Print Page | Close Window

Famous mercenaries, adventurers...

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: GENERAL HISTORY
Forum Name: Persons
Forum Description: Military personalities, famous generals, theorists, warlords and individual warriors
URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=124338
Printed Date: 15 Oct 2019 at 20:22
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Famous mercenaries, adventurers...
Posted By: Majkes
Subject: Famous mercenaries, adventurers...
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2009 at 06:32

We had topics about armies, generals, commanders etc but I don't recall any subjest about most interesting historical figures i.e. see the topic. I mean here people like Cortez, Pizarro, Roger de Flor and others. Name Your favourite and his story. The less known the better. I will post mine in the future.




Replies:
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2009 at 06:48
I see you mentioned Roger de Flor.  He commanded an entire army of mercenaries who reaked havoc in Byzantium for decades.  The Catalan Company was originally hired by emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos.  They gave a good scare to the marauding Turks as was planned but later rebelled over late payments and supplies.


-------------
In Christ, loyal emperor and autocrat of the Romans.


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2009 at 07:06
There are so many Irish mercenaries that I'd loose count. Irish people have found a way into most conflicts 1600 ->

-------------
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2009 at 07:12
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor Byzantine Emperor wrote:

I see you mentioned Roger de Flor.  He commanded an entire army of mercenaries who reaked havoc in Byzantium for decades.  The Catalan Company was originally hired by emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos.  They gave a good scare to the marauding Turks as was planned but later rebelled over late payments and supplies.
 
They got pissed when Roger de Flor was killed by Alans. Before it seemed they will get on with Emperor. Nevertheles it can't be neglected that Roger de Flor had his own plans other that helping Byzantium to beat the Turks. Probably he planned to organize his own state on Byzantium territories.


Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2009 at 07:13
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

There are so many Irish mercenaries that I'd loose count. Irish people have found a way into most conflicts 1600 ->
 
The same can be said about Swiss, Scots and Germans.


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2009 at 07:18
Originally posted by Majkes Majkes wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

There are so many Irish mercenaries that I'd loose count. Irish people have found a way into most conflicts 1600 ->
 
The same can be said about Swiss, Scots and Germans.


You're probably right. Especially about the Scots. But the Germans were a different kettle of fish really, considering they weren't exactly unified until Bismark came along. Soldiers from Saxony may have served abroad but that mightn't have been the case with soldiers from Bavaria etc.

The thing about the Irish is that they could fight effectively against any power so long as it was not in their own country or against the English!


-------------
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2009 at 07:49
I could not but help note Parnell's little statement:
 
The thing about the Irish is that they could fight effectively against any power so long as it was not in their own country or against the English!
 
I can not help but muse that if such were so then the English certainly had to expend a lot of energy and manpower in periodic "reconquests". I can not but chuckle that only in Ireland could a descriptive such as "Old English" and the "New" ever make sense.
 
However, I do take issue in classifying expatriate Irishmen as "mercenaries". If such a label were correct then even the Duke of Berwick or the Chevalier de St. George, expatriate Scots, could be classified such. Now, if we try to close ranks here would not individuals behaving in the manner of the famed John Hawkwood and his famed White Company, with its lack of allegiance to anything but self interest--although the Florentines really liked him--, be representative of the ideal mercenary.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2009 at 08:15

Here are a couple of Swedish adventurous existences from the 17th century.

 

Fredrik Coyet (1615-1687) was a Swedish nobleman who went into dutch service. He was probably the first Swede that visited Japan where he worked 1647-1648 and 1651-1652. In the year 1656 he bacame the governor for the dutch colony Formosa. 1661 Ming loyalists under Zhen Chenggong (Koxinga) attacked Formosa and Coyet and his forces were forced to surrender 1662. As a punishment for losing Formosa the dutch exiled him and let him live on the Banda islands for twelve years.

1675 he obtained help from Sweden and regained his freedom. Coyet wrote a pamphlet where he accused  the Dutch East India Company for not having sent him any reinforcements when the Chinese attacked Formosa.

 

The first Swede who wrote an extensive travel account was Nils Mattson Kioping (1630-1667). He was a son of a priest and he enrolled into dutch service and left Holland in 1647 for a long journey to many countries. He visited Africa, Madagascar, East India (including Indonesia), China, Persia, Andaman Islands and other places and expreienced a lot of adventures.

Later he wrote a book about his journeys: Een reesa, som genom Asia, Africa och manga andra hedniska konungarijken sampt oeijar medh flijt ar forrattat aff Nils Matson Kjoeping (A Journey which through Asia, Africa and many other pagan kingdoms and islands is diligently conducted by Nils Mattson Kjoeping).

It is interesting to notice that he outside Formosa came in contact with Zhen Chenggong (Koxinga) who later would take Formosa from his countryman Fredrik Coyet.

After his experiences abroad he started to work for the Swedish Royal Navy in 1656 where he participated in a lot of naval action.

In the year 1667 he fell into a channel in Stockholm and drowned.

 

Otto Wilhelm Koenigsmark (1639-1688) was a Swedish-German military and nobleman. He bacame field-marshal 1676 and general governor over Pommern 1679. He led the Swedish defence of the Swedish lands in Germany during the Scanian war (1675-1679). Later he went into Venetian service and fought against the Turks. He became notorious for blowing up the Parthenon temple on Acropolis in Athens where the citys Ottoman defenders had their supply of gunpowder.



Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2009 at 08:44
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

I could not but help note Parnell's little statement:
 
The thing about the Irish is that they could fight effectively against any power so long as it was not in their own country or against the English!
 
I can not help but muse that if such were so then the English certainly had to expend a lot of energy and manpower in periodic "reconquests". I can not but chuckle that only in Ireland could a descriptive such as "Old English" and the "New" ever make sense.
 
However, I do take issue in classifying expatriate Irishmen as "mercenaries". If such a label were correct then even the Duke of Berwick or the Chevalier de St. George, expatriate Scots, could be classified such. Now, if we try to close ranks here would not individuals behaving in the manner of the famed John Hawkwood and his famed White Company, with its lack of allegiance to anything but self interest--although the Florentines really liked him--, be representative of the ideal mercenary.


Any of our uprisings were of a weak nature really. The problem was that the English never really tried to make Ireland a natural extension of England, like they did with Wales. Basically they came along, spewed up a class of settlers who either morphed into the native population (Normans) or established themselves in supremacy (Which they did fantastically with the restrictions in land ownership on Catholics during the Penal years) Either way, the periodic 'Irish' (And I am loathe to use that term, since it doesn't effectively distinguish between Gaelic families, Norman families, Anglo families and mixed families...) rebellions were pathetic shows really. The only one of any real importance was O'Neills rebellion, and that ended with the flight of the Gaelic nobility and the destruction of any dream of a Gaelic state in Ireland ever again. The confederate wars were simply too confusing to be classed as a rebellion - were they a rebellion of loyalty or disloyalty? I certainly haven't a clue. Very confusing period of Irish history.

Effectively any reconquest the English organised was of an extremely haphazard and reluctant manner. The exception of course being Cromwells invasion - though even that was far from ever being a 'settlement of the Irish problem'. They relied too much on repressive laws and elevating a social class of anglo-Irish into political power.


-------------
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2009 at 09:16
Otto Wilhem Koenigsmark did not blow up the Parthenon, the hit was accomplished by a lieutenant of artillery from Lunenberg. Besides, the commander of Venetian forces was Francesco Morosini and not Koenigsmark:
 
http://www.anagnosis.gr/index.php?pageID=217&la=eng - http://www.anagnosis.gr/index.php?pageID=217&la=eng


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2009 at 00:44
It seems that Morosini and Koenigsmark worked toghether on that one. Field Marshal Koenigsmark seems to have had the responsibility for the siege of Athens. He was also the commander of the Venetians army with the consent of the Swedish king Carl XI who had lent his (Koenigsmarks) services to the Venetians.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2009 at 01:03

How the hell did anyone forget to mention Wallentstein, the greatest mercenary of them all.

 

 Al-Jassas



Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2009 at 01:52
Gregor MacGregor, who captured an island off of Florida from the Spanish with only fifty-five men. Helped Bolivar and other revolutionaries. Also made up a fictional South American nation to extort money. Big smile


-------------
Pittsburgh, City of Champions


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2009 at 03:36
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

How the hell did anyone forget to mention Wallentstein, the greatest mercenary of them all.

 

 Al-Jassas



Was Wallenstein a mercenary? I always viewed him as more of an adventurer - a mercenary acts solely in the interests of financial reward.


-------------
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Posted By: Wulfstan
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2009 at 05:48
Two Englishmen who found fame and fortune as mercenaries during the first half of the Hundred Years War were Hugh Calverley and Robert Knolles.
 
Calveley, a minor landowner from Cheshire, fought in the major campaigns of that war from 1348 onwards, mingled with princes, amassed a huge fortune and ended up marrying an Aragonese princess. A couple of decades earlier, it would hae been unheard off for such a minor knight to atain such a destiny.
 
He, however, was eclipsed by Robert Knolles who was a professional soldier also from Cheshire. He began his career as an archer, but eventually commanded his own "Great Company" which ravaged large parts of France. The most feared English captain of his generation, he died a very rich man. 


Posted By: Craze_b0i
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2009 at 07:40
It is interesting how we are seeing a resurgence in the West's use of mercenaries in today's conflicts. In Iraq for example 'private security' forces make up the 2nd largest military group, 2nd only to the US Army.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2009 at 11:24
An honourable mention also deserves to go to John Hawkwood, the English mercenary captain in Italy who proved himself to be a relatively honourable soldier of fortune by the standards of the day.


Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2009 at 14:54
Well seeing as its not just strictly mercenaries but those one could reasonably call "adventurers" that we are mentioning here, the likes of Bohemund and Baldwin of the first crusade should count, then of course there are mercenary captains like Xanthippus the spartan leader widely credited for orchestrating Carthage's victory at Tunis and while we are on Greeks whose names start with X Xenophon and the ten thousand should be noted. I know I just mentioned Bohemund but I imagine one could reasonably call the whole first generation of the Hauteville family to enter Italy military adventurers, if thats too much of a stretch then William "iron arm" (he acquired this name by killing the emir of Syracuse in single combat) Hauteville was certainly a mercenary, serving with the Byzantines in Sicily under the command of George Maniaces, also serving in this campaign with him was the famed miltary adventurer Harald Hardraada who at this time headed the Varangian guard (as an aside I would hate to run into these three men in a dark alley).

Then there's figures like Francis Drake, Hayreddin Barbarossa and other prominent corsairs and privateers, not quite mercenaries nor just pirates but definitly military adventurers.

The case of Quintus Sertorius is an interesting one, after being expelled from his governorship in Iberia for the first time, he and the remnants of his forces wandered around the western edge of the mediterranean, getting involved in local disputes and allying themeselves with Pirates, before returning to Iberia on the request of the fierce Lusitanian tribesman to lead them in revolt against Sulla's regime, where he was eventually joined by more Roman opponents of said regime forming a very interesting coalition. His situation appears to have been rather unique for a Roman commander, He even nominally allied with Mithridates against his opponents in Rome, yet he was certainly no mercenary and always thought of himself as a patriotic Roman opposed to Sulla and his cronies rather than to the state itself. To me he is one of history's most fascinating military adventurers.

Regards, Praetor.


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 14 Dec 2009 at 12:25
Originally posted by Majkes Majkes wrote:

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor Byzantine Emperor wrote:

I see you mentioned Roger de Flor.  He commanded an entire army of mercenaries who reaked havoc in Byzantium for decades.  The Catalan Company was originally hired by emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos.  They gave a good scare to the marauding Turks as was planned but later rebelled over late payments and supplies.
 
They got pissed when Roger de Flor was killed by Alans. Before it seemed they will get on with Emperor. Nevertheles it can't be neglected that Roger de Flor had his own plans other that helping Byzantium to beat the Turks. Probably he planned to organize his own state on Byzantium territories.
 
True, and there is some suspicion that Andronikos himself had a hand in having him killed.  Naturally, Roger de Flor did have other plans than just helping the Byzantine emperor with his "Turkish problem."  Don't all mercenaries keep an eye to personal ambitions beyond what they are hired to do?  I am sure it was quite apparent to Roger and other mercenary captains in the region that quite a nice living could be carved out in Greece upon seeing some of the Latin duchies left over from the "Latin Empire."  Some of them lasted well into the early modern period.
 


-------------
In Christ, loyal emperor and autocrat of the Romans.


Posted By: Harburs
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2009 at 05:00
Sinbad-e-Bahri is a famous medieval Middle Eastern adventurer.< id="gwProxy" ="">< ="jsCall;" id="jsProxy" ="">


-------------
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.


Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 08:42
Should we talk about the Elephant in the room? You know, the Gurkha. The British mercenaries from Nepal that in this day and age are hired by the British to do their fighting for them. Of course now that they have near financial parity with a Brit soldier, his days are numbered.

-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08 Mar 2012 at 00:04
Talk about them all you like, but at least try for some historical accuracy.
 
The Gurkhas are not a phenomenon of 'this day and age'. And they weren't and aren't hired by the British to 'do their fighting for them' but as specialists with their own complementary skills. The same is true of their use currently by the Indian Army, the Malaysian Army, and the US Navy. 
 
I assume when you mention 'near financial parity' you are getting confused with recent UK legislation making all Gurkhas entitled to pensions and UK citizenship on leaving, whereas before (as a consequence of the 1976 nationaity act) there were differing regulations for different groups.
 
But there's no real sign of the use of Gurkhas changing due to UK action. In fact nowadays even Gurkha women have a place in the Army (though not combat units).  However it isn't clear whether the new Communist regime in Nepal will continue to allow Nepalese to serve in other armies.  


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 07:21

Quote  
The Gurkhas are not a phenomenon of 'this day and age'. And they weren't and aren't hired by the British to 'do their fighting for them' but as specialists with their own complementary skills. The same is true of their use currently by the Indian Army, the Malaysian Army, and the US Navy. 
Awe get off it Graham. I don't care how long you have been hiring them. Yeah they are specialists alright. Like severing the heads of dead Afghans. They are with the Indian army because the Brits dumped them. Just like the lot you have left will also be dumped with the upcoming cuts of whats left of your military.
Quote  
I assume when you mention 'near financial parity' you are getting confused with recent UK legislation making all Gurkhas entitled to pensions and UK citizenship on leaving, whereas before (as a consequence of the 1976 nationaity act) there were differing regulations for different groups.
Yeah, and they can thank Mrs lumley for that much.
 
Quote
But there's no real sign of the use of Gurkhas changing due to UK action. In fact nowadays even Gurkha women have a place in the Army (though not combat units).  However it isn't clear whether the new Communist regime in Nepal will continue to allow Nepalese to serve in other armies.
Gurkhas changing? where are getting all these red herrings. They are nothing but hired mercenaries. Nothing more and nothing less.  If it walks like a Duck, and squawks like a Duck. Guess what?



-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 09:30
GCLE: Gurkhas in the U.S. Navy?  I believe you have erred. The Navy once had a program to recruit Filipino Mess Stewards, which I believe is no longer in existence. But Gurkhas? Any person admitted to the U.S. for purposes of immigration has the right to join the U.S. Armed Forces, and is subject to the Draft when such is in effect. You'll find a lot of foreigners wearing a U.S. uniform, though native born Americans outnumber them.

As for Parnell's Irish and Scots, I hesitate to qualify them as mercenaries. The O'Niell wars sent them to a Continent whose kingdoms had yet to forge an nationalist identity. The majority of French infantry of the period was foreign: Swiss (the oldest serving foreigners in French service), Scots (1 Regiment), Irish (3 Regiments, The Dillons, were later given to Spain), Germans (to include Bavarians, the 94th Infantry Regiment (Royal Bavaria) is an example), Poles, etc. Spain was a bit more careful. Their Tercios (later regiments) were either Spanish (to include Spanish from the Americas, such as Garcilaso de la Vega, "El Inca", or made up of subjects to Spanish Kings from outside Spain (Italians, Dutch, Germans, or Austrians). When the Irish lords arrived in Spain, their men were formed into two regiments, with the Dillon later making up the third. While these troops are often referred to as 'mercenary', the term is somewhat simplistic. The Irish in both Spain and France intended to fight the British in some future war. And their presence ensured an Irish option would always be considered when conflict came. Of course, as they intermarried with the locals, many drifted into the population as civilians leaving only an Irish family name as evidence of their presence. El Morro castle in San Juan, Puerto Rico, was largely built by Irish Engineer, Colonel Tomas O'Daly, whose son, Field Marshall Demetrio O'Daly de la Puente, served in Spain in the late 18th early 19th Century, and later lived in exile in nearby St. Thomas, VI. Irish descendants in Nantes, France became involved in the slave trade, and some Franco-Irish later showed up in Indochina. Among the first naval officers killed in Indochina in 1946 was Naval Lieutenant Dugue-MacCarthy, born in Bien Hoa, Vietnam.  

The real point is that the Irish, and many others in foreign service, were either serving causes of their own, or exiled and engaged in the only profession they could find employment in. They were neither mercenaries nor true adventurers.


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 01:16
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

GCLE: Gurkhas in the U.S. Navy?  I believe you have erred. The Navy once had a program to recruit Filipino Mess Stewards, which I believe is no longer in existence. But Gurkhas? Any person admitted to the U.S. for purposes of immigration has the right to join the U.S. Armed Forces, and is subject to the Draft when such is in effect. You'll find a lot of foreigners wearing a U.S. uniform, though native born Americans outnumber them.
Hey, I was surprised to find it too. As I understand it they are/were employed to guard the naval bases at Bahrain.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-who-are-the-gurkhas-and-what-is-their-contribution-to-military-history-1676354.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-who-are-the-gurkhas-and-what-is-their-contribution-to-military-history-1676354.html
and indeed passim on the web.
 
If they weren't employed in the US I don't know what effect that would have on immigration status.

Quote The real point is that the Irish, and many others in foreign service, were either serving causes of their own, or exiled and engaged in the only profession they could find employment in. They were neither mercenaries nor true adventurers.
 I don't see why it being a refuge from unemployment would stop them being called mercenaries. Anyway the point with the Gurkhas was largely that they had no decent prospects at home.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 01:26
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


Quote  
The Gurkhas are not a phenomenon of 'this day and age'. And they weren't and aren't hired by the British to 'do their fighting for them' but as specialists with their own complementary skills. The same is true of their use currently by the Indian Army, the Malaysian Army, and the US Navy. 
Awe get off it Graham. I don't care how long you have been hiring them. Yeah they are specialists alright. Like severing the heads of dead Afghans. They are with the Indian army because the Brits dumped them. Just like the lot you have left will also be dumped with the upcoming cuts of whats left of your military.
At independence, the serving Gurkhas were asked whether they wanted to serve with the British army or the Indian army. The majority of them chose the Indian army and the rest stayed with Britain. Either the Indian army or the British army would happily have taken all of them. No-one 'dumped' anyone.
Quote  
Quote
I assume when you mention 'near financial parity' you are getting confused with recent UK legislation making all Gurkhas entitled to pensions and UK citizenship on leaving, whereas before (as a consequence of the 1976 nationaity act) there were differing regulations for different groups.
Yeah, and they can thank Mrs lumley for that much.
I assume you mean Mrs Barlow. I notice you accept you were confused about the 'financial parity' too, as well as the absolutely fabulous Joanna.
 
Quote
Quote
But there's no real sign of the use of Gurkhas changing due to UK action. In fact nowadays even Gurkha women have a place in the Army (though not combat units).  However it isn't clear whether the new Communist regime in Nepal will continue to allow Nepalese to serve in other armies.
Gurkhas changing? where are getting all these red herrings. They are nothing but hired mercenaries. Nothing more and nothing less.  If it walks like a Duck, and squawks like a Duck. Guess what?
You didn't read the post you're replying too. I said there was no sign of the use of Gurkhas changing because of the UK, not no sign of the Gurkhas changing. You were the one that said the UK was getting ready to dump them.
Of course they're hired. No-one disputes that. It's everything else you said that was woefully wrong.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 03:46
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

GCLE: Gurkhas in the U.S. Navy?  I believe you have erred. The Navy once had a program to recruit Filipino Mess Stewards, which I believe is no longer in existence. But Gurkhas? Any person admitted to the U.S. for purposes of immigration has the right to join the U.S. Armed Forces, and is subject to the Draft when such is in effect. You'll find a lot of foreigners wearing a U.S. uniform, though native born Americans outnumber them.

Hey, I was surprised to find it too. As I understand it they are/were employed to guard the naval bases at Bahrain.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-who-are-the-gurkhas-and-what-is-their-contribution-to-military-history-1676354.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-who-are-the-gurkhas-and-what-is-their-contribution-to-military-history-1676354.html
and indeed passim on the web.


Can you believe this guy. We even hire civilians to guard our bases here in CONUS. Are you calling them Mercenaries. You hire the little bad assed Nepalese to do your fighting for you because they are good, and cheap.
 
Quote
If they weren't employed in the US I don't know what effect that would have on immigration status.

None, they are not eligible.

Quote The real point is that the Irish, and many others in foreign service, were either serving causes of their own, or exiled and engaged in the only profession they could find employment in. They were neither mercenaries nor true adventurers.
 I don't see why it being a refuge from unemployment would stop them being called mercenaries. Anyway the point with the Gurkhas was largely that they had no decent prospects at home.


-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.


Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 04:02
Quote
I assume when you mention 'near financial parity' you are getting confused with recent UK legislation making all Gurkhas entitled to pensions and UK citizenship on leaving, whereas before (as a consequence of the 1976 nationaity act) there were differing regulations for different groups.

Yeah, and they can thank Mrs lumley for that much.
Quote
I assume you mean Mrs Barlow. I notice you accept you were confused about the 'financial parity' too, as well as the absolutely fabulous Joanna.
That's right Graham, I'm so confused. What the heck does pensions have to do with finance. Silly me. It's fortunate I have you around to keep me right.
"The actress, and daughter of Gurkha corps major James Lumley, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Lumley" rel="nofollow - Joanna Lumley , who had highlighted the treatment of the Gurkhas and campaigned for their rights, commented: "This is the welcome we have always longed to give". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha#cite_note-bbc_806-55" rel="nofollow - [56]

A charity, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha_Welfare_Trust" rel="nofollow - Gurkha Welfare Trust , provides aid to alleviate hardship and distress among Gurkha ex-servicemen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha#cite_note-FOOTNOTEParker2005379.E2.80.93383-56" rel="nofollow - [57]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha



Quote
Gurkhas changing? where are getting all these red herrings. They are nothing but hired mercenaries. Nothing more and nothing less.  If it walks like a Duck, and squawks like a Duck. Guess what?

You didn't read the post you're replying too. I said there was no sign of the use of Gurkhas changing because of the UK, not no sign of the Gurkhas changing. You were the one that said the UK was getting ready to dump them.
Of course they're hired. No-one disputes that. It's everything else you said that was woefully wrong.

Gurkhas to bear brunt of military spending cuts again
The Gurkhas are once again expected to suffer the most when the latest round of Armed Forces redundancies are announced next week. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/9011595/Gurkhas-to-bear-brunt-of-military-spending-cuts-again.html

Do you ever get anything correct.




-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 06:30
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

GCLE: Gurkhas in the U.S. Navy?  I believe you have erred. The Navy once had a program to recruit Filipino Mess Stewards, which I believe is no longer in existence. But Gurkhas? Any person admitted to the U.S. for purposes of immigration has the right to join the U.S. Armed Forces, and is subject to the Draft when such is in effect. You'll find a lot of foreigners wearing a U.S. uniform, though native born Americans outnumber them.

Hey, I was surprised to find it too. As I understand it they are/were employed to guard the naval bases at Bahrain.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-who-are-the-gurkhas-and-what-is-their-contribution-to-military-history-1676354.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-who-are-the-gurkhas-and-what-is-their-contribution-to-military-history-1676354.html
and indeed passim on the web.


Can you believe this guy.
If you can't, show me some evidence that what I said wasn't true.
Quote
We even hire civilians to guard our bases here in CONUS. Are you calling them Mercenaries. You hire the little bad assed Nepalese to do your fighting for you because they are good, and cheap.
I'd call them mercenaries if (a) they carry arms and (b) they are aliens, or at least not 'US persons' as the IRS calls them.
 
The Nepales are hired (as I poionted out by several armies, not just the UK) because they are good, certainly. However they don't come cheap. Compared to UK soldiers anyway - US troops are paid so much more than anyone else that I wouldn't be surprised if Gurkhas weren't cheap compared to them.  


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 06:47
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Quote
I assume when you mention 'near financial parity' you are getting confused with recent UK legislation making all Gurkhas entitled to pensions and UK citizenship on leaving, whereas before (as a consequence of the 1976 nationaity act) there were differing regulations for different groups.

Yeah, and they can thank Mrs lumley for that much.
Quote
I assume you mean Mrs Barlow. I notice you accept you were confused about the 'financial parity' too, as well as the absolutely fabulous Joanna.
That's right Graham, I'm so confused. What the heck does pensions have to do with finance. Silly me. It's fortunate I have you around to keep me right.
What you had wrong was not realising the problem arose because of changes in the terms of service over the years, nothing to do with difference between UK soldiers and Gurkhas. It's the word 'parity' that was wrongly used.
Quote
"The actress, and daughter of Gurkha corps major James Lumley, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Lumley" rel="nofollow - Joanna Lumley , who had highlighted the treatment of the Gurkhas and campaigned for their rights, commented: "This is the welcome we have always longed to give". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha#cite_note-bbc_806-55" rel="nofollow - [56]
 
So what? She is still Mrs Barlow, not Mrs Lumley, which is what you called her. As I said you were confused again. It now looks as though you didn't have any idea of who she even is.
Quote
A charity, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha_Welfare_Trust" rel="nofollow - Gurkha Welfare Trust , provides aid to alleviate hardship and distress among Gurkha ex-servicemen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha#cite_note-FOOTNOTEParker2005379.E2.80.93383-56" rel="nofollow - [57]

And plenty of charities help all sorts of unfortunate people. Are you arguing that poor people shouldn't be looked after? Surely even in Texas you have charities for the people whocan't even getjobs at Walmart?
Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha

Quote
Gurkhas changing? where are getting all these red herrings. They are nothing but hired mercenaries. Nothing more and nothing less.  If it walks like a Duck, and squawks like a Duck. Guess what?

You didn't read the post you're replying too. I said there was no sign of the use of Gurkhas changing because of the UK, not no sign of the Gurkhas changing. You were the one that said the UK was getting ready to dump them.
Of course they're hired. No-one disputes that. It's everything else you said that was woefully wrong.
Quote

Gurkhas to bear brunt of military spending cuts again
The Gurkhas are once again expected to suffer the most when the latest round of Armed Forces redundancies are announced next week. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/9011595/Gurkhas-to-bear-brunt-of-military-spending-cuts-again.html

Do you ever get anything correct.

But they're cutting the whole army, not just the Gurkhas. I assume they have their own strategic/tactical reasons for deciding who is declared redundant, but there's nothing except speculationo in thatarticle about the Gurkas being cut more than other parts of the army.
 
The speculation I like in that article is that defence officials are trying to embarrass the government into fewer cuts by playing on popular support for the Gurkhas.  


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 09:53
Che Guevara- an adventurer, and mercenary for idealism rather than money. Too idealistic, as it turned out, human nature was not up to speed.


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 11 Mar 2012 at 00:38
GCLE, I didn't find Bahrain specifically mentioned in the article, however our naval bases overseas are often guarded by two rings of forces, similar to those which guard our embassies. There is the host nation police or security forces outside the "fence" marking the agreed area of U.S. control, and internal security forces within that fence. The internal security can consist of a contracted civilian security company at the gates and periphery, and U.S. Marines or Sailors within the controlled areas. I've seen Gurkhas on duty outside the U.S. Embassy in Singapore wearing blue uniforms which i took to be part of a civilian contracted force, but now realize may have been part of the Gurkha contingent of the Singapore Police. I don't know if Bahrain has any Gurkhas, so will presume these have been hired by a private security firm.

As for whether any Gurkhas are mercenaries, that argument will go on forever. Some consider anyone who soldiers for pay to be a mercenary. If that is the criteria, then every non-conscripted soldier is a mercenary. Some insist that only foreigners in another country's service are mercenaries.  That would include the Foreign Legion, and the Gurkhas, as well as the foreign volunteers on both sides of the Spanish Civil War. And the definitions can get murkier. I prefer to view the Gurkhas as professional soldiers, or the honorable remnants of an Empire.

And Captain V, as to Che Guevara's idealism, if a willingness to kill anyone who got in the way of his ideal qualifies as idealism, then indeed he was an idealist. That would put him right up there with Horst Wessel, except the latter was a nationalist and Che an internationalist. His mistake was to pick Bolivia based solely upon geo-political considerations with no real knowledge of its recent revolution or peoples. 




-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11 Mar 2012 at 01:59
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

GCLE, I didn't find Bahrain specifically mentioned in the article, however our naval bases overseas are often guarded by two rings of forces, similar to those which guard our embassies.
Wikipedia mentions it too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha#United_States_Navy" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha#United_States_Navy
 
Actually, I thought the oddest thing was they're being employed by the Navy. Pretty obviously it wouldn't be as crew, Ermm, so it would have to be in some shore-based capacity. In the UK it would be marines, but then in the UK the marines are not a separate force.
Quote
....
As for whether any Gurkhas are mercenaries, that argument will go on forever. Some consider anyone who soldiers for pay to be a mercenary. If that is the criteria, then every non-conscripted soldier is a mercenary. Some insist that only foreigners in another country's service are mercenaries.  That would include the Foreign Legion, and the Gurkhas, as well as the foreign volunteers on both sides of the Spanish Civil War. And the definitions can get murkier. I prefer to view the Gurkhas as professional soldiers, or the honorable remnants of an Empire.
Agreed in general. In my vocabulary the classic 'mercenaries' are the condottieri of the Italian renaissance and the Free Companies in 14th century France, typified in English histories by Sir John Hawkwood. Have you read Doyle's The White Company?
 
I'd say therefore that a 'mercenary' is someone who serves with a military unit that hires itself out as a whole (commanders and all) to fight on a short-term contract for any employer. The Gurkhas don't meet that specification at all, though those that worked for 'security companies' in, say, Katanga, in the 20th century did.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 11 Mar 2012 at 05:51

Quote
That's right Graham, I'm so confused. What the heck does pensions have to do with finance. Silly me. It's fortunate I have you around to keep me right.

What you had wrong was not realising the problem arose because of changes in the terms of service over the years, nothing to do with difference between UK soldiers and Gurkhas. It's the word 'parity' that was wrongly used.

Not where I come from.

Parity Meaning and Definition

  1. (n.) The quality or condition of being equal or equivalent; 
Quote
"The actress, and daughter of Gurkha corps major James Lumley, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Lumley" rel="nofollow - Joanna Lumley , who had highlighted the treatment of the Gurkhas and campaigned for their rights, commented: "This is the welcome we have always longed to give". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha#cite_note-bbc_806-55" rel="nofollow - [56]
 
Quote
So what? She is still Mrs Barlow, not Mrs Lumley, which is what you called her. As I said you were confused again. It now looks as though you didn't have any idea of who she even is.

I do confess that "Absolutely Fabulous is not on my viewing list. I leave that sort of thing to intellectuals like yourself.
What is it about   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Lumley" rel="nofollow - - Lumley  that has your knickers in a twist sir?

Quote
A charity, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha_Welfare_Trust" rel="nofollow - Gurkha Welfare Trust , provides aid to alleviate hardship and distress among Gurkha ex-servicemen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha#cite_note-FOOTNOTEParker2005379.E2.80.93383-56" rel="nofollow - [57]

And plenty of charities help all sorts of unfortunate people. Are you arguing that poor people shouldn't be looked after? Surely even in Texas you have charities for the people whocan't even getjobs at Walmart?

The Gurkahs y'aal dumped and refused residence in the UK, you know, the veterans that did your fighting for you. Were living on handouts from active duty Gurkhas. The Brits deducted that money from their pay.
If Texas residents can't get a job, they get unemployment money. If that runs out(and it has been extended umpteen times) they get Welfare. Welfare includes a Govt credit card for free groceries, free heath care, and of course....money.
They could always be forced by the Government to stack shelves at Tescos sans remuneration. Oh no, how silly of me. That's what happens in the UK.

Quote

Gurkhas to bear brunt of military spending cuts again
The Gurkhas are once again expected to suffer the most when the latest round of Armed Forces redundancies are announced next week. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/9011595/Gurkhas-to-bear-brunt-of-military-spending-cuts-again.html

Do you ever get anything correct.
Quote
But they're cutting the whole army, not just the Gurkhas. I assume they have their own strategic/tactical reasons for deciding who is declared redundant, but there's nothing except speculationo in thatarticle about the Gurkas being cut more than other parts of the army.

What is it about "Gurkhas to bear brunt of military spending cuts again" that has you confused?
 
Quote
The speculation I like in that article is that defence officials are trying to embarrass the government into fewer cuts by playing on popular support for the Gurkhas.  

Graham, you use to be much better at this.


-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.


Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 11 Mar 2012 at 06:04

Quote
Agreed in general. In my vocabulary the classic 'mercenaries' are the condottieri of the Italian renaissance and the Free Companies in 14th century France, typified in English histories by Sir John Hawkwood. Have you read Doyle's The White Company?
 
I'd say therefore that a 'mercenary' is someone who serves with a military unit that hires itself out as a whole (commanders and all) to fight on a short-term contract for any employer. The Gurkhas don't meet that specification at all, though those that worked for 'security companies' in, say, Katanga, in the 20th century did.



As a noun, it means a soldier for hire.

The Hessians who fought for the British in the American Revolution were not mercenaries in the modern sense, but conscripts who were sent to fight by the leaders of the Germanic states, who were paid by the British crown.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_mercenary

Nepal was never a part of the British Empire.


-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11 Mar 2012 at 07:34
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Quote
Quote
"The actress, and daughter of Gurkha corps major James Lumley, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Lumley" rel="nofollow - Joanna Lumley , who had highlighted the treatment of the Gurkhas and campaigned for their rights, commented: "This is the welcome we have always longed to give". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha#cite_note-bbc_806-55" rel="nofollow - [56]
So what? She is still Mrs Barlow, not Mrs Lumley, which is what you called her. As I said you were confused again. It now looks as though you didn't have any idea of who she even is.
I do confess that "Absolutely Fabulous is not on my viewing list. I leave that sort of thing to intellectuals like yourself.
What is it about   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Lumley" rel="nofollow - Joanna 


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 11 Mar 2012 at 13:50
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

GCLE, I didn't find Bahrain specifically mentioned in the article, however our naval bases overseas are often guarded by two rings of forces, similar to those which guard our embassies. There is the host nation police or security forces outside the "fence" marking the agreed area of U.S. control, and internal security forces within that fence. The internal security can consist of a contracted civilian security company at the gates and periphery, and U.S. Marines or Sailors within the controlled areas. I've seen Gurkhas on duty outside the U.S. Embassy in Singapore wearing blue uniforms which i took to be part of a civilian contracted force, but now realize may have been part of the Gurkha contingent of the Singapore Police. I don't know if Bahrain has any Gurkhas, so will presume these have been hired by a private security firm.

As for whether any Gurkhas are mercenaries, that argument will go on forever. Some consider anyone who soldiers for pay to be a mercenary. If that is the criteria, then every non-conscripted soldier is a mercenary. Some insist that only foreigners in another country's service are mercenaries.  That would include the Foreign Legion, and the Gurkhas, as well as the foreign volunteers on both sides of the Spanish Civil War. And the definitions can get murkier. I prefer to view the Gurkhas as professional soldiers, or the honorable remnants of an Empire.

And Captain V, as to Che Guevara's idealism, if a willingness to kill anyone who got in the way of his ideal qualifies as idealism, then indeed he was an idealist. That would put him right up there with Horst Wessel, except the latter was a nationalist and Che an internationalist. His mistake was to pick Bolivia based solely upon geo-political considerations with no real knowledge of its recent revolution or peoples. 


 
"Getting in one's way" is a marvellously flexible phrase that can be adapted to various useage. Many in history have gotten in the way of US foreign policy, for example, and then been dispensed with by figures some, depending on their orientation, would consider iconic, such as the Marines or CIA personnel. Foolish as it may seem when taking a longer and more philosophical view of things, killing those in the way has been done by all authorities at one time or another. The US is no shy wallflower in this regard, either in the past or in the present. Historically, those in the way have at various times included: native Americans, the French, the British government, Canadian colonists, Spain, the Hawaiian royality, Philipine peasants, socialist reformers in Latin America, communists anywhere and everywhere, and lately (and oddly) those that threaten Israel. That's just the short list. Not that other countries don't have lists of their own.
 
 I suspect that many "mercenaries and adventurers", when it comes down to it, would not have been the type one would want to have a beer with. At least Che, I'd wager, would have demanded that all had access to the pub, and all got a beer, even if they were broke.


Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 04:59
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Quote
Quote
"The actress, and daughter of Gurkha corps major James Lumley, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Lumley" rel="nofollow - Joanna Lumley , who had highlighted the treatment of the Gurkhas and campaigned for their rights, commented: "This is the welcome we have always longed to give". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha#cite_note-bbc_806-55" rel="nofollow - [56]
So what? She is still Mrs Barlow, not Mrs Lumley, which is what you called her. As I said you were confused again. It now looks as though you didn't have any idea of who she even is.
I do confess that "Absolutely Fabulous is not on my viewing list. I leave that sort of thing to intellectuals like yourself.
What is it about   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Lumley" rel="nofollow - - Lumley  that has your knickers in a twist sir?
Your blatant disregard of common civility. Her married name is Barlow. If you use the prefix Mrs you follow it with the married name, not the maiden name. Her mother would be Mrs Lumley. She isn't.
 
You're old enough to know better.

Oh do forgive me Graham. Had I known my carelessness would have made you so emotionally charged, I would have course dropped the Mrs. It's such a pity the same support she gave your mercenaries never originated with a British Government official.


-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.


Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 05:06

 
Quote
 I suspect that many "mercenaries and adventurers", when it comes down to it, would not have been the type one would want to have a beer with. At least Che, I'd wager, would have demanded that all had access to the pub, and all got a beer, even if they were broke.

 If you want to shake the hand, of the hand that shook the hand, of the guy that turned Che's lights out, i'll be in BC toward the end of summer.


-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 05:11
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Quote
Quote
"The actress, and daughter of Gurkha corps major James Lumley, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Lumley" rel="nofollow - Joanna Lumley , who had highlighted the treatment of the Gurkhas and campaigned for their rights, commented: "This is the welcome we have always longed to give". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha#cite_note-bbc_806-55" rel="nofollow - [56]
So what? She is still Mrs Barlow, not Mrs Lumley, which is what you called her. As I said you were confused again. It now looks as though you didn't have any idea of who she even is.
I do confess that "Absolutely Fabulous is not on my viewing list. I leave that sort of thing to intellectuals like yourself.
What is it about   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Lumley" rel="nofollow - Joanna 
Quote
It's such a pity the same support she gave your mercenaries never originated with a British Government official.
True.

-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 05:52
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


 
Quote
 I suspect that many "mercenaries and adventurers", when it comes down to it, would not have been the type one would want to have a beer with. At least Che, I'd wager, would have demanded that all had access to the pub, and all got a beer, even if they were broke.

 If you want to shake the hand, of the hand that shook the hand, of the guy that turned Che's lights out, i'll be in BC toward the end of summer.
 
Thank's for the warning.


Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 05:53

Quote
Oh do forgive me Graham. Had I known my carelessness would have made you so emotionally charged, I would have course dropped the Mrs.

Doesn't explain why you used it in the first place. Perjhaps you should prefer checking facts to trying to be funny.

I used it in error sir. I'm not in the habit of blowing up irrelevant minutiae to distract from the point in question. 
Quote
It's such a pity the same support she gave your mercenaries never originated with a British Government official.

True.

I find it gratifying that you acknowledge they are mercenaries. You see, we both learned something.


-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.


Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 05:56
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


 
Quote
 I suspect that many "mercenaries and adventurers", when it comes down to it, would not have been the type one would want to have a beer with. At least Che, I'd wager, would have demanded that all had access to the pub, and all got a beer, even if they were broke.

 If you want to shake the hand, of the hand that shook the hand, of the guy that turned Che's lights out, i'll be in BC toward the end of summer.
 
Thank's for the warning.

 You're most welcome.


-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 21:03
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Quote
Quote
Oh do forgive me Graham. Had I known my carelessness would have made you so emotionally charged, I would have course dropped the Mrs.

Doesn't explain why you used it in the first place. Perjhaps you should prefer checking facts to trying to be funny.

I used it in error sir. I'm not in the habit of blowing up irrelevant minutiae to distract from the point in question. 
Note that I had to reformat this again for you. I don't know why you can't get it right.
I gather you're now saying that getting the facts right is unimportant.
Quote
Quote
Quote
It's such a pity the same support she gave your mercenaries never originated with a British Government official.

True.

I find it gratifying that you acknowledge they are mercenaries. You see, we both learned something.
 Whether they are called mercenaries or not has no relevance to anything. The word has all sorts of connotations, under some of which the Gurkhas are mercenaries and under others they are not.
 
That's what you should have learned from this thread.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 13 Mar 2012 at 04:07
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Quote
Quote
Oh do forgive me Graham. Had I known my carelessness would have made you so emotionally charged, I would have course dropped the Mrs.

Doesn't explain why you used it in the first place. Perjhaps you should prefer checking facts to trying to be funny.

I used it in error sir. I'm not in the habit of blowing up irrelevant minutiae to distract from the point in question. 
Note that I had to reformat this again for you. I don't know why you can't get it right.
I gather you're now saying that getting the facts right is unimportant.
Quote
Quote
Quote
It's such a pity the same support she gave your mercenaries never originated with a British Government official.

True.

I find it gratifying that you acknowledge they are mercenaries. You see, we both learned something.
 Whether they are called mercenaries or not has no relevance to anything. The word has all sorts of connotations, under some of which the Gurkhas are mercenaries and under others they are not.
 
That's what you should have learned from this thread.

On a thread with a topic of Mercenaries in part, you can say given the fact that Gurkhas are  Mercenaries( which you acknowledged) is of no relevance. I agree to disagree, now that's the end of it.


-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 13 Mar 2012 at 06:28
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Quote
Quote
Oh do forgive me Graham. Had I known my carelessness would have made you so emotionally charged, I would have course dropped the Mrs.

Doesn't explain why you used it in the first place. Perjhaps you should prefer checking facts to trying to be funny.

I used it in error sir. I'm not in the habit of blowing up irrelevant minutiae to distract from the point in question. 
Note that I had to reformat this again for you. I don't know why you can't get it right.
I gather you're now saying that getting the facts right is unimportant.
Quote
Quote
Quote
It's such a pity the same support she gave your mercenaries never originated with a British Government official.

True.

I find it gratifying that you acknowledge they are mercenaries. You see, we both learned something.
 Whether they are called mercenaries or not has no relevance to anything. The word has all sorts of connotations, under some of which the Gurkhas are mercenaries and under others they are not.
 
That's what you should have learned from this thread.

On a thread with a topic of Mercenaries in part, you can say given the fact that Gurkhas are  Mercenaries( which you acknowledged) is of no relevance. I agree to disagree, now that's the end of it.
It's not a matter of fact, it's a matter of definition. You can call the Gurkhas mercenaries or you can call them not mercenaries. Neither position is 'correct'. Neither position is 'wrong'. That's why it is irrelevant.

-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 13 Mar 2012 at 06:57
The Royal Gurkha Rifles are not mercenaries. They are professional soldiers serving as part of the standing British army.

-------------
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.


Posted By: Birddog
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2012 at 19:53
Thomas Cochrane. Although he was a sea going man, his time fighting for the Chilians, Brazilians and Greeks mark him if not as a mercanry, at least as a great adventurer.


Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 02:56
mer·ce·nar·y
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mercenary



-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net