Mercenaries in T2K: Thoughts and Questions

[B.T.]

Traders and merchants

There is yet another thing, that ran through my mind: In some way or another, trade works. There are even encounters in the rules, where the characters may run into an armed party of traders or merchants.
Let me explain: In my view of the world of T2k most of the waepon bearing folks would certainly wear some kind of cammies (Logically - wearing cammies helps not being spotted!). If you spot a group of uncertain origin, I don't think, that you can identify them by the colours of their "uniforms" - depending on the distance, off course. Even regular soldiers would certainly wear a mix of different cammie-patterns. So, if a trading party is on it's way, it will be guarded by people, that would certainly look like soldiers or militiamen (Well, or like marauders. I don't think, you could defenitely spot the difference!).
What do you think: How would be dealed with armed guards in a trading party Are these persons accepted as mercenaries or would they be seen as civilians, who just try to defend their lifes and goods A part of those guards could easily be mercenaries! Would they be hunted down and treated like partisans or similar groups

This has not really something to do with legal matters, but IMO it would be part of the reality in Europe.

How do you treat this "problem"

[HorseSoldier]

But finally there is the question of pre-war private military contractors (PMC). In my TW2000 campaign I imagined that South Africa's Executive Outcomes (EO) is not disbanded in 1998 and continues to operate throughout Africa, taking jobs from the South African government, the French, and whatever group can pay their rates.

No end to the Cold War likely means no end to Apartheid in South Africa, or at least that it didn't end the way it did in real life. That, in turn, means no Executive Outcomes, both because of the continued polarity of East vs West and because no handy supply of hard-as-a-coffin-nail veterans of 32 Battalion and other high end units to hop on any mission that promises to pay better than the new South African regime's generosity towards those who were especially effective keeping the old regime in power.

[Rainbow Six]

There is yet another thing, that ran through my mind: In some way or another, trade works. There are even encounters in the rules, where the characters may run into an armed party of traders or merchants.
Let me explain: In my view of the world of T2k most of the waepon bearing folks would certainly wear some kind of cammies (Logically - wearing cammies helps not being spotted!). If you spot a group of uncertain origin, I don't think, that you can identify them by the colours of their "uniforms" - depending on the distance, off course. Even regular soldiers would certainly wear a mix of different cammie-patterns. So, if a trading party is on it's way, it will be guarded by people, that would certainly look like soldiers or militiamen (Well, or like marauders. I don't think, you could defenitely spot the difference!).
What do you think: How would be dealed with armed guards in a trading party Are these persons accepted as mercenaries or would they be seen as civilians, who just try to defend their lifes and goods A part of those guards could easily be mercenaries! Would they be hunted down and treated like partisans or similar groups

This has not really something to do with legal matters, but IMO it would be part of the reality in Europe.

How do you treat this "problem"

Personally I would classify soldiers - especially foreign ones - who have been employed as caravan guards as mercenaries - they are selling their soldiering skills for benefits (not neccessarily money of course, payment could be in the form of food, water, somewhere to sleep). Given the state that central Europe is in by the year 2000 I think it's quite possible that merchants could employ soldiers from a number of different nationalities as escorts (including former adversaries). Personally, I don't think convoy guards are automatically going to be treated as hostiles (unless the entire merchant convoy is being treated with hostility, e.g. by a marauder group trying to steal their trade goods).

In my opinion armed civilians escorting the convoy would come under the same sort of classification as local militia. Again, I think reaction to them is going to be governed by the reaction to the convoy itself.

[Raellus]

Mercenaries, like this thread, die hard

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 %ocorcheurs- 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]

Just some thoughts

Gurkhas are Mercenaries

No, they're not.

https://www.gurkhabde.com/gurkhas-and-the-term-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 oeis 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.

[pmulcahy11b]

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]

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.

[rcaf_777]

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]

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]

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/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/ffc84b7639b26f93c12563cd00434156

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).

[LoneCollector1987]

I agree with what many wrote.
Mercenaries in T2k are paid in food, room, ammo, replacement parts, access to doctors and Gold (if I remember correctly this austrian Major of this polish Margrave demanded to be paid in Gold and the Margrave- who was described as paranoid or megalomaniac-distrusted him)

And to switch back and forth between Merc and Marauder: I disagree.
Once you crossed to border to lawlessness (beating people up, raping, shooting in cold blood) it will be very difficult to rein yourself in and behave like nice guys again.

[Targan]

And to switch back and forth between Merc and Marauder: I disagree.
Once you crossed to border to lawlessness (beating people up, raping, shooting in cold blood) it will be very difficult to rein yourself in and behave like nice guys again.

For as long as there have been soldiers there have been men and women who have done terrible, abhorrent things in war and have gone on to live quiet, peaceful lives. No doubt in many cases with the difficulties brought up by PTSD in the years and decades afterwards, but it happens. Post WWII Soviet Union had literally millions of ex-soldiers who had raped and murdered civilians in abundance during the march across Germany to Berlin, and most of them probably never raised a hand in anger again.

[The Zappster]

My father lived and worked in Uganda around the late 80's (iirc). Their was lots of violence around the country at the time. He said that if a military unit was in the area, then the peop!e who had the money would hire a group of the soldiers from the unit to protect themselves and their property from the rest of the soldiers who didn't get hired as protection. The others would go shooting the place up, stealing, burning and raping. And these were the government soldiers brought in to fight the rebels.