each party.

assuming each party is equally necessary, what is the difference in the three is the focus of the original question i do believe.

thus i maintain

the soldier serves to protect the citizens of his home nation in multiple ways - through public service, rescue, etc and sometimes yes- even killing.

the assassin kills a public figure for his own personal reasons, or financial motives.

the mercenary kills the enemy of his benefactor, regardless of who the benefactor or the enemy may be.

onelifecrisis · 06-10-09, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Well maybe I'd like to hear how he defines it in Germany because we here in Finland have problems with our 'military-industrial complex' meddling with day to day politics etc.

The way I see it there is no clear line between politics and the military in ANY nation. There is always a significant amount of overlapping, much more then is usually openly admitted.

Yeah, I agree... and I thought that's what Skybird said as well?

06-10-09, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Yeah, I agree... and I thought that's what Skybird said as well?

So he did, sorry I wrote that when on a break, didn't have time to read his original answer throughly.

But anyway, just to underline the ambiguity of the role of the soldier. In the first message you left out conscription/military service which we have. That's yet another thing that furthers the fusing of the military and the 'normal' political apparatus of a nation.

Sailor Steve · 06-10-09, 12:01 PM

I have a slightly different take on all of this. But only slightly.

Soldier: Fights for his country, or for what he sees as a cause. These days a lot of kids are signing up because the army offers more money than it used to, but they aren't signing up to fight at all, they're signing up because of the promise of a good job. Sometimes when push comes to shove they refuse to go at all, which causes interesting complications but doesn't mean they're fighting for the money.

Mercenary: Is just what the name means - someone who fights for money. They like to fight, or think they do, and will join any army that will pay them. In the middle ages whole armies rented themselves out to whoever needed them at the moment. At that time it was considered an honorable profession.

Assassin: Is a murderer, not a soldier, and he murders for big bucks. He names his price and if it's paid he does the job. He's not a soldier and he doesn't like to fight, or to take risks. Of course most of the more famous assassins in history didn't do it for money, but for a belief, which means they only did it once, not as a profession.

Letum · 06-10-09, 12:35 PM

Would it be fair to say that the kind of soldier many people here are talking
about would still be in the army, even if he wasn't paid, whilst the rest of the
personnel with the job title of "soldier" are some kind of national mercenary?

An interesting question for anyone who gives moral high ground to soldiers
over mercenaries is: Who is worse; the soldier fighting for a bad cause he
believes in or the mercenary fighting for the good cause he is disinterested in?

06-10-09, 10:59 AM	#4
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,726 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	the argument of politics is invalid. here is why. the discussion is "what is the difference between the soldier, the merc, and the assassin?" politics is defined as "the art or science of governing an entity like a nation or a group of people" (imho it is neither art nor science but thats another thread) all three are affected by politics to some degree, perhaps equally so, politics alone does not determine the role each party plays, it simply justifies the necessity of each party. assuming each party is equally necessary, what is the difference in the three is the focus of the original question i do believe. thus i maintain the soldier serves to protect the citizens of his home nation in multiple ways - through public service, rescue, etc and sometimes yes- even killing. the assassin kills a public figure for his own personal reasons, or financial motives. the mercenary kills the enemy of his benefactor, regardless of who the benefactor or the enemy may be. __________________

06-10-09, 12:01 PM	#7
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	I have a slightly different take on all of this. But only slightly. Soldier: Fights for his country, or for what he sees as a cause. These days a lot of kids are signing up because the army offers more money than it used to, but they aren't signing up to fight at all, they're signing up because of the promise of a good job. Sometimes when push comes to shove they refuse to go at all, which causes interesting complications but doesn't mean they're fighting for the money. Mercenary: Is just what the name means - someone who fights for money. They like to fight, or think they do, and will join any army that will pay them. In the middle ages whole armies rented themselves out to whoever needed them at the moment. At that time it was considered an honorable profession. Assassin: Is a murderer, not a soldier, and he murders for big bucks. He names his price and if it's paid he does the job. He's not a soldier and he doesn't like to fight, or to take risks. Of course most of the more famous assassins in history didn't do it for money, but for a belief, which means they only did it once, not as a profession. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

06-10-09, 12:35 PM	#8
Letum Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: York - UK Posts: 6,079 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	Would it be fair to say that the kind of soldier many people here are talking about would still be in the army, even if he wasn't paid, whilst the rest of the personnel with the job title of "soldier" are some kind of national mercenary? An interesting question for anyone who gives moral high ground to soldiers over mercenaries is: Who is worse; the soldier fighting for a bad cause he believes in or the mercenary fighting for the good cause he is disinterested in? __________________