I was reading "The Lineages of Absolutist State", by Parry Anderson, and got me into thinking about the use of mercenary groups in national armys. Although this happened durring all history or at least, the majority of it, I can't ignore the feel that use of privaty military by nation-states is in rising again. I may be mistaken, but I would love to hear the opnion of Veeky Forums on this topic.
To make it clear, no, I don't think the use of mercenary companies is bad. But they so far had been doing some nasty things and I wonder if there is something on the past that can help us to deal with this suposed trend of the present.
>got me into thinking about the use of mercenary groups in national armys. During the heyday of mercenaries, there was no such thing as nation-states. >I can't ignore the feel that use of privaty military by nation-states is in rising again. Private Military Contractors =/= Mercenaries.
They're bodyguards at best.
Unlike in the age of swords and spears n shit, it is really hard for private entities to be at the same level as modern conventional armies. At the most all they can ever run are infantry forces.
Dominic Smith
I supposed you are right user, my brain just melted to make anacronistic comparison as such. The PMC have more of a support role I guess, because is easier to pay someone to guard a place while you focus your soldiers on the important stuff. >so the pmc's are like modern-day milicia? Either way, I wonder if the use of PMC's is getting sounds so vocal because there are people who make a fuzz about or because it truly is growing and stuff. From the things I saw, PMC's are said to being used in order to avoid dealing with legal issues that stardard soldiers would face. Tho I can't say for sure if the PMC's are so bad as some people portray it to be.
Mason Smith
>To make it clear, no, I don't think the use of mercenary companies is bad. But they were bad. Look at the thirty years war. Unpaid mercenaries looted villages, towns, and farms everywhere. They slaughtered the common people. There's no loyalty except to money.
Camden Campbell
True. I would say I don't think their use is bad (when you have the means to use it, of course), but the actions they take can be very bad. Most of all, I see that their use isen't bad as long as they don't go full looting the surroudings, while they just follow their contract and engage in battle wi the enemy forces and so on.
Aaron Collins
You might want to take a look at Machiavelli's views on the use of mercenaries. He was almost entirely against them because they did not take the same risks as regular soldiers and they would sometimes betray their employer. There's almost no connection of trust between the employer and mercenaries.
Blake Wood
My college paper was actually about PMCs. Well, covered them.
In many ways, they suffer the "mercenary" stigma largely because we live in an age where we are memed into nation-states where state-controlled military forces is the only legit military force. Making therefore a paramilitary bunch of guys-for-hire a jittery concept for many people, mostly in the west.
Largely, Security Contractors exist because a lot of entities want to do business in areas that are not exactly stable. Even governments as well, especially in the case of embassies.
From the things I saw, PMC's are said to being used in order to avoid dealing with legal issues that stardard soldiers would face. Using PMCs in an offensive manner is the surest way to a political disaster. Just consider the fact that when a few of em joined the US marines in a defensive battle on a US logistical installation in Iraq, that caused a stir in Washington.
Jeremiah Jackson
This is probably the one of the cooler historical figures to not appear in any movie or tv series, he was a lifelong mercenary in medieval times
