Certainly an interesting account, it possibly hints at something else. Namely that lack of mercenaries were an anomaly unfortunately as forces conspire - people

Certainly an interesting account, it possibly hints at something else. Namely that lack of mercenaries were an anomaly unfortunately as forces conspire - people capable of violence and willing to take risks will want money and people with money will want other people to take the risk, and add layers of deniability. If I recall correctly part of the reason why mercenaries were excluded from Geneva Convention protections and banned via treaties was because of massive raiding, raping, and looting from continental rogue armies after their masters lost the ability to pay for them. That sort of "wildfire" and backlash made it acceptable to the nations to agree it would be better for them to not have it, similar to partisans and Free-Shooters. While they may technically wind up working both for and against the countries involved if they were condoned or not hints at what sorts of conditions they would prefer both them and their foes to have. There were all sorts of politics involved in the treaty. Even now PMCs are infamously "mercenaries but under offical backing of a recognized nation as opposed to any rando with cash". On a tangent it brings to mind a silly mental image of a cartel or street gang aiming for lawful combatant status.