• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

mercenary's

Of course, there is a huge problem in recruiting mercenaries. For one, they owe no allegiance to anything other then money. And then you have the seperate issue if they operate overseas as to jurisdiction.

Modern military units work under a modified legal code of their home nation. The the US, it is the UCMJ. And it is a complete legal system, with lawyers, appeals processes, and procedures. This is something you simply can't do with mercenaries.

If they are say serving in Myopia, then what law do the fall under? Myopian Law, where they are at? The US, assuming that is the nation that the company was established in? And who decides what is a crime, and how is it going to be tried? The US military has contracts and oaths of enlistment. You can't do that with mercenaries.

Indentured Servitude and Slavery are illegal. So if a base is about to come under seige, there is no way to stop mercenaries from simply leaving. You can't force them to stay against their will. And you can't punish them if they decide to do so. Because companies can't have punitive rights under US law.
 

Mercenaries did not work out very well for the Roman Empire.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Mercenaries did not work out very well for the Roman Empire.
Click to expand...

Why don't you qualify that statement? In what ways, exactly, were mercenaries detrimental to the Roman Empire?
 
other said:
Why don't you qualify that statement? In what ways, exactly, were mercenaries detrimental to the Roman Empire?
Click to expand...

it was the mercenary leader Odoacer whom deposed the last Western Roman emperor.
 
spud_meister said:
it was the mercenary leader Odoacer whom deposed the last Western Roman emperor.
Click to expand...

So? Emperors were deposed all the time, often by family members or personal bodyguards. It's not like that was the reason for the Empire's collapse or anything. More often than not, the deposition of an emperor was a good thing for the Empire, most were horrible leaders.

The use of merecenaries and/or foreign auxiliaries to police frontiers probably allowed the Empire to survive for centuries longer than it would have otherwise.
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
i'm gettin' de ja vu from you LA :2razz:
Click to expand...

I was reiterating for those who may not have read my first post.I was reiterating for those who may not have read my first post.I was reiterating for those who may not have read my first post.I was reiterating for those who may not have read my first post.I was reiterating for those who may not have read my first post.I was reiterating for those who may not have read my first post.I was reiterating for those who may not have read my first post
ETC.
 

No, they hired the barbarians as mercenaries and they were destroyed by them. It's in all the history books. Even those printed in Texas.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
No, they hired the barbarians as mercenaries and they were destroyed by them. It's in all the history books. Even those printed in Texas.
Click to expand...

That simple huh?

Sorry, but Rome used barbarian mercenaries and aulxiliaries to protect themselves against barbarians, and brought some tribes into the fold by offering citizenship. By the time Alaric sacked Rome it had already been in decline for centuries, and by the time of the deposition of the last Emperor most "Romans" considered Constantinople to be the capital of what survived of the carved-up Empire. The collapse of the Empire was slow, and had more to do with economics and crappy leaders than barbarians.

The Roman Empire itself was an Empire of barbarians, foreigners, and conquered peoples, and had made use of mercenaries since the time it was a Republic.
 
Last edited:

Oh, really? I thought they were Italians.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Oh, really? I thought they were Italians.
Click to expand...

You think everyone in the entire Roman Empire was an Italian? Or even that everyone with Roman citizenship was an Italian? By the time you are talking about, the time of the decline, many of the emperors themselves were not even Italians.

Compared to the eastern provinces, Italy itself was practically a backwater by the 4th and 5th centuries AD.
 
Last edited:
LiberalAvenger said:
Mercenaries did not work out very well for the Roman Empire.
Click to expand...

I was actually thinking the exact same thing. In fact, eventually they are the ones that destroyed it.

But most in here would probably not get such classical references.
 
spud_meister said:
it was the mercenary leader Odoacer whom deposed the last Western Roman emperor.
Click to expand...


The problem was that as time went on, Rome became more and more dependent on Mercenaries. The famed "Roman Legions" became more and more of a shadow it it's former might, and the Mercenaries were doing the front line duties protecting the Empire.

And it is not hard to see where this would go. While they had always had Auxilliarys, that is all they were in the past. Now what was once an Auxilliary with a job little more then cannonfodder was now becomming an organized force. Instead of light horse, slingers or archers, they were now becomming the core of amulti-role army. And their commanders were becomming real generals.

And because of the "barbarians" now doing the security part, the Romans started to grow softer and more complacent. Less Romans joined the legions, and they were used less and less in conflicts. This led to further weakening. And the annual payments for service slowly grew until they were basically tribute to not attack Rome themselves.

But they still treated them like, well, Barbarians. And Romans being Romans, they would continue to try and screw them over at every turn. Eventually they started to tire of this, which led to the repeated sackings of Rome. Eventually the city was left a shell of it's former glory. The mercenary barbarians having destroyed what lasted for a thousand years.
 
It's important not to isolate the issue as "mercenaries destroyed Rome" though. The empire used them throughout their history, and it was internal weakness that both led Rome to hire entire tribes as foederati and allowed external tribes to plunder their cities. If not for the internal weakness the use of mercenaries was not a problem. The increasing need to use mercenaries was the problem, but also, in a sense, it extended the life of an Empire that could no longer defend itself on its own.
 
Last edited:

So, you are talking about before pizza? I love pizza with anchovies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…