Mercenaries in T2K: Thoughts and Questions

[Raellus]

Thoughts:

Settlements, merchants, any entity that doesn't want to be preyed upon by people with guns, are going to want to acquire armed security of some kind.

Europe in 2000 will be lousy with armed men (and women), many of whom have been abandoned and left to their own devices by their respective national military commands (eg. "Good luck. You're on your own," or left behind by OMEGA). These soldiers are going to need to eat. Their options for gainful employment in the post-apocalyptic world are limited. Many will be tempted to take what they want/need by gunpoint. Others will seek legitimate employment by selling their martial skills on the free market (or whatever passes for it, locally). The former are your classic marauder; the latter are mercenaries, in the spirit of international law, if not in the letter.

Whether this freelance security works for gold, fuel, ammo, medical supplies, food, or any combination thereof, these security troops would likely be considered by just about everyone- employers, neighbors, foes, maybe even themselves- as mercenaries. This is essentially the premise of Kurosawa's classic, Seven Samurai. The seven titular ronin defend a village from bandits in exchange for rice.

You'd probably also see mercenaries periodically turning into marauders and vice versa. This was commonplace in 14th century Europe, especially in France during the 100 Years War. Once a "Free Company", as the English called them (Condottieri, in Italian) had fulfilled its contract, or if it became dissatisfied with the terms, it often turned to banditry to support itself until the next contract could be secured (in France, demobilized mercs were called Écorcheurs- literally, "scorchers"). Free Companies would routinely ransom entire villages until paid off to leave. Villages that couldn't or wouldn't pay would be pillaged- the classic protection racket.

I can also see a group of marauders who once preyed upon a settlement being coopted by it, becoming its de facto defense force.

Questions:

Is a US 5th ID soldier serving in the Krakow ORMO a merc?

Is a US 8th ID soldier working as a convoy guard for a Latvian soldier-merchant a merc?

Is a NATO soldier serving in an anti-communist militia defending the Free City of Gdansk during a Soviet siege a merc?

-

[rcaf_777]

Just some thoughts

Gurkhas are Mercenaries
Both Spain and France have a Foreign Legion
The Vatican has the Swiss Guard

The US did employ certain local groups like the Hmong or Montagnards who were kind of mercenaries during the Vietnam war.

I guess you could consider the Fiji Infantry Regiment a mercenary unit when it's working for the UN as the UN pays countries for the use of its troops and equipment.

I don't see individuals from one NATO nation being classified as a mercenary since they paid to buy the home country and technical its Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Germany, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States against Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and the Soviet Union

West and East Germany if your playing V1

now where it gets interesting Pro Pact Nations like Albania, Cuba Mongolia, North Korea, Vietnam, and possibly Yugoslavia and maybe Libya.

For NATO you have nations like Australia, Austria, Finland? Ireland? New Zealand, South Korea, Switzerland? and Sweden? The UK also has a number of overseas territories as well. Heck whats to stop Fiji if the US foots the bill

You also have unknows like Japan, Israel, India, and Pakistan

and what about China?

I personally think that any pro-western back military like the polish free congress would be treated harshly by the Soviets, does matter on the status?

However, would the CIA try and recruit former soldiers from the PACT and Soviet army....why wouldn't they?

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Just some thoughts

Gurkhas are Mercenaries

No, they're not.

https://www.gurkhabde.com/gurkhas-an...erm-mercenary/

Protocol 1 of 1977 (not yet ratified by the United Kingdom) Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions’ contains the only internationally agreed definition of a ‘mercenary’ This definition excludes anyone who “is a member of the Armed Forces of a party to the conflict”, thereby effectively excluding Gurkhas in the British and Indian Armies.

Should you ever encounter one I'd recommend you don't tell him he's a mercenary. I understand it's something that can cause quite a bit of offence.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

No, they're not.

Should you ever encounter one I'd recommend you don't tell him he's a mercenary. I understand it's something that can cause quite a bit of offence.

ok but

mercenary: noun, a soldier who is paid by a foreign country to fight in its army: a soldier who will fight for any group or country that hires him

and I have meet Gurkhas soldiers and broke bread with them in Afghanistan in 2003.

There are Gurkha military units in the Nepalese, British and Indian armies and The Gurkha Contingent (GC) of the Singapore Police Force in addition to The Gurkha Reserve Unit (GRU) which is a special guard and elite shock-troop force in the Sultanate of Brunei.

it should also be noted that according to the International Law and the Control of Mercenaries and Private Military Companies by Christopher Kinsey, (26 June 2008) The Gurkhas meet many of the criteria found in Article 47 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions regarding mercenaries.


"Art 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) 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."

So draw your own conclusions

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

ok but

mercenary: noun, a soldier who is paid by a foreign country to fight in its army: a soldier who will fight for any group or country that hires him

and I have meet Gurkhas soldiers and broke bread with them in Afghanistan in 2003.

There are Gurkha military units in the Nepalese, British and Indian armies and The Gurkha Contingent (GC) of the Singapore Police Force in addition to The Gurkha Reserve Unit (GRU) which is a special guard and elite shock-troop force in the Sultanate of Brunei.

it should also be noted that according to the International Law and the Control of Mercenaries and Private Military Companies by Christopher Kinsey, (26 June 2008) The Gurkhas meet many of the criteria found in Article 47 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions regarding mercenaries.


"Art 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) 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."

So draw your own conclusions

Gurkhas are members of the armed forces of the United Kingdom (point e) and when deployed on active service ARE sent by a State which IS a party to the conflict (point f, assuming we're discussing operations where the British Army are / were deployed, e.g. Afghanistan, Falkland Islands, etc). They are NOT specially recruited locally or abroad specifically to fight in any conflict (point a) - some of them never leave garrison in the UK). And they get paid at standard British Army rates (point c) (sure, when on active service they'll get paid additional allowances, i.e. combat pay, but so will their British born counterparts).

Point b applies to every combatant in theatre, so is utterly pointless. Or rather, if you're going to try and use point b to make your point then you're going to have to call every single armed combatant in theatre a mercenary.

When it comes to the Indian Army I can't speak for point c, but comments about the lack of validity of points a, e, and f still apply.

I am drawing my own conclusions. Gurkhas are NOT mercenaries.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I am drawing my own conclusions. Gurkhas are NOT mercenaries.

cool

[Rainbow Six]

Actually, I should have read the full text of the relevant part of the Geneva Conventions before replying, not just the bullet points

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/appli...2563cd00434156

1804 The various conditions enumerated sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) are cumulative, and should consequently all be met for the person concerned to qualify as a mercenary.

So all six conditions need to be met. So the original author's assertion that Gurkhas meet 'many' of the criteria is pointless. They need to meet them all. Which they don't (a, c, e, and f don't apply)

Some formations, most of which have been mentioned here, also get a specific namecheck as NOT being mercenaries

Sub-paragraph (a) -- Being especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict

1805 This condition excludes volunteers who enter service on a permanent or long-lasting basis in a foreign army, whether as a result of a purely individual enlistment (French foreign Legion, Spanish Tercio) or an arrangement concluded by their national authorities (for example, the Nepalese Ghurkhas in India, the Swiss Guards of the Vatican).

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Just some thoughts

Gurkhas are Mercenaries
Both Spain and France have a Foreign Legion
The Vatican has the Swiss Guard

The Spanish Legion do not consider themselves mercenaries, even though they accept recruits from most former Spanish colonies; they are considered an integral part of the Spanish Armed Forces. The Gurkha are definitely NOT mercenaries; they are as much a part of the British Army as any other British unit. Internationally, the French Foreign Legion is kind of in a gray area, but France considers them part of her Armed Forces, and she seems to deploy them first in many circumstances.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

I guess you could consider the Fiji Infantry Regiment a mercenary unit when it's working for the UN as the UN pays countries for the use of its troops and equipment.

UN troops are NOT mercenaries. They are generally peacekeepers, and "suffer" under ROEs that would make most armed forces cry. They generally can't engage enemy troops without an order from "on high," even when shot at. When operating, they are operating under the UN's auspices, but are not mercenaries.