Are solders really different than mercenaries

This is something that I have been rolling around in my head. I get solders are sworn to defined the constitution but could a private army due the exact same thing. give your thoughts below.

>gubmint hired gun
>gibs dibberent naim

Its a matter of control. An army you have hired that wins may often get the idea that they ought to just run the show from then on. A state army doesn't, in theory.

It ought to be mentioned that historically speaking when an empire becomes reliant on mercenaries its a sure sign of decline - we are here now.

No their not.
A mercenary is only beholden to his client, while a soldier is beholden to the elected officials he represents. Mercenary armies are a thing we REALLY don't want to get started, because what's to stop (((Them))) from buying Death Squads?

America has already fallen

The government is a company that plays with macro instead of micro economics with monopoly conditions (restricted entry and unique).

a private army COULD do that, but the reason soldiers are different is because their whole reason for joining is to do that

...

> Are solders really different than mercenaries
Lmao, why ameritards so stupid? Military always fights for people, and this was proven by history. If you want to change system and you making military your first enemy - don't even try, you already lost.

What if the military and people are diverse?

The main difference between Mercs and Soldiers is that Soldiers are supposed to accept the fact that they could die in combat, and Mercs are supposed to just be interested in making lots of money.
There are some excretions to this where being a Merc is also about gaining personal glory such as Swiss Mercs and The Varangian Guard, but both of those are pre-modern examples and were very rare.
So is it impossible that Mercs could be sworn to defend the constitution? No not really, but it's quite unlikely that anyone would either want to do that, or do that and actually mean it.

''''''historically'''''' the huge majority of wars were conflicts between different lords and kings. The soldiers who participated in them were either the sons of the upper class (who fought for prestige and lands) or mercenaries (who fought for money and loot). The modern idea of a massive patriotic army has no historical bearing. It only emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries due to mass media. Historically, your ancestors would have fought for themselves, their families and their communities, the size of a province at most; not their huge continent-spanning governments.

Stop taking the blue pill.

Nope.

"mercenaries fight for money, soldiers will kill for the family"

Military always for people, maybe not whole military (civil war), but most of it. It because every army, especially armies of might countries are made of people of these countries, they didn't appear from nowhere. And it's not government paying for military, it's taxpayers, and ask yourself now: can Trump handle US military budget on how own money?

Ultimately it depends how you define a mercenary. If it's just somebody who fights for money than every professional military ever are basically mercenaries.

"military always fights for le people"

Yes, I'm sure that was the case in the chechen war, or the multiple wars in the middle east, or any other modern conflict.....

Militaries these days represent their government not their people.

Solders are authorized by their communities to commit violence on non-citizens just like communities authorize police to commit violence on citizens.

Indoctrination and self sacrifice, a mercenary serves only himself, whereas a soldier is serving for both himself and for others.

It depends on the individual motivation of the soldier. Does he join for the pay or truly believe he is helping his country?

If A. then he's basically a merc under government contract. If B. then he's basically a partisan being trained, paid, and supplied by the government.

As far as I understand:

One is state sponsored, the other is state funded.

The means justify the ends, either with mercenaries or state troops, the state will use either to advance their agenda.

It can be argued that one is better than the other, but none of that matters if one shows results.

One Example: Renaissance Italy

A soldier is not a warrior

Blackwater is based, FYI.