This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Knowledge Bank page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. jSarek 09:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Are bounty hunters and assasins considered mercenarys. Because Mercenarys are hired soldiers, and soldiers can be used to assasinate someone and they could capture someone(a bounty hunter)
Mecenarylord 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the difference is that bounty hunters (at least in the real world) are actually considered law enforcement, whereas mercenaries tend to be more on the vigilante side of the spectrum. Bounty hunters have codes of conduct and such, while mercenaries, as far as I know, kinda don't. This is all speculation based on old research from years ago, so I may be wrong. Trak Nar 07:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think that bounty hunters are specific types of mercenaries. In this way bounty hunters are always mercenaries, but mercenaries aren't necessarily always bounty hunters. I think on Wikipedia, they say that bounty hunters (aka bail agent, bail enforcement agent, bail officer, fugitive recovery agent, fugitive recovery officer, and bail fugitive recovery specialist) are people who capture fugitives for monetary rewards (bounty). Whereas, a mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict but are not actually part of the side they are working for but are only doing so for private and personal gain promised by the side they are working for. The personal gain is usually money. It says that the term "mercenary" carries negative connotations for most of the time. So, a bounty hunter is anyone who is hired to capture fugitives. In this process, they could also take part in an armed conflict to achieve this goal and they may be doing so for personal gain, which would then make them a mercenary as well. The two terms are synonyms, but they're not exactly the same.
On Wikipedia, the definition of mercenary is very long, complicated, and hard to understand (although I think I do understand where they're going at). On Wookieepedia, the definition of "mercenary" is exactly the same, only a lot shorter, simpler, and easily comprehensable: "A mercenary (merc for short) was a soldier who fought for any faction in exchange for a desirable amount of money."
On Wikipedia, the definition of bounty hunter is: "A bounty hunter captures fugitives for a monetary award (bounty)." On Wookieepedia, the explanation is "Bounty hunters were hireable mercenaries who tracked down and captured or killed anyone with a price on their head, although they were also known for doing nearly anything for the right price including the protection of clients."
In short, the difference is that mercenaries fought for any faction in exchange for something of their personal gain (often money) while bounty hunters are people who tracked down and capture or kill anyone with a price on their head that was always money. Um...so bounty hunters are mercenaries but mercenaries aren't necessarily bounty hunters if they're just fighting in a battle rather than capturing or killing someone.
Tell me if it's too confusing? People can never understand me when I write long, and it's an uncontrollable habit of mine... I can never ever write short...
Oh and if the mercenary during the fight is also assassinating someone, then that means he or she is also an assasin. In the same way, if the bounty hunter might assasinate the person they are tracking down to kill, thereby making them assassins as well. Bounty hunters and mercenaries can be assassins, but not necessarily and not always. Marco Lam(Contact) 08:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
So can I combine the three pages or write I thing about assasins and bounty hunters on the Mercenary page? Mecenarylord 23:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait, the bounty hunters article already say something about mercenaries. It's not necessary to change anything in it. I mean, I thought you were just asking a question about their differences not something about writing or combining them. No, it's not necessary to do either of them. Unless some administrator comes along to disagree... Marco Lam(Contact) 23:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)