This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mercenary article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
The first part is about Egypt and the second about 20th Century? What about european mercenaries in the Thirty Years' War for example? There is more necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.131.174.143 ( talk) 06:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I concur here; the History section is so deficient I'd have sent it back marked "Do Over" if a student submitted something so lacking! At the very least there should be a section on how the Greeks used mercenaries, along with noting the use of Greek mercenaries by others (including mention of Xenophon!), plus the role they played in the conflicts between Carthage and Rome. Dismalscholar ( talk) 04:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
This section would be much improved by removing all the various one-line references to anime shows and video games. In an effort to be bold I am culling some of these momentarily. If anyone objects please let me know.
I think they should be left in so that people can find games and shows to learn more about mercenaries. Admiralfreak
Maybe even expanded, no mention of the Soldier of Fortune games, nor Regiments of Reknown or Dogs of War in Warhammer. Also the Mercenaries play a very important part in BattleTech and might deserve more attention. But they're mostly one-line cause they have articles that talk more about them, no need to fill this with any more than references to them. Highlandlord 20:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is now over the recommended size I suggest that we move the section Mercenary#Mercenar in popular culture into its own article. What do others think? Should we keep the name the new article "Mercenaries in popular culture" or is the a better name? -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
We need some links to actual mercenary websites, I used to know a couple that a got from talking to people on some gun forums, see if I can find some Highlandlord 19:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved the above from the article page to see if it can be cleaned up because at the moment not one paragraph of it is near the standard of most of the rest of the article.
-- Philip Baird Shearer 08:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Here are the answers
There are two things....
1) Maratha/Rajput kingdom and 2) Maratha/Rajput warriors.
Not all marathas were supporting independent Maratha kingdoms. Not all Rajputs were supporting Rajput kingdoms.
Having said that
Rajput and Maratha Home areas were outside the Moghul and Nizam areas for MOST OF THE time.
Western awareness about Indian history is mostly about Moghuls due to it's connection with Persian history....
Warrior castes in India were supporting either Nizam or Mughal but never accepted their rule in their home-land. It was effectively a military service for money or food (perfectly mercenary business)
Mughal and Nizam made serious but unsuccessful attempts to control and wipe out these communities. Mostly the relation when successful was only upto supporting army of one king against other for money or food, and it was only limited for the particular battle. In next battle same warriors would fight from other side. These warriors can be Marathas fighting for Maratha kings or Marathas fighting for Moghul kings.
Similary Rajputs fought for Marathas against Moghuls sometimes. and same Rajputs fought for Moghuls against Marathas.
Marathas fough agaist Moghul when Nizam was giving money to Marathas.
We need to study many battles betwen Moghul, Rajput, Maratha, Nizam to understand the flow of warriors from one party to other.
Most of the Moghul army was made up of Rajputs and Hindus Even when fighting for Moghul most of these kings had there seperate rules. When Moghul/Nizam kings (like Aurangjeb) declared that these kings can not rule their own lands anymore, started converting Hindus, imposing taxes on them. Within span of 50 years most of these kings revolted and Moghul empior broke into pieces.
Famouse Thagies (there is argument whether they are real or just a hype) made up by Brithishers to kill what are understood by localites as 'Gardies'. There is one understanding that these Gardies are nothing but mercenaries who fought for Peshwas/or small king who wanted britishers out of their land.
Many warriors in 1857 revolt had nothing to do with India's freedom. They were collected by Kings to get back their kingdoms with promise of lot of booty when own. The concept of India as one nation, as presently known has come only after freedom. There are cultures in india as diverse as Persian and Japanese even today.
Before deleting some section from main page it is good idea to discuss the topic in talk page first. Otherwise Wikipedia will be again remain a view and assuptions by some and not real information.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
202.67.5.18 (
talk •
contribs) 12:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
As to your last comment please see Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and in this specific case:
Hope this helps -- Philip Baird Shearer 20:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Philip,
It is very well known fact that lot of history is unwritten, even what is written and known for ages in one part of world may not be available on internet.
What ever mentioned above is well known history in parts of India where generations of families have been / are working as mercenaries. Having said that no one looked at the this part of society from the viewpoint that is persued by western historians.
There are tons of references if you listen the stories in these soceities, visit places and check the local references(these are written in local languages). Unfortunately they are yet not avaible on net or are not yet casted into western concepts. For example There were no concept of thuggies in western world till 19th century, If one british officer had not mentioned it sometime during 19 th century, Today you would have said that there is no such thing as thuggies just because it is not coming from some westeren reference.
Ignoring/Deleting history about some part of the world, does not change the Historical facts.
I am stopping this non-sense of adding information since you are not giving anyone else chance to comment on it. Have a nice time writing your own stories.
~~ Aryabhatta ~~ (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.67.5.18 ( talk • contribs) 10:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC))
Shouldn't there be something about Hessians in this article? Or don't they count as mercenaries, as King George III was a kraut too? Tubezone 10:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I think there ought to be something about Irish Mercs too, don't you think? After all, The Geanna Fiadhain ("Wild Geese") played a most significant role in European and World History, fighting around the globe from 1699 to the mid 1980's.
150.155.25.230
19:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC) T.M. McCormick
Can I request someone to tell me how can we see earlier versions of this artical.
First someone deleted sources and references about Indian mercenaries from this artical. Then after some days someboday deleted the complete section about India.
Now I would like to know how can I see the earlier different versions about this artical and report the misuse? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.113.37.9 ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Click on the history tab. -- Philip Baird Shearer 20:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a reference for the statements regarding Machiavelli in the "15-16th Century" section of the article? I haven't been able to source an online copy of the work to search for references, and I'm not reading the entire book for it...! 86.20.233.135 11:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Russell 86.20.233.135 11:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know which of these two statements is true? Kyle Cronan 01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a passage which keeps being inserted into the article which has a bias against the US private soldiers/security contracters in Iraq, describing them as "mercenaries" after the transfer of power from the US coalition authority to the Iraqi govt. Actually the transfer of power had no change whatsoever on the status of PMCs because the United States has been, and continues to be, a party to the conflict in iraq. Since the US is obviously a party to the US-Iraq War, then under the clearest definition that we have of the term "mercenary" (from GC Protocol 1) as being someone who is NOT a national of a party to the conflict, American PMCs cannot be defined as "mercenaries", and the transfer of power is irrelevant. If Russian PMCs were fighting in Iraq, or American PMCs fought in the Russia-Chechen war, then they could be called mercenaries. As the passage was written it just seems a biased criticism on the US occupation of Iraq. Walterego 05:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)walterego
i hightly agree. the whole section on 'private military companies' has an obvious bias. in fact, i don't see why the section is there. have a couple sentences explaining why PMC's are NOT mercenary forces, and have a link to the page on PMC's. no need to explain a whole bunch of stuff about them when a thorough explanation exists on a different page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.236.175.197 ( talk • contribs) 07:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Lets please make wikipedia readable. The definition is rather wordy and hard to read. Can't we just say combatants motivated by profit who belong neither to the armed forces or local paramilitary groups? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brallan ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The definition does seem long. It could be shortened greatly by removing the irrelevant and unsourced part about a mercenary being one who is paid significantly more than regular combatants, which is just too relative. If one fights only for personal gain then it isn't significant whether one receives more than regular soldiers, as the compensation soldiers receive varies greatly based on their benefits or bonuses or rank or specialized skills. An SAS Colonel whose family lives in expensive officer's housing receives a lot more than an raw recruit, but that doesn't make him a mercenary. What makes him a mercenary is if he resigns and goes to fight in some foreign war. I'd propose trimmin ght opening sentence to "A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national of a Party to the conflict and is motivated to take part in the hostilities solely by the desire for private gain. -- Walterego 01:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
All professional soldiers - in other words all who are not conscripts - are soldiers for hire. I cannot see any distinction from "a soldier enlisted in the armed forces of a sovereign state" - who can be either mercenaries or conscripts. This is comparing two different concepts. Any professional soldier is motivated primarily by a desire for private gain. Inherently they are all mercenaries. That is not a criticism. I do not believe that "mercenary" should be used as a pejorative JohnC ( talk) 10:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that "PMC" are not defined as mercenary because "provided they are not pro-actively employed in front-line combat, they are not mercenaries". Where does that exemption come from, and who uses it? Royalcourtier ( talk) 02:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It may be my imagination, but the section of the article dealing with PMCs (who it could be argued are not, when operating legitimately, mercenaries as they do not engage in combat operations except in self-defense, and by that token every armed security officer on EARTH would be considered a mercenary) seem to have a subtle, but palpable POV bias against them.-- Breandán 02:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I have not, to date, seen any evidence that any security contractor (PMC) has, while operating legitimately and under the auspice of their contracts, taken part in the conflict. There have been cases of self-defense where the facilities and convoys they are guarding have come under fire, but frankly, our company has had officers come under the same situation in bad areas of Houston. There is a big difference between operating as a part of a military conflict in a military capacity and operating as a security provider for a client in a country in the middle of said conflict.-- Breandán 19:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If a PMC is operating in a military capacity, as defined by the Geneva Conventions (and in the beginning of the main article), then it is no longer operating as a legitimate security provider and crosses the line into a mercenary entity, regardless of what their legally-defined status is. The distinction is in their operations, not in their claimed legal status. My company is not a PMC by any stretch of the imagination. We are a US-based licensed security company that provides executive protection to varies clients in addition to other services. Yet, some of our EP personnel have protected dignitaries in Iraq, a country in the middle of a conflict. They were not acting as mercenaries by any stretch of the imagination, nor are the personnel from other companies who contract with AMERICAN agencies (this distinction is important, as the US does not allow any private security contractor to engage in military operations). I cannot speak to foreign-based companies. Now, if our personnel had come under fire by insurgents or Al Qaeda operatives, and returned fire in the course of defending themselves and the client, would they be considered mercenaries? Not likely, as they are doing their legal job to protect personnel from harm. If, by the definitions presented here, they operated as mercenaries, then so does every bodyguard, armed security officer, and private investigator who has ever had to use force to defend themselves. My issue with all of this comes down to something very simple- it is not all black and white, and to paint a very complex industry with a broad brush is neither fair nor accurate, and this trend by many that I have encountered to try to lump security companies in with mercenary companies is disturbing.-- Breandán 07:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no clear answer - yet - as to whether or not PMC operators in Iraq are mercenaries. But it does not seem to be forthright for Breandan to suggest above that PMC's are not engaged in combat because of who they work for or what their contract says. Reference the massacre of civilians at Nisoor Square on 16 September. If Resistance fighters really did ambush the convoy, before the Blackwater PSD returned fire, then they engaged in combat. Combat is fighting between two recognized forces that are party to a conflict. If the Blackwater PSD simply overreacted and killed civilians without ever being attacked, then they were not engaged in combat. 76.25.56.91 08:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Brian Scott
From the history of the article:
What is the misinterpretation?
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Delalic et al. (I.T-96-21) "Celebici" 16 November 1998 Part III B, Applicable law 2. Status of the Victims as "Protected Persons" See: Para. 271:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC
Jean Pictet was editor of the Red Cross Commentary on the Geneva Conventions. As such these are considered to be guidelines to be used by the courts when interpreting the Geneva conventions. Hence the reason they are quoted by the ICTFY in Delalic et al. .... I think you need to reconsider you opinion that they "must be misunderstanding the Geneva Conventions".
What the Red Cross commentary on the Geneva Conventions is saying is if a civilian engages in combat they are not a privileged combatant and they can be tried under civilian law for criminal acts they committed while in combat, for which they have no privileged combatant status. So it follows that as mercenaries are not privileged combatants, that they are civilians and can be tried for civilian crimes. As civilians they may have certain protections under GCIV depending on their nationality.
As an explanation think of the recent troubles in Northern Ireland. (Yes I know thatt mercenaries were not fighting the Britsh Army there, but it will do to help explain a mercenary's position under law). During troubles those who attacked British troops were tried for civilian crimes (like possession of an unauthorized firearm), that if the troubles had been classified as a civil war, and the attackers recognized as privileged combatants would not have been war crimes, and upon capture these people would have been POWs not, as they were, subject to trial as civilians who had committed civilian crimes. -- Philip Baird Shearer 06:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I am using the same terminology as the Geneva conventions. Someone is either a privileged belligerent as defined in the Hague conventions of 1907 and GCIII, or one is not. The ICRC commentaries say that one is either a privileged belligeren or a civilian. Now it is possible to argue that they are unprivileged belligerents, but in that case they are still open to prosecution under civilian laws because they have lost their combatant privileges, but they would not lose all of their protections under GCIV, just because they are unprivileged belligerents.
Mercenaries are not [privileged] combatants. From Protocol I Article 47: "A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war." (as quoted in the article) the ICRC commentary is worth reading on this article. On this specific debate they write:
If you disagree with the ICRC analysis then you will have to come up with a Verifiable reliable source that contradicts their analysis, before adding it to the article. -- Philip Baird Shearer 22:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
To be a civilian one does not have to be a non-combatant. See Protocol I Article 51.3 "Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities." So it is quite possible to be a civilian and a combatant. Here is a quote from the ICRC [1] "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action". This is not just the view of the ICRC, a google source returns lots of examples. For example see this source "mercenaries would be treated like other civilians who had taken up arms, that is to say, as 'unprivileged belligerents'".
Walterego you have expressed you opinions here, but have not presented one article to support those opinions. If you wish to show that the ICRC is only one opinion and not that generally accepted by the international community, (after all the original source was from its use in an international court ruling), you need to come up with a reliable source that supports you opinion. -- Philip Baird Shearer 12:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
in the section on PMCs, the statement seems to suggest that the killing of four Blackwater agents was "a huge boost" to the industry. This is crappy writing. Somebody should fix it, and somebody should expand the Blackwater story because they are the largest mercenary force on the planet as of mid 2007. 67.101.45.119 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Undeclared wars - Vietnam? etc - if the nation is not an official party to a conflict is its entire armed force then a mercanary force?
159.105.80.141
14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
From the talk page of Mesoso2
From my talk page:
It is a legal situation under inernational law, and from that comes the treatment as POWs or as civilians who take part in armed hostilites. As Merecnaries do "not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war."(Protocol I art 47) on capture they are civilians who have "direct part in the hostilities" (Protocol I art 37), because the ICRC 1958 Commentary on IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War Article 4.4 states that "[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view" (Jean Pictet (ed.) – Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958) – 1994 reprint edition.). The ICRC has expressed the opinion that "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action" ( The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism official statment by the ICRC 21 July 2005). See also See civilian, non-combatant and unlawful combatant.
Having said that the a google search on ["member of the armed forces" mercenary "law of war"] throws up a number of interesting documents. One is an article called " Mercenaries at Geneva which from the page given is based on the ICRC comentaries on Protocol I See ICRC: Commentary: Article 47 Mercenaries — This ICRC ommentary is probably the most pertanant document available when discussing the definition of Mercenaries.
A second document on the first page of the google seach is " JSTOR: The Recruitment and Use of Mercenaries in Armed Conflicts" by H. C. Burmester, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Jan., 1978), pp. 37-56. On the page returned it returns a quote from the Diplock Report that supports your point of view "any definition of mercenaries which required positive proof of motivation... either would be unworkable , or so haphazard that its application as between comparable individuals as to be unacceptable".
Burmester's article is quoted by Millard quite a lot (Millaed article in in the reference section) and you might find pages 19 onwards quite interesting. Particularly Pages 37 and 42 and page 58,59:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 12:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe there should be a picture at the beginning of the article.
How about a photo of a big stack of cash with blood on it? Can we ask Erik Prince if he can get us one of those? 151.197.252.96 13:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest 2 pictures, a old mercenary - say a landsknecht, and a modern mercenary - say from the Congo or Iraq. -- 82.41.55.139 18:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I had a quick look through the biographies of some of the men mentioned on this page. The Bob Denard article has a picture of him. As he died recently there is no reason why his picture can not be used on this page. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 09:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we include information about mercenary air forces? Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 04:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Blackwaterday.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
maybe solider for hire would be a good short definition. Also, were conscripts that were hired out by their lord, mercenaries? Most all soldiers, that is professional combatants choose it as a career and therefore for profit. I think something should they should be describe as irregularly recruited which I believe is mentioned in the UN definition, but it should be more emphasized. Rds865 ( talk) 06:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Bob Denard.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 20:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I have moved the following here because it is not sourced and there are many unsupported statements that are open to question:
Mercenaries are not a modern occupation, but one steeped in the history of the High Middle Ages when a noble needed to hire men to fight in a dispute, and his lands could not provide the necessary man power, even if drafting all the men in the principality that were capable of military service. When hiring mercenaries, he was also presuming to be getting quality—trained personnel who would stand and fight and were skilled at arms, not just any body to fill a peasant levee. Peasants were needed kept on the farms, for the era was still one of subsistence living, and taking labor off the land could mean widespread famine come the next winter.
Mercenary armies were the order of the day in the late Medieval era and even the Early Modern era until the upheavals which gave shape to modern Europe's political boundaries during the Napoleonic Wars gave rise to Nationalism and the keeping a professional standing army. The practice of using mercenary auxiliaries goes back to the early days of the Roman Republic, and using mercenaries was widespread in ancient eras in other cultural contexts such as Egypt.
-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 00:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
How come "soldier of fortune" is not mentioned in this article?
Is there a difference between a "mercenary" and a "soldier of fortune" ? Which one has more/less negative connotations ? Do they differ by their degree of "desire of private gain"?
Of course, I would prefer references (dictionaries, etc.) rather than personal opinions! Thanks. -- André de StCoeur ( talk) 22:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not merged. Jafeluv ( talk) 08:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have suggested that Private military company be merged with mercenary, under the article's Private military company section. Pustelnik ( talk) 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there must be many individual mercenaries who are actually morally superior to some, most, or even all current PMCs. Question: Has there ever been a documented case of 1 or more mercenaries in the employ of any entity that is even remotely leftist, humanitarian, or otherwise liberal? I remember many works of fiction (movies, TV shows, etc.) that portrayed a Western outlaw or villain in the employ of the Soviets or Red Chinese, but that of course is farce (a criminal " free-agent" in the employ of criminal totalitarian governments); though I wanted to "believe" when I was a child and teen, but now realize was probably a conservative's fantasy or else a cheap plot device/gimmick. Why couldn't there be a "liberal" PMC, fighting to protect/defend the nearly powerless indigenous people against well-financed foreign force-initiators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.124.196 ( talk) 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I always thought a Mercenary is whoever fights to get paid; all this nonsense about Blackwater being 'the real mercenaries' and American army being 'the real volunteers' doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Real volunteers don't go for the money, but it's obvious a lot - if not all - do.
In fact, you see the 2nd meaning here http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en%7Cen&hl=en&q=mercenary
"If you describe someone as mercenary, you are criticizing them because you think that they are only interested in the money that they can get from a particular person or situation."
Hence, even if you can't blanket all USA military as 'mercenary' you can certainly say a lot went there for the money.
In fact, even the 1st meaning[in that dictionary] is problematic.
"A mercenary is a soldier who is paid to fight by a country or group that they do not belong to."
In that sense, the 1st meaning of the dictionary, Blackwater are not mercenaries since they fight for their countries, at lest not necessarily.
In general the thing stinks propaganda; if you wanna pump your ego that USA has a 'real volunteer army' it doesn't mean it's also supported on fact. It is clear a lot go there clear for the money (or + glory), or to note it down, generally 'to survive financially', so you can't deny people have used 'mercenary' for that case specifically.
You can not dictate linguistics like a dictator.
I'm quite certain I grew up with "knowing" Mercenaries are whoever get paid to fight and they wouldn't fight if they didn't get paid, period. You can not change history of that. -- Leladax ( talk) 16:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
And I'm quite certain that the US Army get paid to fight and wouldn't fight if they didn't get paid. What's your point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.197.90 ( talk) 14:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The paper INTERPRETIVE guidance on the notion of Direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law by Nils Melzer, Legal adviser, ICRC, (© ICRC, May 2009) has a lot to say on what does and does not constitute direct participation in hostilities. Given its content I think we should rewrite the section. -- PBS ( talk) 08:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Strongly agreed that this section is full of opinion/value judgment and pro-US undocumented assertion with favor to PMCs as being non-mercenary. Should be rewritten. -- Dec. 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.102.223 ( talk) 12:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is some form of biased Conflict of Interest in the 21st Century section.
Start Quote:
Al-Assad regime in Syria has recruit in 2011 many mercenaries from the lebanese shiite militia of Hizbullah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to eliminate the people revolution against his corrupt sectarian regime
End Quote.
I am curious as to other's opinions.
-- DJackD ( talk) 06:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
What is this? Wikipedia is now channeling The Onion? I think this term is ridiculous and ought to be removed asap. What do you think, folks? Cheers, Bazuz ( talk) 12:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
"So in 1941 the Roosevelt administration authorized the formation of three American Volunteer Groups, of which the 1st AVG was deployed to Burma and China and became famous as the Flying Tigers. The pilots earned $600–$750 basic pay per month, plus $500 for each Japanese aircraft confirmed destroyed in the air or on the ground.[80] The 2nd AVG, a bomber group, was recruited in November 1941 but aborted following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."
I am pretty sure this brings a welcome redefinition of history. Just because legal loopholes got around congressional approval.. the executive branch authorized U.S. involvement against Japan, BEFORE the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I am pretty sure this deserves a mention in the Pearl Harbor page if it is not currently there. 71.102.17.212 ( talk) 10:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
When I filed my lawsuit with the COFC, I ended up getting many death threats from anonymous folks, I assume folks who were worried about losing their lucrative jobs as mercenaries working for the US Army in Iraq. It looks like they've brought their anger here, too. The section on US law wrongly says I had no impact on any of the Court's actions, when the truth is that nothing at all would have happened if I hadn't filed my suit. It also implies that I am not a "legitimate" contractor. Funny. The employment of mercs by the US government is illegal, as can be seen by what even the mercs editing and posting here have left standing. It's the big boyz like Blackwater and Triple Canopy that are the illegitimate contractors. Brian 174.24.22.29 ( talk) 22:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on
Mercenary. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Mercenary. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mercenary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mercenary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Security contractor. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Prisencolin ( talk) 19:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mercenary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mercenary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mercenary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.indiavision.com/news/article/international/243165/gaddafis-son-hires-mercenaries-to-flee/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
TL;DR: this is a formal WP:BRD about my revert of this edit.
A couple of repeated attempts have been made to change lede's phrase do not have to be granted the same legal protections as captured service personnel of a regular army
to specify regular armed forces
instead of regular army
. I do not see this improving the statement.
The meaning of regular army is widely understood -- it contrasts with militia or irregular military land forces. The meaning of regular armed forces is not understood, as it cannot be contrasted with non-regular air or naval military forces, as such things aren't known to exist. Civilians may acquire rifles, but not fighter jets or destroyers along with the bases, equipment and trained personnel needed to maintain and launch them.
By international convention, captured soldiers of an enemy's regular army have some specific rights. The statement says captured mercenaries do not automatically get those same rights. This statement is accurate and complete. The fact that captured air force and naval personnel may also have the rights that mercenaries may not get is entirely incidental; inexpertly trying to add that to the statement achieves nothing but breaking links and adding confusion.
I have reverted this change, and will continue to do so if repeated, until and unless some consensus is achieved here. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 19:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Sellsword redirects here. Yet 'sellsword' is mentioned NOWHERE on the page. Do Wikipedians view that as a feature or a bug? Septimus.stevens ( talk) 00:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
"Hessians" served, and were paid, as members of their German units sent on official duty, rather than being hired as private individuals. Rodney Atwood notes that Hessians would have been considered auxiliaries.
Having tried to make something out of nothing, I am tempted to be bold and remove the entire paragraph because the Hessians were not mercenaries. However, I anticipate that some future editor, having knowledge of legend rather than fact, will think "the Hessians should be in this article". Therefore, I have left what is essentially a stub to meet the needs of uninformed readers. The link to the article about Haitian soldiers is sufficient for anyone wanting to know more. Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 11:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
That should read Hessians, Dimadick. The Haitians were brought to you through the miracle of AutoCorrection Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 19:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
The Wagner Group isn't mentioned here at all despite its highly notable activities in Ukraine, Libya, Mali, and elsewhere. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 00:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mercenary article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The first part is about Egypt and the second about 20th Century? What about european mercenaries in the Thirty Years' War for example? There is more necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.131.174.143 ( talk) 06:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I concur here; the History section is so deficient I'd have sent it back marked "Do Over" if a student submitted something so lacking! At the very least there should be a section on how the Greeks used mercenaries, along with noting the use of Greek mercenaries by others (including mention of Xenophon!), plus the role they played in the conflicts between Carthage and Rome. Dismalscholar ( talk) 04:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
This section would be much improved by removing all the various one-line references to anime shows and video games. In an effort to be bold I am culling some of these momentarily. If anyone objects please let me know.
I think they should be left in so that people can find games and shows to learn more about mercenaries. Admiralfreak
Maybe even expanded, no mention of the Soldier of Fortune games, nor Regiments of Reknown or Dogs of War in Warhammer. Also the Mercenaries play a very important part in BattleTech and might deserve more attention. But they're mostly one-line cause they have articles that talk more about them, no need to fill this with any more than references to them. Highlandlord 20:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is now over the recommended size I suggest that we move the section Mercenary#Mercenar in popular culture into its own article. What do others think? Should we keep the name the new article "Mercenaries in popular culture" or is the a better name? -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
We need some links to actual mercenary websites, I used to know a couple that a got from talking to people on some gun forums, see if I can find some Highlandlord 19:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved the above from the article page to see if it can be cleaned up because at the moment not one paragraph of it is near the standard of most of the rest of the article.
-- Philip Baird Shearer 08:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Here are the answers
There are two things....
1) Maratha/Rajput kingdom and 2) Maratha/Rajput warriors.
Not all marathas were supporting independent Maratha kingdoms. Not all Rajputs were supporting Rajput kingdoms.
Having said that
Rajput and Maratha Home areas were outside the Moghul and Nizam areas for MOST OF THE time.
Western awareness about Indian history is mostly about Moghuls due to it's connection with Persian history....
Warrior castes in India were supporting either Nizam or Mughal but never accepted their rule in their home-land. It was effectively a military service for money or food (perfectly mercenary business)
Mughal and Nizam made serious but unsuccessful attempts to control and wipe out these communities. Mostly the relation when successful was only upto supporting army of one king against other for money or food, and it was only limited for the particular battle. In next battle same warriors would fight from other side. These warriors can be Marathas fighting for Maratha kings or Marathas fighting for Moghul kings.
Similary Rajputs fought for Marathas against Moghuls sometimes. and same Rajputs fought for Moghuls against Marathas.
Marathas fough agaist Moghul when Nizam was giving money to Marathas.
We need to study many battles betwen Moghul, Rajput, Maratha, Nizam to understand the flow of warriors from one party to other.
Most of the Moghul army was made up of Rajputs and Hindus Even when fighting for Moghul most of these kings had there seperate rules. When Moghul/Nizam kings (like Aurangjeb) declared that these kings can not rule their own lands anymore, started converting Hindus, imposing taxes on them. Within span of 50 years most of these kings revolted and Moghul empior broke into pieces.
Famouse Thagies (there is argument whether they are real or just a hype) made up by Brithishers to kill what are understood by localites as 'Gardies'. There is one understanding that these Gardies are nothing but mercenaries who fought for Peshwas/or small king who wanted britishers out of their land.
Many warriors in 1857 revolt had nothing to do with India's freedom. They were collected by Kings to get back their kingdoms with promise of lot of booty when own. The concept of India as one nation, as presently known has come only after freedom. There are cultures in india as diverse as Persian and Japanese even today.
Before deleting some section from main page it is good idea to discuss the topic in talk page first. Otherwise Wikipedia will be again remain a view and assuptions by some and not real information.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
202.67.5.18 (
talk •
contribs) 12:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
As to your last comment please see Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and in this specific case:
Hope this helps -- Philip Baird Shearer 20:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Philip,
It is very well known fact that lot of history is unwritten, even what is written and known for ages in one part of world may not be available on internet.
What ever mentioned above is well known history in parts of India where generations of families have been / are working as mercenaries. Having said that no one looked at the this part of society from the viewpoint that is persued by western historians.
There are tons of references if you listen the stories in these soceities, visit places and check the local references(these are written in local languages). Unfortunately they are yet not avaible on net or are not yet casted into western concepts. For example There were no concept of thuggies in western world till 19th century, If one british officer had not mentioned it sometime during 19 th century, Today you would have said that there is no such thing as thuggies just because it is not coming from some westeren reference.
Ignoring/Deleting history about some part of the world, does not change the Historical facts.
I am stopping this non-sense of adding information since you are not giving anyone else chance to comment on it. Have a nice time writing your own stories.
~~ Aryabhatta ~~ (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.67.5.18 ( talk • contribs) 10:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC))
Shouldn't there be something about Hessians in this article? Or don't they count as mercenaries, as King George III was a kraut too? Tubezone 10:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I think there ought to be something about Irish Mercs too, don't you think? After all, The Geanna Fiadhain ("Wild Geese") played a most significant role in European and World History, fighting around the globe from 1699 to the mid 1980's.
150.155.25.230
19:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC) T.M. McCormick
Can I request someone to tell me how can we see earlier versions of this artical.
First someone deleted sources and references about Indian mercenaries from this artical. Then after some days someboday deleted the complete section about India.
Now I would like to know how can I see the earlier different versions about this artical and report the misuse? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.113.37.9 ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Click on the history tab. -- Philip Baird Shearer 20:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a reference for the statements regarding Machiavelli in the "15-16th Century" section of the article? I haven't been able to source an online copy of the work to search for references, and I'm not reading the entire book for it...! 86.20.233.135 11:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Russell 86.20.233.135 11:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know which of these two statements is true? Kyle Cronan 01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a passage which keeps being inserted into the article which has a bias against the US private soldiers/security contracters in Iraq, describing them as "mercenaries" after the transfer of power from the US coalition authority to the Iraqi govt. Actually the transfer of power had no change whatsoever on the status of PMCs because the United States has been, and continues to be, a party to the conflict in iraq. Since the US is obviously a party to the US-Iraq War, then under the clearest definition that we have of the term "mercenary" (from GC Protocol 1) as being someone who is NOT a national of a party to the conflict, American PMCs cannot be defined as "mercenaries", and the transfer of power is irrelevant. If Russian PMCs were fighting in Iraq, or American PMCs fought in the Russia-Chechen war, then they could be called mercenaries. As the passage was written it just seems a biased criticism on the US occupation of Iraq. Walterego 05:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)walterego
i hightly agree. the whole section on 'private military companies' has an obvious bias. in fact, i don't see why the section is there. have a couple sentences explaining why PMC's are NOT mercenary forces, and have a link to the page on PMC's. no need to explain a whole bunch of stuff about them when a thorough explanation exists on a different page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.236.175.197 ( talk • contribs) 07:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Lets please make wikipedia readable. The definition is rather wordy and hard to read. Can't we just say combatants motivated by profit who belong neither to the armed forces or local paramilitary groups? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brallan ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The definition does seem long. It could be shortened greatly by removing the irrelevant and unsourced part about a mercenary being one who is paid significantly more than regular combatants, which is just too relative. If one fights only for personal gain then it isn't significant whether one receives more than regular soldiers, as the compensation soldiers receive varies greatly based on their benefits or bonuses or rank or specialized skills. An SAS Colonel whose family lives in expensive officer's housing receives a lot more than an raw recruit, but that doesn't make him a mercenary. What makes him a mercenary is if he resigns and goes to fight in some foreign war. I'd propose trimmin ght opening sentence to "A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national of a Party to the conflict and is motivated to take part in the hostilities solely by the desire for private gain. -- Walterego 01:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
All professional soldiers - in other words all who are not conscripts - are soldiers for hire. I cannot see any distinction from "a soldier enlisted in the armed forces of a sovereign state" - who can be either mercenaries or conscripts. This is comparing two different concepts. Any professional soldier is motivated primarily by a desire for private gain. Inherently they are all mercenaries. That is not a criticism. I do not believe that "mercenary" should be used as a pejorative JohnC ( talk) 10:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that "PMC" are not defined as mercenary because "provided they are not pro-actively employed in front-line combat, they are not mercenaries". Where does that exemption come from, and who uses it? Royalcourtier ( talk) 02:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It may be my imagination, but the section of the article dealing with PMCs (who it could be argued are not, when operating legitimately, mercenaries as they do not engage in combat operations except in self-defense, and by that token every armed security officer on EARTH would be considered a mercenary) seem to have a subtle, but palpable POV bias against them.-- Breandán 02:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I have not, to date, seen any evidence that any security contractor (PMC) has, while operating legitimately and under the auspice of their contracts, taken part in the conflict. There have been cases of self-defense where the facilities and convoys they are guarding have come under fire, but frankly, our company has had officers come under the same situation in bad areas of Houston. There is a big difference between operating as a part of a military conflict in a military capacity and operating as a security provider for a client in a country in the middle of said conflict.-- Breandán 19:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If a PMC is operating in a military capacity, as defined by the Geneva Conventions (and in the beginning of the main article), then it is no longer operating as a legitimate security provider and crosses the line into a mercenary entity, regardless of what their legally-defined status is. The distinction is in their operations, not in their claimed legal status. My company is not a PMC by any stretch of the imagination. We are a US-based licensed security company that provides executive protection to varies clients in addition to other services. Yet, some of our EP personnel have protected dignitaries in Iraq, a country in the middle of a conflict. They were not acting as mercenaries by any stretch of the imagination, nor are the personnel from other companies who contract with AMERICAN agencies (this distinction is important, as the US does not allow any private security contractor to engage in military operations). I cannot speak to foreign-based companies. Now, if our personnel had come under fire by insurgents or Al Qaeda operatives, and returned fire in the course of defending themselves and the client, would they be considered mercenaries? Not likely, as they are doing their legal job to protect personnel from harm. If, by the definitions presented here, they operated as mercenaries, then so does every bodyguard, armed security officer, and private investigator who has ever had to use force to defend themselves. My issue with all of this comes down to something very simple- it is not all black and white, and to paint a very complex industry with a broad brush is neither fair nor accurate, and this trend by many that I have encountered to try to lump security companies in with mercenary companies is disturbing.-- Breandán 07:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no clear answer - yet - as to whether or not PMC operators in Iraq are mercenaries. But it does not seem to be forthright for Breandan to suggest above that PMC's are not engaged in combat because of who they work for or what their contract says. Reference the massacre of civilians at Nisoor Square on 16 September. If Resistance fighters really did ambush the convoy, before the Blackwater PSD returned fire, then they engaged in combat. Combat is fighting between two recognized forces that are party to a conflict. If the Blackwater PSD simply overreacted and killed civilians without ever being attacked, then they were not engaged in combat. 76.25.56.91 08:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Brian Scott
From the history of the article:
What is the misinterpretation?
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Delalic et al. (I.T-96-21) "Celebici" 16 November 1998 Part III B, Applicable law 2. Status of the Victims as "Protected Persons" See: Para. 271:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC
Jean Pictet was editor of the Red Cross Commentary on the Geneva Conventions. As such these are considered to be guidelines to be used by the courts when interpreting the Geneva conventions. Hence the reason they are quoted by the ICTFY in Delalic et al. .... I think you need to reconsider you opinion that they "must be misunderstanding the Geneva Conventions".
What the Red Cross commentary on the Geneva Conventions is saying is if a civilian engages in combat they are not a privileged combatant and they can be tried under civilian law for criminal acts they committed while in combat, for which they have no privileged combatant status. So it follows that as mercenaries are not privileged combatants, that they are civilians and can be tried for civilian crimes. As civilians they may have certain protections under GCIV depending on their nationality.
As an explanation think of the recent troubles in Northern Ireland. (Yes I know thatt mercenaries were not fighting the Britsh Army there, but it will do to help explain a mercenary's position under law). During troubles those who attacked British troops were tried for civilian crimes (like possession of an unauthorized firearm), that if the troubles had been classified as a civil war, and the attackers recognized as privileged combatants would not have been war crimes, and upon capture these people would have been POWs not, as they were, subject to trial as civilians who had committed civilian crimes. -- Philip Baird Shearer 06:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I am using the same terminology as the Geneva conventions. Someone is either a privileged belligerent as defined in the Hague conventions of 1907 and GCIII, or one is not. The ICRC commentaries say that one is either a privileged belligeren or a civilian. Now it is possible to argue that they are unprivileged belligerents, but in that case they are still open to prosecution under civilian laws because they have lost their combatant privileges, but they would not lose all of their protections under GCIV, just because they are unprivileged belligerents.
Mercenaries are not [privileged] combatants. From Protocol I Article 47: "A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war." (as quoted in the article) the ICRC commentary is worth reading on this article. On this specific debate they write:
If you disagree with the ICRC analysis then you will have to come up with a Verifiable reliable source that contradicts their analysis, before adding it to the article. -- Philip Baird Shearer 22:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
To be a civilian one does not have to be a non-combatant. See Protocol I Article 51.3 "Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities." So it is quite possible to be a civilian and a combatant. Here is a quote from the ICRC [1] "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action". This is not just the view of the ICRC, a google source returns lots of examples. For example see this source "mercenaries would be treated like other civilians who had taken up arms, that is to say, as 'unprivileged belligerents'".
Walterego you have expressed you opinions here, but have not presented one article to support those opinions. If you wish to show that the ICRC is only one opinion and not that generally accepted by the international community, (after all the original source was from its use in an international court ruling), you need to come up with a reliable source that supports you opinion. -- Philip Baird Shearer 12:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
in the section on PMCs, the statement seems to suggest that the killing of four Blackwater agents was "a huge boost" to the industry. This is crappy writing. Somebody should fix it, and somebody should expand the Blackwater story because they are the largest mercenary force on the planet as of mid 2007. 67.101.45.119 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Undeclared wars - Vietnam? etc - if the nation is not an official party to a conflict is its entire armed force then a mercanary force?
159.105.80.141
14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
From the talk page of Mesoso2
From my talk page:
It is a legal situation under inernational law, and from that comes the treatment as POWs or as civilians who take part in armed hostilites. As Merecnaries do "not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war."(Protocol I art 47) on capture they are civilians who have "direct part in the hostilities" (Protocol I art 37), because the ICRC 1958 Commentary on IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War Article 4.4 states that "[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view" (Jean Pictet (ed.) – Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958) – 1994 reprint edition.). The ICRC has expressed the opinion that "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action" ( The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism official statment by the ICRC 21 July 2005). See also See civilian, non-combatant and unlawful combatant.
Having said that the a google search on ["member of the armed forces" mercenary "law of war"] throws up a number of interesting documents. One is an article called " Mercenaries at Geneva which from the page given is based on the ICRC comentaries on Protocol I See ICRC: Commentary: Article 47 Mercenaries — This ICRC ommentary is probably the most pertanant document available when discussing the definition of Mercenaries.
A second document on the first page of the google seach is " JSTOR: The Recruitment and Use of Mercenaries in Armed Conflicts" by H. C. Burmester, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Jan., 1978), pp. 37-56. On the page returned it returns a quote from the Diplock Report that supports your point of view "any definition of mercenaries which required positive proof of motivation... either would be unworkable , or so haphazard that its application as between comparable individuals as to be unacceptable".
Burmester's article is quoted by Millard quite a lot (Millaed article in in the reference section) and you might find pages 19 onwards quite interesting. Particularly Pages 37 and 42 and page 58,59:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 12:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe there should be a picture at the beginning of the article.
How about a photo of a big stack of cash with blood on it? Can we ask Erik Prince if he can get us one of those? 151.197.252.96 13:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest 2 pictures, a old mercenary - say a landsknecht, and a modern mercenary - say from the Congo or Iraq. -- 82.41.55.139 18:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I had a quick look through the biographies of some of the men mentioned on this page. The Bob Denard article has a picture of him. As he died recently there is no reason why his picture can not be used on this page. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 09:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we include information about mercenary air forces? Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 04:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Blackwaterday.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
maybe solider for hire would be a good short definition. Also, were conscripts that were hired out by their lord, mercenaries? Most all soldiers, that is professional combatants choose it as a career and therefore for profit. I think something should they should be describe as irregularly recruited which I believe is mentioned in the UN definition, but it should be more emphasized. Rds865 ( talk) 06:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Bob Denard.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 20:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I have moved the following here because it is not sourced and there are many unsupported statements that are open to question:
Mercenaries are not a modern occupation, but one steeped in the history of the High Middle Ages when a noble needed to hire men to fight in a dispute, and his lands could not provide the necessary man power, even if drafting all the men in the principality that were capable of military service. When hiring mercenaries, he was also presuming to be getting quality—trained personnel who would stand and fight and were skilled at arms, not just any body to fill a peasant levee. Peasants were needed kept on the farms, for the era was still one of subsistence living, and taking labor off the land could mean widespread famine come the next winter.
Mercenary armies were the order of the day in the late Medieval era and even the Early Modern era until the upheavals which gave shape to modern Europe's political boundaries during the Napoleonic Wars gave rise to Nationalism and the keeping a professional standing army. The practice of using mercenary auxiliaries goes back to the early days of the Roman Republic, and using mercenaries was widespread in ancient eras in other cultural contexts such as Egypt.
-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 00:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
How come "soldier of fortune" is not mentioned in this article?
Is there a difference between a "mercenary" and a "soldier of fortune" ? Which one has more/less negative connotations ? Do they differ by their degree of "desire of private gain"?
Of course, I would prefer references (dictionaries, etc.) rather than personal opinions! Thanks. -- André de StCoeur ( talk) 22:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not merged. Jafeluv ( talk) 08:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have suggested that Private military company be merged with mercenary, under the article's Private military company section. Pustelnik ( talk) 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there must be many individual mercenaries who are actually morally superior to some, most, or even all current PMCs. Question: Has there ever been a documented case of 1 or more mercenaries in the employ of any entity that is even remotely leftist, humanitarian, or otherwise liberal? I remember many works of fiction (movies, TV shows, etc.) that portrayed a Western outlaw or villain in the employ of the Soviets or Red Chinese, but that of course is farce (a criminal " free-agent" in the employ of criminal totalitarian governments); though I wanted to "believe" when I was a child and teen, but now realize was probably a conservative's fantasy or else a cheap plot device/gimmick. Why couldn't there be a "liberal" PMC, fighting to protect/defend the nearly powerless indigenous people against well-financed foreign force-initiators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.124.196 ( talk) 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I always thought a Mercenary is whoever fights to get paid; all this nonsense about Blackwater being 'the real mercenaries' and American army being 'the real volunteers' doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Real volunteers don't go for the money, but it's obvious a lot - if not all - do.
In fact, you see the 2nd meaning here http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en%7Cen&hl=en&q=mercenary
"If you describe someone as mercenary, you are criticizing them because you think that they are only interested in the money that they can get from a particular person or situation."
Hence, even if you can't blanket all USA military as 'mercenary' you can certainly say a lot went there for the money.
In fact, even the 1st meaning[in that dictionary] is problematic.
"A mercenary is a soldier who is paid to fight by a country or group that they do not belong to."
In that sense, the 1st meaning of the dictionary, Blackwater are not mercenaries since they fight for their countries, at lest not necessarily.
In general the thing stinks propaganda; if you wanna pump your ego that USA has a 'real volunteer army' it doesn't mean it's also supported on fact. It is clear a lot go there clear for the money (or + glory), or to note it down, generally 'to survive financially', so you can't deny people have used 'mercenary' for that case specifically.
You can not dictate linguistics like a dictator.
I'm quite certain I grew up with "knowing" Mercenaries are whoever get paid to fight and they wouldn't fight if they didn't get paid, period. You can not change history of that. -- Leladax ( talk) 16:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
And I'm quite certain that the US Army get paid to fight and wouldn't fight if they didn't get paid. What's your point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.197.90 ( talk) 14:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The paper INTERPRETIVE guidance on the notion of Direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law by Nils Melzer, Legal adviser, ICRC, (© ICRC, May 2009) has a lot to say on what does and does not constitute direct participation in hostilities. Given its content I think we should rewrite the section. -- PBS ( talk) 08:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Strongly agreed that this section is full of opinion/value judgment and pro-US undocumented assertion with favor to PMCs as being non-mercenary. Should be rewritten. -- Dec. 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.102.223 ( talk) 12:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is some form of biased Conflict of Interest in the 21st Century section.
Start Quote:
Al-Assad regime in Syria has recruit in 2011 many mercenaries from the lebanese shiite militia of Hizbullah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to eliminate the people revolution against his corrupt sectarian regime
End Quote.
I am curious as to other's opinions.
-- DJackD ( talk) 06:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
What is this? Wikipedia is now channeling The Onion? I think this term is ridiculous and ought to be removed asap. What do you think, folks? Cheers, Bazuz ( talk) 12:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
"So in 1941 the Roosevelt administration authorized the formation of three American Volunteer Groups, of which the 1st AVG was deployed to Burma and China and became famous as the Flying Tigers. The pilots earned $600–$750 basic pay per month, plus $500 for each Japanese aircraft confirmed destroyed in the air or on the ground.[80] The 2nd AVG, a bomber group, was recruited in November 1941 but aborted following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."
I am pretty sure this brings a welcome redefinition of history. Just because legal loopholes got around congressional approval.. the executive branch authorized U.S. involvement against Japan, BEFORE the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I am pretty sure this deserves a mention in the Pearl Harbor page if it is not currently there. 71.102.17.212 ( talk) 10:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
When I filed my lawsuit with the COFC, I ended up getting many death threats from anonymous folks, I assume folks who were worried about losing their lucrative jobs as mercenaries working for the US Army in Iraq. It looks like they've brought their anger here, too. The section on US law wrongly says I had no impact on any of the Court's actions, when the truth is that nothing at all would have happened if I hadn't filed my suit. It also implies that I am not a "legitimate" contractor. Funny. The employment of mercs by the US government is illegal, as can be seen by what even the mercs editing and posting here have left standing. It's the big boyz like Blackwater and Triple Canopy that are the illegitimate contractors. Brian 174.24.22.29 ( talk) 22:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on
Mercenary. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Mercenary. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mercenary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mercenary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Security contractor. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Prisencolin ( talk) 19:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mercenary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mercenary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mercenary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.indiavision.com/news/article/international/243165/gaddafis-son-hires-mercenaries-to-flee/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
TL;DR: this is a formal WP:BRD about my revert of this edit.
A couple of repeated attempts have been made to change lede's phrase do not have to be granted the same legal protections as captured service personnel of a regular army
to specify regular armed forces
instead of regular army
. I do not see this improving the statement.
The meaning of regular army is widely understood -- it contrasts with militia or irregular military land forces. The meaning of regular armed forces is not understood, as it cannot be contrasted with non-regular air or naval military forces, as such things aren't known to exist. Civilians may acquire rifles, but not fighter jets or destroyers along with the bases, equipment and trained personnel needed to maintain and launch them.
By international convention, captured soldiers of an enemy's regular army have some specific rights. The statement says captured mercenaries do not automatically get those same rights. This statement is accurate and complete. The fact that captured air force and naval personnel may also have the rights that mercenaries may not get is entirely incidental; inexpertly trying to add that to the statement achieves nothing but breaking links and adding confusion.
I have reverted this change, and will continue to do so if repeated, until and unless some consensus is achieved here. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 19:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Sellsword redirects here. Yet 'sellsword' is mentioned NOWHERE on the page. Do Wikipedians view that as a feature or a bug? Septimus.stevens ( talk) 00:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
"Hessians" served, and were paid, as members of their German units sent on official duty, rather than being hired as private individuals. Rodney Atwood notes that Hessians would have been considered auxiliaries.
Having tried to make something out of nothing, I am tempted to be bold and remove the entire paragraph because the Hessians were not mercenaries. However, I anticipate that some future editor, having knowledge of legend rather than fact, will think "the Hessians should be in this article". Therefore, I have left what is essentially a stub to meet the needs of uninformed readers. The link to the article about Haitian soldiers is sufficient for anyone wanting to know more. Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 11:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
That should read Hessians, Dimadick. The Haitians were brought to you through the miracle of AutoCorrection Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 19:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
The Wagner Group isn't mentioned here at all despite its highly notable activities in Ukraine, Libya, Mali, and elsewhere. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 00:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)