Military scifi often makes a distinction between soldiers and warriors. Soldiers are often presented as being _trained_ and _part of a unit_ — think Roman Legionnaires as opposed to the "undisciplined" "barbarian" raiders. It's usually a question of _tactics_. Military scifi tends to place a premium on discipline, training, and unit cohesion, which is why events like the [Battle of Rorke's Drift](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke%27s_Drift) wind up inspiring military scifi like the [Confederation of Valor](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/299813/a-confederation-of-valor-by-tanya-huff/) (which is the book that inspired this newsletter, by the way). For those who don't follow obscure historical battles, that's the one where 150 British and colonial troops defended a religious mission station against attacks by 3,000 to 4,000 Zulu warriors. It's soldiers vs. warriors in a nutshell. Military science fiction also makes a sharp distinction drawn between the professionals and the amateurs. It's mostly a question of training, but motivation is a big factor — and it's motivations for fighting I'm was thinking about when I wrote _Opulence_. This isn't scientific or anything, but I tend to think of "people who fight each other in battles" as being divided into roughly three categories: levies or conscripts, professional armies, and raiders. Professional armies are basically full-time folks who signed up to fight for their country, and although they do get paid... that's often not the main reason soldiers sign up to fight. Loyalty and service plays a big part. Most modern armies are professional armies, although not all: [Israel has widespread conscription](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Israel) even leaving aside [the martial law situation in Ukraine](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/podcasts/the-daily/ukraine-russia-kyiv-civilian-military.html). Levies and conscripts are normal people — farmers, historically, because most people used to be farmers. They get drafted into fighting a war, usually because of some emergency. Sometimes this can go on for years, even decades, but no matter how much skill they acquire, conscripts aren't fighting because they want to be. They're fighting because they don't have a choice. Then there are the folks who aren't really full-time trained soldiers but also weren't _conscripted_ into battle. They're fighting because they want the financial reward, which they generally _take_ instead of _earn_. Often, fighting isn't normally what they do throughout the year. The obvious example is "barbarian" nomadic herders riding into a town and stealing stuff then leaving, or teenagers getting involved in border raids in the summer but who mostly spend their time farming and herding sheep. The modern example is Somali pirates — some of whom are independent professionals making a career of it, and others who started out as fisherman and got involved in piracy to [make a little money on the side](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103815312). Mercenaries occupy kind of a weird spot on this three-way spectrum. They're paid like professionals, and answer to governments. Sure, they generally hire out to multiple governments over the course of their lives, but mercenaries are sort of by definition motivated by money. A lot of early mercenaries came from raider groups — and many mercenary companies engaged in banditry when they didn't have an active contract. The [Cossacks are a semi-nomadic steppe people, many of whom served Russia as mercenaries](https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/russian-soviet-and-cis-history-biographies/cossacks) for awhile, forming what amounted to a defensive perimeter around the Russian empire. Some folks think that Carthage, Rome, and the Tang Dynasty shifting (at different points) to [a more mercenary army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Carthage#Growth_of_Mercenary_Forces) led to [their respective downfalls](https://derrychen.medium.com/fall-of-empires-reexamining-roman-and-tang-reliance-on-mercenaries-fe1e07060f04). Academi (formerly Blackwater) is a well-known modern example of a mercenary company — they've worked for the UAE as well as the USA, and employ mercenaries from places like the USA, Columbia, and Sudan. I find it moderately amusing that the Blackwater boss objected to his employees being called mercenaries, when nobody bats an eye at the term "contractor." One of the most well-known series involving mercenary companies is _the Black Company_ by Glen Cook; the closest real-life analog is the [free companies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_company) that proliferated during the 12th and 14th centuries. The Italian captains were called _Condottieri_, which basically translates as "contractor." Swiss mercenaries came to prominence around this time, too, mostly because of the Hundred Years War. What I've always found interesting is that mercenary companies like those of this era are generally portrayed as even more "professional" than the standing armies — they fight for money, not loyalty. They fight to _win,_ not for pride. They care more about strategy than chivalry, and generally avoid combat where possible. It circles right back around to that "soldier vs warrior" divide, except mercenaries are even more eye-on-the-prize and unconcerned about personal bravery than soldiers in a standing army. Probably because they don't have the collective might of a nation and its government to fall back on; mercenary companies have a lot of freedom, but they're also a lot more alone in the world.