We need to know the war before you can have an answer.
Using brutish mercenaries may have been a mistake if they were undisciplined or prone to committing atrocities. However, if they were effective in achieving the intended goals and did not harm innocent people, it may not have been a mistake. The moral and ethical implications of using such mercenaries can vary depending on the specific context and actions taken.
No, because the mercenaries are foreign soldiers who fought not out of loyalty, but for pay and they payed mercenaries so the American soldiers don't die.
NO!!! The British still employ/use mercenaries today. They are the Ghurka Regiment of the British Army. In formal legalistic terms they are mercenaries.
They hire them because King George III was determined to defeat the Americans.
Tegel's Mercenaries was created in 1992.
In the video game Mercenaries 2: World in Flames, the player can choose to play as three different mercenaries each with a unique ability. The three mercenaries are: Jennifer Mui, Mattias Nilsson and Chris Jacobs.
lol s.s HW
no because, the mercenaries were highly trained and were skilled. hope you like it. :D :)
no because, the mercenaries were highly trained and were skilled. hope you like it. :D :)
no because, the mercenaries were highly trained and were skilled. hope you like it. :D :)
no because, the mercenaries were highly trained and were skilled. hope you like it. :D :)
lol s.s HW
yes because if they are not loyal they are not going to care
lol s.s HW
lol s.s HW
No, because the mercenaries are foreign soldiers who fought not out of loyalty, but for pay and they payed mercenaries so the American soldiers don't die.
NO!!! The British still employ/use mercenaries today. They are the Ghurka Regiment of the British Army. In formal legalistic terms they are mercenaries.
Yes, it was a mistake for the British to use mercenaries in the war because loyalty doesn't mean much to them it's all about the pay so if the other side gives a better offer they will switch their side.