Talk:Mercenary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mercenary article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] "Popular culture" section full of trivia

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.

--User:Mylakovich

Hear, hear, I fully agree with you. Dieter Simon 23:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

However this is an article about mercanaries in real-life, not video games. 86.138.238.167 15:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The section titled "Mercenaries in popular culture" is most definitely not about mercenaries in real life. 71.193.152.63 11:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
A Wikipedia "popular culture" section longer than the rest of the article and stuffed full of the most inconsequential fanboy references?! Nope, never seen one of them around here before ;-) Fourohfour 12:59, 20 November 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)

I agree, and "Mercenaries in popular culture" works fine for me as well. =) Kguirnela 04:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

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)

[edit] India

In India, Rajputs and Marathas served different Kings in Medieval India such as Moghuls and Nizams. For centuries dating back to Ashoka's time, different tribes from these areas (Northern and Western India) worked for different Kings including Ashoka, Nanda, Maurya kings.
Rajputs served Humayu to establish the Moghul emperor in India. Being aware of local war techniques, mercenaries served kings to protect their culture and interests. <<need to correct/add in this >>
Badly reputed 'Gardis' were mercenaries working for Peshwas. The British administration used the Maratha's own army discarded by Peshwa (which are from lower cast) as mercenaries to defeat Marathas at Pune.
As early as 1857 (First attempt of freeing India from British) mercenaries were used effectively to decide war outcomes in India.[citations needed]
The Gurkhas of Nepal are today used by the British Army, India and Singapore

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.

  • Were the Rajput and the Maratha home areas outside the Moghul and Nizam areas? A source to back up the calim.
  • Protecting own culture and interests does not make one a mercenary (see spanish civil war). Also the comment at the end of the paragraph.
  • Badly repute ... Who says they were badly reputed (source needed)
  • As early ... Persumably talking of Gurkhas working for the British in India. Needs a source that they were mercenaries, If it is about the Indian Mutiny then a link should be put in.

--Philip Baird Shearer 08:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Here are the answers

  • Were the Rajput and the Maratha home areas outside the Moghul and Nizam areas? A source to back up the calim.

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.


  • Badly repute ... Who says they were badly reputed (source needed)

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.


  • As early as 1857 (First attempt of freeing India from British) mercenaries were used effectively to decide war outcomes in India.[citations needed]

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)

Even if using an IP address please sign your comments on a talk page using ~~~~

As to your last comment please see Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and in this specific case:

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic.
Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page.

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))

[edit] Hessians

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

[edit] Somebody is deleting information and adding biased information in this artical

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)

[edit] Machiavelli

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)Russell86.20.233.135 11:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Contradictory Information

"Under United States law (the "Neutrality Act"), an American citizen who participates in an armed conflict to which the United States is neutral may be subject to criminal penalties. (In actuality, the Neutrality Act only prohibits citizens from participating in conflicts, that the U.S. is involved in, on the side of states that the government has declared war against; also, it appears to have been repealed.)"

Does anyone know which of these two statements is true? Kyle Cronan 01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed these two sentences on the Neutrality Act Kyle Cronan 05:24, 11 April 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)

[edit] Definition

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)

No because they may belong to the armed force or local paramilitary groups. The definition is in brief, please see Article 47 for the full definition. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:52, 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)

[edit] POV Issues

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)

Most armed security men are not in areas where they "take a direct part in the hostilities" because they are not in areas where an armed conflict is taking place. Further, "take a direct part in the hostilities" has a specific meaning, not sure if it incudes self-defence or not. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:53, 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)

Do you have a source which says that acting as an active security provider in an armed conflict is not taking a direct part in hostilities? If a PMC is acting legitimatly then they are not in breach of international law (by definition), but what happens if the contract they have with their client includes clauses which if complied with breach international but not local law? Simon Mann who set up Executive Outcomes a PMC, suggests that not all PMCs do behave within international humanitarian law. Luckily it does not matter what you and I think, there are authorative sources to back up that OE was a mercenary firm. See this URL Press Release HR/CN/764 14 March 1997
During his visit to South Africa, he had met with the chairman of Executive Outcomes, a legally registered company which illustrated the new form of mercenary activity described in his report, said the Special Rapporteur. This company reflected a new model of company selling security services on international markets.
--Philip Baird Shearer 22:42, 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)

I agree with most of what you are saying. With one or two exceptions. First is that the question of mercenary only arises in a combat zone. There can be a difference between local laws and internationally recognised laws of war, particularly if there is an conflict not of an international nature (civil insurrections). I disagree with the attempt to try to separate defensive military action from offensive military action. Article 47 does not distinguish between offensive and defensive action in an armed conflict it only specifies taking "a direct part in hostilities".
The situation of American PMCs is Iraq is very complicated because, it is not clear to me if that is an internal conflict or an international conflict, if it is an internal conflict then there is no paragraph about mercenaries in Protocol II. Further neither Iraq nor the USA have ratified Protocol I, so for these two we have to fall back to other legal definitions of what constitutes a mercenary -- No I idea what they are under US and Iraqi law.
But there are two things we can do to look at PMCs operation in and area of armed conflict. The first is that the ICRC Commentary on Art 47 as it helps to fill in the dots. The second is to look at a hypothetical situation. Suppose that during the Falklands War the Argentinians guarding Goose Green had been a mixture of soldiers and members of a PMCs, when the British paras went in if the members of a PMC had fired their guns in self defence and/or to protect the people or property they were contracted to guard, they would have "taken a direct part in hostilities" (after all they could just have surrendered and not fired their guns), if any members the PMC who had fired their weapons were then captured by the paras under which category of GCIII Article 4 would they fall?
Personally if you wanted to shake up the section on PMCs in this article I would not object, particularly if it was the first two paragraphs which I think do not present a very good description of the problem of a very neutral point of view. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand your assessment, and I agree that it is very complicated since not all nations are on the same page with the laws and definitions. As for the section in the article, I will see what I can come up with that is informative but NPOV. By the way, thank you for the See Also section in the other article.--Breandán 21:50, 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

[edit] Misinterpretation of GCIV

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:

It is important, however, to note that this finding is predicated on the view that there is no gap between the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protections of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war (or of the First or Second Conventions) he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Convention IV, provided that its article 4 requirements are satisfied. The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts 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.

--Philip Baird Shearer 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC

What basis is there for asserting that every person must fall under the protection of either the Third GC or the Fourth GC? The Third GC carefully defines and limits the combatants that fall under its protection, therefore there are persons who are combatants that are not protected by the Third GC. However, the Fourth GC clearly states that its protections cover civilians. Combatants cannot be considered civilians, in fact a combatant is the opposite of a civilian. So Jean Pictet must be misunderstanding the Geneva Conventions when he states that all persons must be protected by either the Third or the Fourth GC. To state that there is no gap between the 3rd and 4th is to state that there are no combatants whatsoever who are excluded from the 3rd GC, and if that were so the 3rd GC would simply say "all combatants" instead of taking great pains to set limits on which combatants it protects, as it in fact does. So in an article about "mercenaries", who are by definition combatants, the Fourth GC cannot ever apply. 70.253.68.246 04:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Walterego.

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".

Certainly Jean Pictet's position gives his interpretation considerable stature, but he doesn't speak for the diplomats who originally negotiated and signed the Geneva Conventions, he represents the perspective of the International Red Cross, which as a humanitarian organization has an intrest in arguing that its authority be expanded to include all POWs, even sabotuers or spies, because to recognize that not all POWs are protected by the GC would undermine the Red Cross's authority to act on behalf of all POWs.Walterego 20:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Walterego

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)

Consider phrase used above, "...a civilian engages in combat", how can a civilian engage in combat? If one does then he becomes a combatant, and I believe the term "civilian" is generally understood to mean "noncombatant". Perhaps you are viewing civilian to mean someone who is not a member of a government's military, but this would mean that soldiers in a guerilla/insurgent army were civilians. I've never seen the term civilian used to describe the Viet Cong, or Mao's Red Army, or the Contras, or Sandinista rebels, or the Confederate rebels in the US Civil War. Like the IRA/UVF combatants, for example, it defies credulity to call them civilians. The British Govt chose to prosecute them under civilian law, but that was likely done for political reasons of not conveying any respect to the IRA/UVF causes (dismissing them as murderers), and it doesn't mean that they truly were civilians. Describing a civilian and a combatant as one and the same just doesn't make any sense, so describing a mercenary as a civilian doesn't either. Granted there are individuals who straddle the the line between violent criminal and combatant, like mad bombers, rioters, or pseudo-revolutionary cultists, but the line exists nonetheless. A combatant participates in a conflict/war/revolution/struggle/uprising, which has some kind of political/social objective. The closest thing to a "civilian who engages in combat" that I can think of in recent memory, is the Rwandan Hutu Interahamwe, and they are never described in accounts of the Rwandan Civil War as civilians, but always as militia.Walterego 20:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Walterego

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:

1796 The effect of the denial of the status of combatant and prisoner of war in case of capture is to deprive the mercenary of the treatment of prisoner of war as laid down in the Third Convention, and to make him liable to criminal prosecution. ... 1797 Deprived of the status of combatant and prisoner of war, a mercenary is a civilian who could fall under Article 5 of the fourth Convention...

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)

The whole issue is one that is more relevant to a wikipedia article about the Geneva Conventions. Since it seems self-evident to me that the ICRC analysis is incorrect, that one cannot be both a belligerent and a civilian, one is either one or the other, the simplest solution would be for the article to say that a mercenary is covered by GC IV "according to" or "in the opinion of" the International Red Cross rather than stating it as undeniable fact that unprivileged belligerents have the same status as civilians.Walterego 20:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Walterego

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)

No see Art 47.f A mercenary is any person who: has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces --Philip Baird Shearer 17:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] foreign volunteer

From the talk page of Mesoso2

You wrote in the edit history of the article Mercenary "status as POWs completely irrelevant to whether some people might consider them mercenaries)". If you wish to include the contentious claim "For instance the French Foreign Legion and the Gurkhas are not normally considered mercenaries, but some observers consider them to be mercenaries" then please provide a verifiable, reliable source naming the credible observers who consider them to be mercenaries.
The problem you have with this is that 10% of the British Army are not UK citizens, but because they take an oath of allegiance to the Queen they are not mercenaries and to treat them as such on capture would be a breach of the Geneva conventions. If you read GCIII, unlike GCIV, there is no mention of nationality because under international law a soldier can fight for any Power not just from the nation state of which he (or she) is a citizen (But they may face a prohibition under their own state's laws). What is important under the laws of war is that he is employed by the Power under the same terms and conditions as other members of the Power's armed forces and the oath of allegiance is a strong indicator of this. --Philip Baird Shearer 02:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

From my talk page:

You completely fail to understand what a mercenary is. It is a soldier fighting primarily for profit. that is not a legal situation, it does not depend on POW treatment, it does not depend on oaths to the queen, it depends on whether a mercenary is working for profit. As far as sources go, the basic defintion the Oxford English Dictionary gives for a mercenary is very wide, "a soldier paid to serve in a foreign army or other military organization", which does, without any doubt whatsoever, include Ghurkhas and Legionaries. You surely cannot attempt to disagree with the OED, or claim the OED is "contentious", so as far as i am concerned the matter is now closed. Mesoso2 22:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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:

Page 37: Several observers took issue with the notion that Article 47 represented a natural evolution of customary international law.198 In particular, the United States specifically rejected Article 47 as an expression of jus gentium. According to Michael J. Matheson, then Deputy Legal Advisor for the U.S. Department of State, the United States “[does] not favor the provisions of article 47 on mercenaries, which among other things introduce political factors that do not belong in international humanitarian law. . . .” Moreover, “[the United States does] not consider the provisions of article 47 to be part of current customary law.” Legal commentators echoed U.S. reservations to Article 47. Burmester appeared to dispute directly Mr. Clark’s analysis when he stated ...
Page 42: As a final limitation, paragraph 2 of Article 47 imposes criteria as to a mercenary’s motivation224 and relative compensation, elements which will be extremely difficult to prove, thus limiting a state’s legal basis to deprive mercenaries of lawful combatant and prisoner of war status. This determination will by necessity include comparison to the motivations of individuals who join states’ armies, many of whom join because of relatively attractive compensation and benefit packages. In recently considering Article 47’s mercenary definition in its entirety, the United Kingdom’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office concluded, “A number of governments including the British Government regard this definition as unworkable for practical purposes.”
Page 58,59 A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation: (a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at: (i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or (ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State; b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation; (c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed; (d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and (e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken. (PBS: A different newer defintion but one that few states have ratified.)

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

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)

[edit] Air force

Shouldn't we include information about mercenary air forces? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Be bold. --Agüeybaná 04:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I cannot find any info on it. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
yeah, fighter jets cost too much, and their pilots cost to much to train. it wouldn't be profitable. Rds865 (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Blackwaterday.jpg

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)

[edit] Solider for Hire

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)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bob Denard.jpg

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

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

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)