I think that the term marauder should apply to units outside any established military chain of command. In other words, if a unit is no longer accepted orders from higher HQ, it is, technically, a marauder. Village militias might be the exception. In non-cantonment areas outside government control, local militias would be essential to avoid predation. I think it would be unfair to classify all such indpenedent militias as marauders.
I think another qualifier is that marauders are also groups, static or mobile, that resort to predatory behavior (raiding, toll-collecting, protection rackets, etc.) in order to sustain themselves.
I think that if a group meets both of these criteria (a. operating outside military chains of command AND b.) preys on others to meet its own needs), it should be classified as marauder.
I don't know if there would be an agreed upon classification like the one above in the year 2000. On one hand, it seems like some sort of widely accepted unwritten rule about who or what constituted a marauder would develop over time. On the other hand, things are so chaotic, and the lines between conventional military and bandit so blurred, the distinction may not be so clear. My hunch, though, is that folks in 2000 would have a pretty clear understanding of what a marauder was or was not.
|