The first 200 people will get 20% off an annual membership to Imprint. Drop your doomscrolling habit here: imprintapp.com/SandRhoman_History_LIB_1 Stephen Morillo's new book: War and Conflict in the Middle Ages amzn.to/3YlbAux Full length interview with prof. Morillo [NO PAYWALL] www.patreon.com/posts/full-lenght-with-109090428?Link&
One correction about the Vietnam War. Only 25% of the troops sent to Vietnam were draftees . 2/3 of the forces in Vietnam were volunteers. A better example would be WW2 for the draftees to volunteers ratio. As 61.2% of US troops in WW2 were draftees aka Conscripts. So you used a war that had less draftees and more volunteers. Might want to do better research in the future instead of spreading the myth that US troops in Vietnam were a bunch of draftees or conscripts. The vast majority were in fact volunteers.
Blackwater was not tasked in the Gulf War, it was created fully five years after the Gulf War. However they did fight with US troops during the follow up Iraq War (second Gulf War but that should have been specified) but usually worked on their own.
This way of cutting between explanatory segments ending in a question, and an interviewed guest answering that question, is amazing. More like this in the future please!
Truly such a step up from expository the old 'history channel' that just dumps a historian who talks about the subject but not answering any real questions.
The "emeritus" in his title means he's effectively retired. So he's had a lifetime of building knowledge and is now working for fun on what he enjoys, rather than worrying about teaching and applying for grants.
Not so knowledgeable when it comes to the Vietnam war he used as an example for conscription or draftees fighting a war. Because in reality 2/3 of all US troops in Vietnam were volunteers. Aka only 25% were draftees that were sent to Vietnam. Most draftees ended up taking the place of volunteers soldiers in Europe who were transferred to Vietnam. If he wanted to use a real example WW2 would have been the one to use as 61.2% of US troops in WW2 were draftees.
@SeverusFelix um different sources for the two . But yeah only a quarter of the troops were draftees in Vietnam. The majority were volunteer soldier's. No necessary volunteered to go to Vietnam but enlisted voluntarily.
@@John2r1at 5:10, the narrator says "many of them did not want to be there" in reference to Vietnam. You say that at least 25% of the US personnel were there against their will. So what is your point?
My guess is that some king kept paying off the same raiders, at some point said king was threatened by another king, he hired the raiders to help him with the treating king, boom, mercenaries are now a thing. Awesome channel.
Paying off raiders; Paying off raiders to raid somewhere else; Paying raiders to raid someone specific: And paying raiders to raid someone specific while you are going to war with them, seem to me to just be a sliding scale that will end in mercenaries.
Been subscribed to you guys for a while and you're always great, glad you're getting to have interviews with experts like this it's a testament to your quality and thoroughness
some people in the comments saying this is in some way just business vs government really do not understand anything here. Governments literally hired mercs all the time. they hired mercs from within their own territory so there can't be business vs government because the government in almost all cases literally had the role of both the business and the government.
Without government there arguably would never have been mercenaries. People in the past that were so rich as to be able to afford any sizeable soldier group were always also some part of some government. And today people that are rich enough and could hire mercenaries don't do it (at least openly) because it makes them look bad.
I would say a simpler definition is that a mercenary is a soldier whose services are for sale. Not necessarily to the highest bidder, just that service is at least theoretically open to multiple potential buyers. This distinguishes a mercenary from other types of soldiers, whose services are owed, at least theoretically, to a specific governing body, or at least to an aspirational authority such as an organized rebellion.
Hi, I do believe that you are on the right track. Todays French Foreign Legion and the British Gurkha Regiments are a good example of government enlisting foreigners to supplement their own armies. The contracts for these foreigners has changed over the years as well as their pay in comparison to the national armies. These are the modern day mercenaries. The word mercenary could also be applied to foreigners in the US Armed forces who serve to get US citizenship at end of service. There are many different meanings to achieve recruitment besides pay. The main reason for recruiting females is not just equality, but the fact that the pool of physically fit men has shrunk, especially in the US. Cheers mate. Harera
I was thinking the sane thing. There are contractors in the civilian world who prefer one employer over others. Just like how some mercenaries prefer to work for one ruler, or nation, over others, and may work for that one nation exclusively. Just because they work for one employer does not mean their services are not for sale, they just chose who to sell them to.
That's a good one. US Army contracts, for example, are highly individual and money is a major factor, while nearly all soldiers have multiple motivations that are too complex to be easily categorized. The idea of exclusive versus non-exclusive availability seems like the best distinction between a mercenary or someone in a professional army. But that leaves it hard to define some of the PMCs that only sell their services to one government (most of the time, if not all of the time), of which there are quite a few. Much like with the question of "what is porn?" the answer is more "you know it when you see it" rather than a specific answer to "what is mercenary". Personally, I don't really see a problem with PMCs and mercenaries. If they weren't valuable then they wouldn't keep popping up and being used. Modern warfare is politically super complicated. 🤙
Good stuff, these sorts of videos showing the nuances of military power, political and economic structures, along with the blurry, fuzzy relations/dynamics between all are desperately needed, especially for mil his.
"Nubanda Mardune's only employer was Sargon of Akkad" This is not a good argument because (a) we don't actually know if that's true, we just don't have any evidence to the contrary yet, and (b) it's pretty clear that mercenaries can work for a single employer if they so choose, and that doesn't mean they aren't mercenaries.
Yes, it’s somewhat of an overstatement to make a point, so you're not entirely wrong. However, being nu.banda at this time (way before the old Babylonian period) suggest he really wasn't a mercenary. He is simply a man that happens to be in the historical record. Just because he was Amorite, questionably a foreigner at the time, does not suggest in any way that he was a mercenary. The only thing we really can conclude is that he was a captain in Sargon's service. Everything else in conjecture. It is worth noting though that Morillo is correct in being skeptical about the presence of mercenaries in this period. At best we can say that it might have been possible but there's pretty much 0 evidence that there were any mercenaries around at that time.
No, if you are a "merc" and choose to work solely for one Employer, you become pretty much an time contracted employee or when your contract has no time limit you just become an employee with a different work contract than the other employees of the State / Company. With that you become sozial embeded in the State and more often also politicaly because now you strife for an stable political environment where your contractor has the power as long as he can because he is the one and only paying you.
Thanks SR! Having paid little attention to your Site's output in recent years, I'm surprised & impressed at the careful, quite specific, almost scholarly approach I'm encountering tonight. While objectivity is a lot easier, even to attempt, while looking back several centuries, it is still welcome, & just might leak into more contemporary accounts ... , Still, to quote Hemingway, just about a century ago, & less than a decade after the 1st Global installment of hi-tek World War, followed by an even harsher, less understood 😢Pandemic than the current one, & still very much with H. Sapiens, "Isnt it pretty to think so?
Really interesting I am going to look up the original paper. I think you should have included the 4th category “political armies.” I imagine this would be something like the foreign volunteers in Ukraine, the Spanish civil war, Islamist causes, or European volunteers to the American and Greek revolutions. Would the first crusade fall under this category?
The first crusade is interesting because it's category depends on your perspective. In some ways it was a political army, since it was an international coalition fighting for a political goal. But from the Byzantine perspective, they were more or less mercenaries who went rogue, and some of the leaders were essentially waging a private war of conquest with mainly personal motives (Bohemond of Taranto and Baldwin of Edessa come to mind). And if you were rank and file, were you a pilgrim or a part of someone's feudal contingent? Getting into the weeds of these categories is interesting.
I think it's for SEO, since the name is infamous. Same as Wagner, it has kinda changed to being refered to as the orchestra/musicians in some circles. The video even showed the dead Prigozhin, probably to showcase the previous formation, before it was banned from Russia.
For me there are 4 groups of military: 1) religiously or honor-based - like you swear fealthy, to serve in the military in exchange for land or whatever. Your side is decided by your affiliation (and can change, but you are still not a mercenary). Mostly (semi-) professional soldiers 2) levies and conscripts: You fight for duty or mabye loot since there is a war going on, but you don't go around searching for it 3) professional soldiering: You are in for the pay, a concious decision (if maybe made out of lack of other perspectives) but in most cases you serve only one lord. Like the US army today. Or a PMC. 4) mercenaries. Fight here today, there tomorrow. Most important differentiator: You might fight tomorrow against the group you are today fighting for. Of course the borders are blurry, especially between the last 2 groups. Wagner might have gone against Putin but that alone does not make them mercenaries instead of PMC. That was more a strike, they didn't get paid by Ukraine to do it. On the other hand I don't think Blackwater would send it's troops against the US military in $CivilWarCountry So while both have a lot of mercenary characterstics I would put both of them still in 3)
@@steemlenn8797 the problem is we can always pull out more categories. As evidence here are a few more 5) idealistic volunteers: foreigners who offer service bc they believe in a cause. Think the Marquise de Lafayette serving in the continual army or lord Byron in the Greek revolution. International brigades in Spain or Islamist foreign fighters fall mostly fall into this category. People in this group might feel a duty towards broad cross national movements but they don’t owe political loyalty to the entity they fight for and can usually leave when they want. 6: Foreign allies, people’s whose community has agreed to provide military service to a greater power in exchange for political benefits and avoiding potential harms from refusing, such as having your villages burned down and everyone taken into slavery. Think of large parts of Hannibal’s army. Basically the closer one looks at history the harder it is to set definitive categories around motivations for service
The Wagner group did not rebel because they where not payed they rebelled because the government refused to get rid of Shoigu (of course they eventually did exactly that but thats another story)
(*paid, payed is something else.) Also, the annexation of the DPR and Luhansk, plus some changes in the law, made the use of Wagner illegal due to being in Russian territory. They were going to be pressed into service or dismissed. So Prigo used all the grievances to start his march. But yeah, they were paid on time, just not well supplied and about to be dismissed from Russian soil, which did end up happening by now.
I think the Varangian Guard comparisson falls short as the Norse could choose who they fought for as they often traveled specifically for the chance of riches and glory but weren't forced to nor felt like they had to. Example of this would be Harald Sigurdsson or Harald Hadrada as most English speakers know him as and many others returned to their native lands as proven by runestones and the oldest Swedish legal text in Latin Äldre Västgötalagen as it states clearly that as long you are staying in Greece to serve you may not inherit at all and there were other options for those who wanted to earn riches and glory as they could travel to England and serve Cnut The Great and his descendants as Thingmen and when contract was over go home.
1:55 the reason Americans weren't called mercenaries was so that we could deny funds to the soldiers and instead give the funds directly to the government who in turn used it to fund money into private businesses that they were heads of to make money themselves, this comes from my mother and father who were both in the military at the time of this event tldr government didn't give money to soldiers because not mercenaries so they could take themselves
A soldier is sworn to the King, or Realm. Mercenaries are sworn to a company. And soldiers have to serve even if their pay stops, they swear to serve, no mention of "only if I am being paid". Mercenaries will walk off if they don't get paid.
In theory but in practice if you have 500 mercs alongside 10000 regulars and in a campaign they suddenly say 'I quit' it might turn dangerous for them. Usually mercs quit before going on campaign since they can easily be charged with mutiny. Plus if their numbers are small they're not gonna fight it out. Nevermind the whole far from home in hostile lands part.
@@florinivan6907 Well, that is a theory, sure. And we could discuss it, or we could look to the historical evidence. Recently, we have seen a large example. And this video spoke of others. All armies through history have had desertion. It is a thing. It was frequent in the Greek and Chinese historical context. Mercenaries as a category have a bad name for switching sides or not committing to the battle, in every culture. The exceptions ARE exceptional and referred to as such. They excel in independent movement, when they decide to pick up and go it is as a company, and no different to any other movement. They have the cohesion of a single unit, and if they are going to leave, will not fight their way through the whole army, but simply move out of position, which will entail at least two separately commanded "divisions" (their flanks) moving to stop them. They have the element of surprise, their plan laid, and offer no attack unless the troops they pass attack. Honestly, even in electronic comms times, stopping them would be damned difficult if they had their wits about them, and that is what they were FAMOUS for. And finally, they fight for a living, you have hired them for that, and because your numbers are not enough for whatever fighting you have in prospect. A shrewd general won't try to stop them when they go to leave, what point would there be in that?. And what happened when the russians tried to stop Prigozhin ?. tl:dr you might be right, but I doubt that.
the nature of modern mercenary corporations is an example of corporate takeover of government. there would be immense legal implications if Wagner started serving NATO and Blackwater started serving Russia
I am surprised that Muhammad Ali Pasha and his troops did not get bring up as an example to make things clearer here. Yes, I know that this is not a video about how Muhammad Ali Pasha and his men gained political control over Egypt but what made them seized Egypt is the result of their employers, the Sublime Porte, failed to pay them as part of the original agreement. So they decided to seize Egypt, purge the de facto nobles that are the Mamluks and then tax the population while also reforming the country for the better to be similar to the ones in Europe as much as possible. Yes, peoples in nowadays can say that Muhammad Ali Pasha, his sons and their men are Albanians all they wanted. But back then, they were Osmanli like the others who lived in the lands of Sublime Ottoman State such as Egypt and the rest of the Balkans. So like the mercenaries with ties to certain governments and even happened to be born in those countries in nowadays, Muhammad Ali Pasha and his men can be considered as mercenaries because of their relationship with the Sublime Porte is simply just that of having a contract and they also have no relations with the Ottoman imperial military whatsoever. Am I correct about this?
In my opion there is no way to define what mercenaries are through all the ages. Like what is the line between feudal and modern state? It is a spectrum. In modern times however "mercenary" is defined pretty tightly in the UN mercenary convention.
It begins even before currency existed..the aztec were using weaker tribes to hunt down other tribes in exchanges for gifts/allowing them to survive/integrate. I think more "powerful" humans using weaker ones to do their dirty deeds is as old as the world..either trought manipulation of emotions..promises of wealth/ressources.
I mean the Aztecs are a late medieval state so they're millenia younger than the examples listed here, but I'm not sure coerced service counts as mercenary work. Isn't that more like conscription but on a larger scale?
I don't think you can adapt the meaning of mercenary to the tangible facts you have of a person because that is not how language works. Like most language it is not based on tangible facts about something, it is based on others perception of them. For instance, the US soldiers mentioned, if they are perceived by those around them to be motivated by financial gain, and are not particularly wedded to US society why not call them a true mercenary. I'm sure people in the US military have served with people who do not really care about US society, and would leave as soon as their service ends, so they might view them as a true mercenary, but have also served with people who are totally the opposite at the same time. These perceived differences separate people as either true mercenary, or volunteers rather than the diagram's placement in the middle, as far as how they would likely describe them to others. Basically, what I'm trying to get at is all you need to do to ascertain who was the first mercenary would be to find the first person who people around them perceived them as such. One historian's rationalization doesn't really amount to much linguistically until it has a dominating effect on the words people use to describe each other. So, really it would be better to just consult historical records which mention the idea, and trace it back to the earliest source.
What would the penal recruits of Wagner PMC be? They aren’t/weren’t forced to sign up, but the alternative was to rot in a cell. I don’t know if you can count a prisoner as being imbedded within a society, maybe it would depend on their origin and how long they’ve been behind bars
Y'all should've said Varangian not Praetorian because Praetorians are more like modern US soldiers given the examples citizen soldiers embedded in local politics but the Varangians weren't
Yes but they're not (at least officially) in a contract with a state. In fact, they're basically defined by being considered a criminal enterprise by the state they operate in, which would make it impossible to sign a contract of employment. (Not that this doesn't happen off the record, some cartells have pretty impressive militaries).
It being about a market economy is more than ridiculous, I suppose early modern mercenaries weren't mercenary at all because they often as not took their pay in loot.
Why would a 1st century AD Roman citizen join a war against a Celtic people on the fringes of the known world, aka Briattania? What would that people offer said soldier that he wouldn't already have access to that's closer to home and in a more amicable climate?
They didn't "take their pay in loot". Be freaking realistic. In 99% of cases in history they were going unpaid and resorting to banditry to survive, not "taking their pay in loot"
@kalliaslands9938 which then creates an economy, thanks to the slaves that work the land. The land prior to that was potentially 'worthless' without the labour
This is all about the definition, many of these supposed non-mercenaries were historically recognised as mercenaries, it didn't matter if they were part of a bodyguard or received payment in land. It was a know them when you see them type thing. Also it was often an insult towards foreigners on the other side, to both the Austrians and Ottomans the Serbs fighting for them were vassals and those fighting for the other were mercenaries or raiders.
sherden were never recognized as mercenaries. neither was nubanda mardune. these people were never fought of as mercenaries or paid hands. the empires for which they fought regarded them as their subjects... I mean, common, at least try to use your brain.
Todays French Foreign Legion and the British Gurkha Regiments are a good example of government enlisting foreigners to supplement their own armies. The contracts for these foreigners has changed over the years as well as their pay in comparison to the national armies. These are the modern day mercenaries. The word mercenary could also be applied to foreigners in the US Armed forces who serve to get US citizenship at end of service. There are many different meanings to achieve recruitment besides pay. The main reason for recruiting females is not just equality, but the fact that the pool of physically fit men has shrunk, especially in the US. Cheers mate. Harera
I've read a claim that French citizens are still technically barred from joining the foreign legion, but in practice everyone agrees to pretend that they're from French-speaking parts of Belgium or Switzerland.
I may be missing something here, But regular solders have a single type of contract with a state, (may be mandatory if conscripted), Mercenaries, or their group lead, have individual contracts with the state, or non-state organisation.
Isnt is obvious that mercenaries are soldiers employed by armies owned and operated by non government/state organizations which can be contracted or employed to fight in behalf of another entity?
A better way to differentiate the two would be to separate them between state owned and private military forces, with the regular army as state owned, and mercenries as private/independent forces
But that requires a distinction between "private" and "public" property. Which does not exist in all of history, in systems of personal rule (tyrants, kings, etc...) the two are often (but not always) exactly the same. Louis XIV claim of "L'etat, c'est moi" is precisely that. Your definition simply wouldn't make any sense in any pre-state society.
state owned? swiss mercs owned by vatican would be state owned on both ends. same for landsknechts, same for pretty much any mercenaries. states hired their own subjects as mercenaries. this makes 0 sense.
The original definition of a Mercenary is still the best; "A mercenary is a man who fights for WHOEVER pays him, whatever side they are on". Contentious, I know.
3:58 blackwater wasn't mercenary because they didn't do offensive operations, they did protective details (what I do) and site security Western mercenaries included: executive outcomes, I think Sandline international once, not many others Eastern: wagner Was azov mercenary? No, it was a volunteer battalion like the ypg, freikorps, rusisch, etc A mercenary is best defined as someone who performs offensive military Operations for pay outside of military or government policing services A pmc is defensive, a security company is defensive Notice wagner was not foreign to Russia, but it performed offensive operations for pay on behalf of its own government Sean McFate had a better definition, but the guy you're referencing is wrong, by his definition I'd be a mercenary but I don't do offensive operations. Show me an American version of wagner that actually exists and I'll hand them my resume immediately. I have no qualms with mercenarism but the usa is stuck on the annoying "rules based order" crap
For my claims about blackwater look up the book on the Bremmer Detail, you'll see what they actually do Which in my opinion is unfortunate underwhelming
13:12 the economic definition is incorrect, vikings were at times paid with land or things other than currency to fight Christian rival enemies, where vikings were also in a way politically and socially evolved Hence, again it's offensive operations performed by a non state actor for pay, not ideology
18:49 his errors seem to stem from the fact he is looking through everything in the lens of the post West Phalian order with nation states A mercenary doesn't need to be employed by a state, only a powerful entity to commit offensive operations, basically like a thug with military capabilities and professionalism
What is a government then? Let's consider the Swiss guard in the Vatican. Their employer is neither a true government nor is it a business. They are neither regular soldiers nor true mercenaries.
@QuantumHistorian No he's right. The only real delineation between mercenary and soldier is government controlled or not. Independant groups capable of warfare is not hard. The guest historian made it excessively complex because academia requires, "new and novel," ideas for Doctoral papers. It's a problem. - An academic.
@@benm5913 "Government controlled" is its own can of worms though. If the government is the buyer in a monopsony, then it de facto controls the seller! Not only that, but dividing between what is the government and what is not is hardly straight forward (if it has any meaning at all) in pre-state societies. If a feudal king calls his banners, are the knights who fight for one of his vassal counts controlled by the government or not? Is the king the government? Or the count? Are the king and the count part of an entity with the same government? Does the king control the count? Is the relationship between the king and count governmental or personal? See, if you look, there is real intricacy here when it comes to a definition that needs to apply to _all_ societies in _all_ of history, some of which are organised on radically different lines that concepts don't map easily from what to the other. Yes, _some_ academics _sometimes_ spin things needlessly or take crazy revisionist stances just for the sake of being different. This is not what's happening here. - An academic with published research that's been frequently cited
Mercenaries get unfairly mixed up with organized bands of assassins and brigands. Most just guard aid workers, commercial sites, agriculture, infrastructure, dignitaries visting dangerous places, etc. There can be bad mercenaries. But their can be bad government troops. The difference is, bad mercenaries are newsworthy as is outside the norm. Almost eveyone who follows global events csn name a mercenary outfit that did something illegal. But not many people can name a government military unit that did something illegal because it is such a common occurrence.
There's a lot of people who say that American soldiers are glorified mercenaries but many don't realize how little enlisted who actually do the fighting and hard work get paid like shit not until you hit non commissioned officer rank do you get paid the average salary. The mercenaries like blackwater have no allegiances other than money, we have to swear an oath to our country and abide by rules,give up many rights and fall under laws significantly more strict than normal civilian laws. It's simple if a government or country is in the regular military of said country that's different than a corporation who's whole business is that of war like blackwater makes them mercenaries
soldier is a government employee and a mercenary is a contractor, it's just this simple, since ancient times, people, please, don't make simpe things complicated
Are you referring to our language's long term semantics or our National Politics' current standard & starting point of rhetorical belligerence, some specific mix of both, or another framework?
Don't Mercenaries make for bad soldiers? They are in it for the money, and indesciplined. Didn't they lose the punic wars for Carthage? The US mercenaries committed heinous warcrimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then you had Russia's issue with the Wagner group.
You can't make broad generalisations like that for all of history. Mercenaries don't have a great track record once strong centralised states emerge (c.1800 in Europe), but before that they were often the most professional and disciplined soldiers around. Sure, Carthage lost to Rome, but they put up a hell of a fight over 3 wars spanning a century. The Gauls, Greeks, Macedonians, Illyrians, Seleucids, etc had proportionally fewer mercenaries in their armies, an lost a lot more badly. Not to go into the question of whether an allied army of a client tribe really counts as mercenaries in the first place...
Mercenaries are good when all you have are poorly trained and demoralized peasants who probably has never hit someone before and you cannot afford to sacrifice your few professionally trained knights, so you use money to buy off foreign warriors to fight for you. The role of mercenaries become rather obsolete once the concept of nation state comes into play. Most modern governments use "contractors" because 1) they are cheap 2) your forces are too spread out 3) you want plausible deniability and most importantly 4) most of them are reliable locals to not mess around with your actual troops (most Blackwaters are former US service people)
Carthage had been dependent on Mercs ever since Timoleon destroyed the Carthaginians in Sicily (Battle of the Crimissus), this dependence still worked well aside from when Carthage was attacked at home (such as by Agathocles, and famously by Scipio Africanus). Just because they didn't win, didn't mean the mercs performed badly.
A reminder that French forces aren't EU forces, they're French forces. And no, I wouldn't call them mercenaries because they're official government troops.
This is why most academics are so useless. Spending massive amounts of time arguing about completely futile things while getting paid by taxpayers. The whole discussion about what a mercenary is could have been rounded of within a minute. A mercenary is simply someone who isn't directly paid by a state or a government but by a private contractor. End of discussion. Move on to the actual topic please....
@@clintmoor422 Ah, another pretentious moron that doesn't understand the difference between meaningless drivel that adds 15 minutes of filler to a video and a meaningful academic debate about actual interesting historical controversies.
Some people do enjoy the rush. Others just do their job. "military contractors" often hire veterans because they don't have to train veterans unlike hiring civilians to do the job.
The first 200 people will get 20% off an annual membership to Imprint. Drop your doomscrolling habit here: imprintapp.com/SandRhoman_History_LIB_1
Stephen Morillo's new book: War and Conflict in the Middle Ages amzn.to/3YlbAux
Full length interview with prof. Morillo [NO PAYWALL] www.patreon.com/posts/full-lenght-with-109090428?Link&
One correction about the Vietnam War. Only 25% of the troops sent to Vietnam were draftees . 2/3 of the forces in Vietnam were volunteers. A better example would be WW2 for the draftees to volunteers ratio. As 61.2% of US troops in WW2 were draftees aka Conscripts. So you used a war that had less draftees and more volunteers. Might want to do better research in the future instead of spreading the myth that US troops in Vietnam were a bunch of draftees or conscripts. The vast majority were in fact volunteers.
Blackwater was not tasked in the Gulf War, it was created fully five years after the Gulf War. However they did fight with US troops during the follow up Iraq War (second Gulf War but that should have been specified) but usually worked on their own.
Offtopic, but you can kinda see their faces through the professor’s glasses.
This way of cutting between explanatory segments ending in a question, and an interviewed guest answering that question, is amazing. More like this in the future please!
Too bad the sound quality difference is so jarring.
Truly such a step up from expository the old 'history channel' that just dumps a historian who talks about the subject but not answering any real questions.
My wife told me to buy copper at Ea Nasirs, but i snuck away and watched this video, very nice
1/5 would not recommend -Nanni
You didn't miss anything.
- Nanni
You dodged a bullet
Yes, you are lucky, for I have been scammed by EA nasir
Ea Nasir is the last guy you want your copper from
never thought mercenaries would be on a spectrum
Everything is on a spectrum humans just want to organize things with neat boundaries and failing every time
Yelp review in Akkadian 1500BC
In 2024 everything is on a spectrum
this historian seems like a really chill dude (but also very knowledgeable!)
The "emeritus" in his title means he's effectively retired. So he's had a lifetime of building knowledge and is now working for fun on what he enjoys, rather than worrying about teaching and applying for grants.
Not so knowledgeable when it comes to the Vietnam war he used as an example for conscription or draftees fighting a war. Because in reality 2/3 of all US troops in Vietnam were volunteers. Aka only 25% were draftees that were sent to Vietnam. Most draftees ended up taking the place of volunteers soldiers in Europe who were transferred to Vietnam. If he wanted to use a real example WW2 would have been the one to use as 61.2% of US troops in WW2 were draftees.
@@John2r11/3 equals 25% ?
@SeverusFelix um different sources for the two . But yeah only a quarter of the troops were draftees in Vietnam. The majority were volunteer soldier's. No necessary volunteered to go to Vietnam but enlisted voluntarily.
@@John2r1at 5:10, the narrator says "many of them did not want to be there" in reference to Vietnam. You say that at least 25% of the US personnel were there against their will.
So what is your point?
"It's not just a job, it's an adventure. haha"
Oof, didn't expect anyone to throw hands like this only two minutes in.
My guess is that some king kept paying off the same raiders, at some point said king was threatened by another king, he hired the raiders to help him with the treating king, boom, mercenaries are now a thing. Awesome channel.
That was sort of the relationship of the Huns and Romans. A combination of paying off raiders, but also routinely hiring Hunnic mercenaries.
Paying off raiders;
Paying off raiders to raid somewhere else;
Paying raiders to raid someone specific:
And paying raiders to raid someone specific while you are going to war with them, seem to me to just be a sliding scale that will end in mercenaries.
The guest was really good at going through stuff and adding depth. Def need more like this/this guy
Been subscribed to you guys for a while and you're always great, glad you're getting to have interviews with experts like this it's a testament to your quality and thoroughness
The mix of entertainment and research in this video is on fleek 👌🏼 great job!
I am enjoying the mercenary themed videos a lot! This one is especially interesting and I love this new format. ❤
Very pleased to have found your channel! 😊
If you recently found this channel, you have a wealth of wonderful videos to review from.
some people in the comments saying this is in some way just business vs government really do not understand anything here. Governments literally hired mercs all the time. they hired mercs from within their own territory so there can't be business vs government because the government in almost all cases literally had the role of both the business and the government.
Without government there arguably would never have been mercenaries. People in the past that were so rich as to be able to afford any sizeable soldier group were always also some part of some government. And today people that are rich enough and could hire mercenaries don't do it (at least openly) because it makes them look bad.
Great video! Your channel is so underrated
I would say a simpler definition is that a mercenary is a soldier whose services are for sale. Not necessarily to the highest bidder, just that service is at least theoretically open to multiple potential buyers. This distinguishes a mercenary from other types of soldiers, whose services are owed, at least theoretically, to a specific governing body, or at least to an aspirational authority such as an organized rebellion.
Hi, I do believe that you are on the right track. Todays French Foreign Legion and the British Gurkha Regiments are a good example of government enlisting foreigners to supplement their own armies. The contracts for these foreigners has changed over the years as well as their pay in comparison to the national armies. These are the modern day mercenaries. The word mercenary could also be applied to foreigners in the US Armed forces who serve to get US citizenship at end of service. There are many different meanings to achieve recruitment besides pay. The main reason for recruiting females is not just equality, but the fact that the pool of physically fit men has shrunk, especially in the US. Cheers mate. Harera
I was thinking the sane thing. There are contractors in the civilian world who prefer one employer over others. Just like how some mercenaries prefer to work for one ruler, or nation, over others, and may work for that one nation exclusively. Just because they work for one employer does not mean their services are not for sale, they just chose who to sell them to.
That's a good one. US Army contracts, for example, are highly individual and money is a major factor, while nearly all soldiers have multiple motivations that are too complex to be easily categorized.
The idea of exclusive versus non-exclusive availability seems like the best distinction between a mercenary or someone in a professional army.
But that leaves it hard to define some of the PMCs that only sell their services to one government (most of the time, if not all of the time), of which there are quite a few.
Much like with the question of "what is porn?" the answer is more "you know it when you see it" rather than a specific answer to "what is mercenary".
Personally, I don't really see a problem with PMCs and mercenaries. If they weren't valuable then they wouldn't keep popping up and being used. Modern warfare is politically super complicated.
🤙
Damn the editing is amazing, keep up
Me: you guys are getting paid??
Fantastic interview!
Good stuff, these sorts of videos showing the nuances of military power, political and economic structures, along with the blurry, fuzzy relations/dynamics between all are desperately needed, especially for mil his.
This was awesome thank you
"Nubanda Mardune's only employer was Sargon of Akkad"
This is not a good argument because (a) we don't actually know if that's true, we just don't have any evidence to the contrary yet, and (b) it's pretty clear that mercenaries can work for a single employer if they so choose, and that doesn't mean they aren't mercenaries.
Yes, it’s somewhat of an overstatement to make a point, so you're not entirely wrong. However, being nu.banda at this time (way before the old Babylonian period) suggest he really wasn't a mercenary. He is simply a man that happens to be in the historical record. Just because he was Amorite, questionably a foreigner at the time, does not suggest in any way that he was a mercenary. The only thing we really can conclude is that he was a captain in Sargon's service. Everything else in conjecture. It is worth noting though that Morillo is correct in being skeptical about the presence of mercenaries in this period. At best we can say that it might have been possible but there's pretty much 0 evidence that there were any mercenaries around at that time.
No, if you are a "merc" and choose to work solely for one Employer, you become pretty much an time contracted employee or when your contract has no time limit you just become an employee with a different work contract than the other employees of the State / Company. With that you become sozial embeded in the State and more often also politicaly because now you strife for an stable political environment where your contractor has the power as long as he can because he is the one and only paying you.
@@marcpaulus6291 No, I disagree. Still a mercenary.
"Got a job for you, 621"
Thanks SR! Having paid little attention to your Site's output in recent years, I'm surprised & impressed at the careful, quite specific, almost scholarly approach I'm encountering tonight. While objectivity is a lot easier, even to attempt, while looking back several centuries, it is still welcome, & just might leak into more contemporary accounts ... , Still, to quote Hemingway, just about a century ago, & less than a decade after the 1st Global installment of hi-tek World War, followed by an even harsher, less understood 😢Pandemic than the current one, & still very much with H. Sapiens, "Isnt it pretty to think so?
I would say a mercenary is a soldier that the employer believes has no reason to fight for them except pay and personal desire to do so.
Could you do a video about the siege of Burg Eltz?
Very good video. Un saludo!
The way he worded it sounded like some are privateers of old.
This guy has turned into the mercenary channel😄 very cool
Really interesting I am going to look up the original paper. I think you should have included the 4th category “political armies.” I imagine this would be something like the foreign volunteers in Ukraine, the Spanish civil war, Islamist causes, or European volunteers to the American and Greek revolutions. Would the first crusade fall under this category?
The crusades were nothing more than christain greed and blood lust.
The first crusade is interesting because it's category depends on your perspective. In some ways it was a political army, since it was an international coalition fighting for a political goal. But from the Byzantine perspective, they were more or less mercenaries who went rogue, and some of the leaders were essentially waging a private war of conquest with mainly personal motives (Bohemond of Taranto and Baldwin of Edessa come to mind). And if you were rank and file, were you a pilgrim or a part of someone's feudal contingent? Getting into the weeds of these categories is interesting.
Where were the mercenaries baggage trains and families located?
Travelling together, or sequestered far away?
Small correction, Blackwater is called Academi nowadays
They have been for years. Kinda BAD research on this one.
I think it's for SEO, since the name is infamous. Same as Wagner, it has kinda changed to being refered to as the orchestra/musicians in some circles. The video even showed the dead Prigozhin, probably to showcase the previous formation, before it was banned from Russia.
Blackwatch is also a far more well-known name than Academi is.
Ask Professor Morillo about the Battle of Hastings.
Galm team reporting for duty
For me there are 4 groups of military:
1) religiously or honor-based - like you swear fealthy, to serve in the military in exchange for land or whatever. Your side is decided by your affiliation (and can change, but you are still not a mercenary). Mostly (semi-) professional soldiers
2) levies and conscripts: You fight for duty or mabye loot since there is a war going on, but you don't go around searching for it
3) professional soldiering: You are in for the pay, a concious decision (if maybe made out of lack of other perspectives) but in most cases you serve only one lord. Like the US army today. Or a PMC.
4) mercenaries. Fight here today, there tomorrow. Most important differentiator: You might fight tomorrow against the group you are today fighting for.
Of course the borders are blurry, especially between the last 2 groups. Wagner might have gone against Putin but that alone does not make them mercenaries instead of PMC. That was more a strike, they didn't get paid by Ukraine to do it.
On the other hand I don't think Blackwater would send it's troops against the US military in $CivilWarCountry
So while both have a lot of mercenary characterstics I would put both of them still in 3)
@@steemlenn8797 the problem is we can always pull out more categories. As evidence here are a few more
5) idealistic volunteers: foreigners who offer service bc they believe in a cause. Think the Marquise de Lafayette serving in the continual army or lord Byron in the Greek revolution. International brigades in Spain or Islamist foreign fighters fall mostly fall into this category. People in this group might feel a duty towards broad cross national movements but they don’t owe political loyalty to the entity they fight for and can usually leave when they want.
6: Foreign allies, people’s whose community has agreed to provide military service to a greater power in exchange for political benefits and avoiding potential harms from refusing, such as having your villages burned down and everyone taken into slavery. Think of large parts of Hannibal’s army.
Basically the closer one looks at history the harder it is to set definitive categories around motivations for service
The Wagner group did not rebel because they where not payed they rebelled because the government refused to get rid of Shoigu (of course they eventually did exactly that but thats another story)
(*paid, payed is something else.) Also, the annexation of the DPR and Luhansk, plus some changes in the law, made the use of Wagner illegal due to being in Russian territory. They were going to be pressed into service or dismissed. So Prigo used all the grievances to start his march. But yeah, they were paid on time, just not well supplied and about to be dismissed from Russian soil, which did end up happening by now.
I am sorry but do you know your video has been upload to another video website by a Chinese as his original?
no, can you post a link?
@@SandRhomanHistory
I cannot post links directly or my comment will disappear. I will comment at your twitter pinned post
Spartan artifacts just found in Qin Shi Huangs Buried city I heard.
Oh man scheisse die clips sind so Premium!
I think the Varangian Guard comparisson falls short as the Norse could choose who they fought for as they often traveled specifically for the chance of riches and glory but weren't forced to nor felt like they had to. Example of this would be Harald Sigurdsson or Harald Hadrada as most English speakers know him as and many others returned to their native lands as proven by runestones and the oldest Swedish legal text in Latin Äldre Västgötalagen as it states clearly that as long you are staying in Greece to serve you may not inherit at all and there were other options for those who wanted to earn riches and glory as they could travel to England and serve Cnut The Great and his descendants as Thingmen and when contract was over go home.
mercenary are very interesting
Very interesting
Could you guys make a video about mercenaries in south east Asia
Like china or Japan also with this Diagramm in mind ?
Do you pay a mercenary to protect an asset, or do you pay a mercenary to go away.
absolutely right.
1:55 the reason Americans weren't called mercenaries was so that we could deny funds to the soldiers and instead give the funds directly to the government who in turn used it to fund money into private businesses that they were heads of to make money themselves, this comes from my mother and father who were both in the military at the time of this event
tldr government didn't give money to soldiers because not mercenaries so they could take themselves
That's an easy answer. As soon as there were standing armies with professional full time soldiers. No boss wants to pay employees to not do their job
Most of the people who are labeled mercenaries are there not to fight but to train troops .
Shortly: our mercenaries are not mercenaries, only the mercenaries of the adversary are such..
sublime
A soldier is sworn to the King, or Realm. Mercenaries are sworn to a company.
And soldiers have to serve even if their pay stops, they swear to serve, no mention of "only if I am being paid".
Mercenaries will walk off if they don't get paid.
In theory but in practice if you have 500 mercs alongside 10000 regulars and in a campaign they suddenly say 'I quit' it might turn dangerous for them. Usually mercs quit before going on campaign since they can easily be charged with mutiny. Plus if their numbers are small they're not gonna fight it out. Nevermind the whole far from home in hostile lands part.
@@florinivan6907 Well, that is a theory, sure. And we could discuss it, or we could look to the historical evidence. Recently, we have seen a large example. And this video spoke of others.
All armies through history have had desertion. It is a thing. It was
frequent in the Greek and Chinese historical context.
Mercenaries as a category have a bad name for switching sides or not committing to the battle, in every culture. The exceptions ARE exceptional and referred to as such.
They excel in independent movement, when they decide to pick up and go it is as a company, and no different to any other movement.
They have the cohesion of a single unit, and if they are going to leave, will not fight their way through the whole army, but simply move out of position, which will entail at least two separately commanded "divisions" (their flanks) moving to stop them. They have the element of surprise, their plan laid, and offer no attack unless the troops they pass attack. Honestly, even in electronic comms times, stopping them would be damned difficult if they had their wits about them, and that is what they were FAMOUS for.
And finally, they fight for a living, you have hired them for that, and because your numbers are not enough for whatever fighting you have in prospect. A shrewd general won't try to stop them when they go to leave, what point would there be in that?.
And what happened when the russians tried to stop Prigozhin ?.
tl:dr you might be right, but I doubt that.
The market condition the historian characterized as having one buyer is a monopsony. When there is one seller, that is a monopoly.
He said one buyer and one seller. So what do you call that? monopsolopoly?
@@Dayvit78 Worst board game ever.
Which quadrant does a French Foreign Legionnaire fall in? What about Spanish Legion ?
the nature of modern mercenary corporations is an example of corporate takeover of government. there would be immense legal implications if Wagner started serving NATO and Blackwater started serving Russia
I think I prefer Free Company as not all mercenaries were foreigners.
Yes
I am surprised that Muhammad Ali Pasha and his troops did not get bring up as an example to make things clearer here. Yes, I know that this is not a video about how Muhammad Ali Pasha and his men gained political control over Egypt but what made them seized Egypt is the result of their employers, the Sublime Porte, failed to pay them as part of the original agreement. So they decided to seize Egypt, purge the de facto nobles that are the Mamluks and then tax the population while also reforming the country for the better to be similar to the ones in Europe as much as possible.
Yes, peoples in nowadays can say that Muhammad Ali Pasha, his sons and their men are Albanians all they wanted. But back then, they were Osmanli like the others who lived in the lands of Sublime Ottoman State such as Egypt and the rest of the Balkans. So like the mercenaries with ties to certain governments and even happened to be born in those countries in nowadays, Muhammad Ali Pasha and his men can be considered as mercenaries because of their relationship with the Sublime Porte is simply just that of having a contract and they also have no relations with the Ottoman imperial military whatsoever. Am I correct about this?
In my opion there is no way to define what mercenaries are through all the ages. Like what is the line between feudal and modern state? It is a spectrum.
In modern times however "mercenary" is defined pretty tightly in the UN mercenary convention.
This seems to commit the opposite sin by being too specific and only describing a very narrow contemporary use of the word
Kingdoms use to loan out armies were they mercenary?
Allies? Soldiers of allies.
I meant the king hired them out for money. The soldiers of the King had no say .
It was always a business! Robbing others or defense against being rob!
Bro just went on a mission to rewrite every dictionary on earth to try distance the US military from its war profiteering
I thought hopltites were compelled to serve as part of their duties to their city state.
That really depends upon which era of Greek history you're thinking of
It begins even before currency existed..the aztec were using weaker tribes to hunt down other tribes in exchanges for gifts/allowing them to survive/integrate. I think more "powerful" humans using weaker ones to do their dirty deeds is as old as the world..either trought manipulation of emotions..promises of wealth/ressources.
I mean the Aztecs are a late medieval state so they're millenia younger than the examples listed here, but I'm not sure coerced service counts as mercenary work. Isn't that more like conscription but on a larger scale?
I don't think you can adapt the meaning of mercenary to the tangible facts you have of a person because that is not how language works. Like most language it is not based on tangible facts about something, it is based on others perception of them. For instance, the US soldiers mentioned, if they are perceived by those around them to be motivated by financial gain, and are not particularly wedded to US society why not call them a true mercenary. I'm sure people in the US military have served with people who do not really care about US society, and would leave as soon as their service ends, so they might view them as a true mercenary, but have also served with people who are totally the opposite at the same time. These perceived differences separate people as either true mercenary, or volunteers rather than the diagram's placement in the middle, as far as how they would likely describe them to others. Basically, what I'm trying to get at is all you need to do to ascertain who was the first mercenary would be to find the first person who people around them perceived them as such. One historian's rationalization doesn't really amount to much linguistically until it has a dominating effect on the words people use to describe each other. So, really it would be better to just consult historical records which mention the idea, and trace it back to the earliest source.
Polish Magnates have entered the chat
What would the penal recruits of Wagner PMC be? They aren’t/weren’t forced to sign up, but the alternative was to rot in a cell. I don’t know if you can count a prisoner as being imbedded within a society, maybe it would depend on their origin and how long they’ve been behind bars
Y'all should've said Varangian not Praetorian because Praetorians are more like modern US soldiers given the examples citizen soldiers embedded in local politics but the Varangians weren't
What about mobsters and gangsters? They basically soldiers too.
Yes but they're not (at least officially) in a contract with a state. In fact, they're basically defined by being considered a criminal enterprise by the state they operate in, which would make it impossible to sign a contract of employment. (Not that this doesn't happen off the record, some cartells have pretty impressive militaries).
@@Oxtocoatl13 well hired by private individuals.
It being about a market economy is more than ridiculous, I suppose early modern mercenaries weren't mercenary at all because they often as not took their pay in loot.
Why would a 1st century AD Roman citizen join a war against a Celtic people on the fringes of the known world, aka Briattania? What would that people offer said soldier that he wouldn't already have access to that's closer to home and in a more amicable climate?
@@chrisbackhouse5730land on retirement would be the big reward
They didn't "take their pay in loot". Be freaking realistic. In 99% of cases in history they were going unpaid and resorting to banditry to survive, not "taking their pay in loot"
@@kalliaslands9938but land in the British Isles? That'd be a punishment!!!
@kalliaslands9938 which then creates an economy, thanks to the slaves that work the land. The land prior to that was potentially 'worthless' without the labour
This is all about the definition, many of these supposed non-mercenaries were historically recognised as mercenaries, it didn't matter if they were part of a bodyguard or received payment in land. It was a know them when you see them type thing. Also it was often an insult towards foreigners on the other side, to both the Austrians and Ottomans the Serbs fighting for them were vassals and those fighting for the other were mercenaries or raiders.
sherden were never recognized as mercenaries. neither was nubanda mardune. these people were never fought of as mercenaries or paid hands. the empires for which they fought regarded them as their subjects... I mean, common, at least try to use your brain.
And then there is the other profession where you earn a living on your back in poorly lit places - mechanic.
Todays French Foreign Legion and the British Gurkha Regiments are a good example of government enlisting foreigners to supplement their own armies. The contracts for these foreigners has changed over the years as well as their pay in comparison to the national armies. These are the modern day mercenaries. The word mercenary could also be applied to foreigners in the US Armed forces who serve to get US citizenship at end of service. There are many different meanings to achieve recruitment besides pay. The main reason for recruiting females is not just equality, but the fact that the pool of physically fit men has shrunk, especially in the US. Cheers mate. Harera
I've read a claim that French citizens are still technically barred from joining the foreign legion, but in practice everyone agrees to pretend that they're from French-speaking parts of Belgium or Switzerland.
I may be missing something here, But regular solders have a single type of contract with a state, (may be mandatory if conscripted), Mercenaries, or their group lead, have individual contracts with the state, or non-state organisation.
Isnt is obvious that mercenaries are soldiers employed by armies owned and operated by non government/state organizations which can be contracted or employed to fight in behalf of another entity?
no, most mercenaries were operated by governments... seriously, people never understand these videos?
@@clintmoor422 employed, yes, but direct operation? They are operated by their owner.
A better way to differentiate the two would be to separate them between state owned and private military forces, with the regular army as state owned, and mercenries as private/independent forces
But that requires a distinction between "private" and "public" property. Which does not exist in all of history, in systems of personal rule (tyrants, kings, etc...) the two are often (but not always) exactly the same. Louis XIV claim of "L'etat, c'est moi" is precisely that. Your definition simply wouldn't make any sense in any pre-state society.
state owned? swiss mercs owned by vatican would be state owned on both ends. same for landsknechts, same for pretty much any mercenaries. states hired their own subjects as mercenaries. this makes 0 sense.
This would also classify rebel and insurgent groups as mercenaries
The original definition of a Mercenary is still the best; "A mercenary is a man who fights for WHOEVER pays him, whatever side they are on". Contentious, I know.
ah, yes the "I'm not smart enough to understand nuance and complexity argument"
3:58 blackwater wasn't mercenary because they didn't do offensive operations, they did protective details (what I do) and site security
Western mercenaries included: executive outcomes, I think Sandline international once, not many others
Eastern: wagner
Was azov mercenary? No, it was a volunteer battalion like the ypg, freikorps, rusisch, etc
A mercenary is best defined as someone who performs offensive military Operations for pay outside of military or government policing services
A pmc is defensive, a security company is defensive
Notice wagner was not foreign to Russia, but it performed offensive operations for pay on behalf of its own government
Sean McFate had a better definition, but the guy you're referencing is wrong, by his definition I'd be a mercenary but I don't do offensive operations. Show me an American version of wagner that actually exists and I'll hand them my resume immediately. I have no qualms with mercenarism but the usa is stuck on the annoying "rules based order" crap
For my claims about blackwater look up the book on the Bremmer Detail, you'll see what they actually do
Which in my opinion is unfortunate underwhelming
13:12 the economic definition is incorrect, vikings were at times paid with land or things other than currency to fight Christian rival enemies, where vikings were also in a way politically and socially evolved
Hence, again it's offensive operations performed by a non state actor for pay, not ideology
18:49 his errors seem to stem from the fact he is looking through everything in the lens of the post West Phalian order with nation states
A mercenary doesn't need to be employed by a state, only a powerful entity to commit offensive operations, basically like a thug with military capabilities and professionalism
Better to wield a sword than a sickle.
It really isn't as complex as you make it sound.
Is it the Govt's military ?
Or is it a business ?
What is a government then? Let's consider the Swiss guard in the Vatican. Their employer is neither a true government nor is it a business. They are neither regular soldiers nor true mercenaries.
@@martinzihlmann822 Papapacy is a state
Ah yes the old "I don't know enough to see the complex details, therefore the complexity doesn't exist" line of argument.
@QuantumHistorian No he's right. The only real delineation between mercenary and soldier is government controlled or not. Independant groups capable of warfare is not hard. The guest historian made it excessively complex because academia requires, "new and novel," ideas for Doctoral papers. It's a problem.
- An academic.
@@benm5913 "Government controlled" is its own can of worms though. If the government is the buyer in a monopsony, then it de facto controls the seller! Not only that, but dividing between what is the government and what is not is hardly straight forward (if it has any meaning at all) in pre-state societies. If a feudal king calls his banners, are the knights who fight for one of his vassal counts controlled by the government or not? Is the king the government? Or the count? Are the king and the count part of an entity with the same government? Does the king control the count? Is the relationship between the king and count governmental or personal?
See, if you look, there is real intricacy here when it comes to a definition that needs to apply to _all_ societies in _all_ of history, some of which are organised on radically different lines that concepts don't map easily from what to the other. Yes, _some_ academics _sometimes_ spin things needlessly or take crazy revisionist stances just for the sake of being different. This is not what's happening here.
- An academic with published research that's been frequently cited
Mercenaries get unfairly mixed up with organized bands of assassins and brigands. Most just guard aid workers, commercial sites, agriculture, infrastructure, dignitaries visting dangerous places, etc.
There can be bad mercenaries. But their can be bad government troops. The difference is, bad mercenaries are newsworthy as is outside the norm. Almost eveyone who follows global events csn name a mercenary outfit that did something illegal. But not many people can name a government military unit that did something illegal because it is such a common occurrence.
Most of the Columbian Mercenaries are known for doing war crimes in Ukraine. Hence why they tend to not be captured alive.
There's a lot of people who say that American soldiers are glorified mercenaries but many don't realize how little enlisted who actually do the fighting and hard work get paid like shit not until you hit non commissioned officer rank do you get paid the average salary. The mercenaries like blackwater have no allegiances other than money, we have to swear an oath to our country and abide by rules,give up many rights and fall under laws significantly more strict than normal civilian laws. It's simple if a government or country is in the regular military of said country that's different than a corporation who's whole business is that of war like blackwater makes them mercenaries
personally i believe gourmet is oldest profession. "cavemen" could take a woman anytime they wanted, but couldn't cook unless taught.
soldier is a government employee and a mercenary is a contractor, it's just this simple, since ancient times, people, please, don't make simpe things complicated
Blackwater didn't exist during the gulf war, I'm assuming you meant OP Iraqi freedom?
Yep Blackwater was founded in 1996 by former Navy SEAL officer Erik Prince. Just to add some context to your statement.
I
Dont thinkbsou bra😂
The problem is false. Regular US troops are mercenary. Draftees are not.
Es isch erstunlich wie über all die mönet das english glich schlächt und monoton abgläse wird...
Are you referring to our language's long term semantics or our National Politics' current standard & starting point of rhetorical belligerence, some specific mix of both, or another framework?
Don't Mercenaries make for bad soldiers?
They are in it for the money, and indesciplined. Didn't they lose the punic wars for Carthage?
The US mercenaries committed heinous warcrimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Then you had Russia's issue with the Wagner group.
Mercenaries are good clutch units, for short-term engagements.
You can't make broad generalisations like that for all of history. Mercenaries don't have a great track record once strong centralised states emerge (c.1800 in Europe), but before that they were often the most professional and disciplined soldiers around. Sure, Carthage lost to Rome, but they put up a hell of a fight over 3 wars spanning a century. The Gauls, Greeks, Macedonians, Illyrians, Seleucids, etc had proportionally fewer mercenaries in their armies, an lost a lot more badly. Not to go into the question of whether an allied army of a client tribe really counts as mercenaries in the first place...
Mercenaries are good when all you have are poorly trained and demoralized peasants who probably has never hit someone before and you cannot afford to sacrifice your few professionally trained knights, so you use money to buy off foreign warriors to fight for you. The role of mercenaries become rather obsolete once the concept of nation state comes into play. Most modern governments use "contractors" because 1) they are cheap 2) your forces are too spread out 3) you want plausible deniability and most importantly 4) most of them are reliable locals to not mess around with your actual troops (most Blackwaters are former US service people)
The Landsknechte dominated European warfare for quiet some time. The carthaginians loosing has very little to do with the troops being mercenarys.
Carthage had been dependent on Mercs ever since Timoleon destroyed the Carthaginians in Sicily (Battle of the Crimissus), this dependence still worked well aside from when Carthage was attacked at home (such as by Agathocles, and famously by Scipio Africanus).
Just because they didn't win, didn't mean the mercs performed badly.
Many ways to say killer.
Are french or german troops in Mali mercenaries ?? Russians are. They dont hide about what they are doing.... but how about EU ??
A reminder that French forces aren't EU forces, they're French forces. And no, I wouldn't call them mercenaries because they're official government troops.
zzz
Meh
This is why most academics are so useless. Spending massive amounts of time arguing about completely futile things while getting paid by taxpayers. The whole discussion about what a mercenary is could have been rounded of within a minute. A mercenary is simply someone who isn't directly paid by a state or a government but by a private contractor. End of discussion. Move on to the actual topic please....
ah, another example of the "I'm not smart enough to understand nuance and complexity argument"
@@clintmoor422 Ah, another pretentious moron that doesn't understand the difference between meaningless drivel that adds 15 minutes of filler to a video and a meaningful academic debate about actual interesting historical controversies.
This is brutal to watch and listen to. I usually love your videos, but this professor makes the history extremely boring.
Agreed, this was just academic masturbation.
Some people do enjoy the rush. Others just do their job. "military contractors" often hire veterans because they don't have to train veterans unlike hiring civilians to do the job.