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

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?

Sailor Steve · 06-10-09, 01:22 PM

I give no high moral ground to the soldier, per se. These days we call the Allied soldiers in the Second World War "The Greatest Generation", because we see their cause as rescuing the free world from tyrannical agressors, but the soldiers fighting in those armies believed in their cause just as much, and since the rank-and-file didn't really have much clue as to what their higher-ups were doing, who's to say they were wrong?

I make a distinction between the terms, but the mercenary is condemned today for what he was once praised. During the American Revolution we complained that the British were hiring Hessians to kill our boys, but we praised people like Lafayette, Pulaski and von Steuben for rallying to our noble cause.

Even the assassin can be looked at in different ways: Assassination is murder, plain and simple, but don't we today praise the men who tried to murder Hitler?

I don't have an answer - I was just responding to the question of what we mean by the different labels.

onelifecrisis · 06-10-09, 01:28 PM

Mmm, I should have put more in the OP in order to avoid a semantics debate. I'm well aware what the different words mean, and I thought people would realise that and understand what I was getting at, but I guess not.

Sailor Steve · 06-10-09, 01:30 PM

You think too much.

You guess too much.

It seemed like a pretty open-ended question to me. Still, it's prompted some pretty good comments.

Care to elaborate some more?

onelifecrisis · 06-10-09, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Care to elaborate some more?

Wouldn't be any use.

06-10-09, 12:01 PM	#2
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	#3
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? __________________

06-10-09, 01:22 PM	#4
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	I give no high moral ground to the soldier, per se. These days we call the Allied soldiers in the Second World War "The Greatest Generation", because we see their cause as rescuing the free world from tyrannical agressors, but the soldiers fighting in those armies believed in their cause just as much, and since the rank-and-file didn't really have much clue as to what their higher-ups were doing, who's to say they were wrong? I make a distinction between the terms, but the mercenary is condemned today for what he was once praised. During the American Revolution we complained that the British were hiring Hessians to kill our boys, but we praised people like Lafayette, Pulaski and von Steuben for rallying to our noble cause. Even the assassin can be looked at in different ways: Assassination is murder, plain and simple, but don't we today praise the men who tried to murder Hitler? I don't have an answer - I was just responding to the question of what we mean by the different labels. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

06-10-09, 01:28 PM	#5
onelifecrisis Maverick Modder Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: England Posts: 3,895 Downloads: 65 Uploads: 3	Mmm, I should have put more in the OP in order to avoid a semantics debate. I'm well aware what the different words mean, and I thought people would realise that and understand what I was getting at, but I guess not. __________________ Freedom of speech - priceless. For everything else there's Mastercard.

06-10-09, 01:30 PM	#6
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	You think too much. You guess too much. It seemed like a pretty open-ended question to me. Still, it's prompted some pretty good comments. Care to elaborate some more? __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo