It seems to be about the futility of war and the people who choose to fight. The first verse describes the idealist who is fighting for a cause, who believes his struggle is somehow special ("we are the chosen, we're the partisan"). The second verse is the mercenary who provides a contrast with the idealist- he has no illusions that what he's doing is somehow specially justified or worthwhile, all causes are alike to him, it's just business.
'Riding across the river' presumably signifies the struggle, an obstacle they need to cross. Both the idealist and the mercenary are shown engaging in this objective- it would seem there is no real distinction between the two. In war, when so many atrocities end up occurring and there is no clear sense of what is justified- "right becomes wrong, the left becomes right". Is the idealist, who thinks he is fighting for a just cause, really any better than the mercenary who has no morals, and no scruples?
It seems to be about the futility of war and the people who choose to fight. The first verse describes the idealist who is fighting for a cause, who believes his struggle is somehow special ("we are the chosen, we're the partisan"). The second verse is the mercenary who provides a contrast with the idealist- he has no illusions that what he's doing is somehow specially justified or worthwhile, all causes are alike to him, it's just business.
'Riding across the river' presumably signifies the struggle, an obstacle they need to cross. Both the idealist and the mercenary are shown engaging in this objective- it would seem there is no real distinction between the two. In war, when so many atrocities end up occurring and there is no clear sense of what is justified- "right becomes wrong, the left becomes right". Is the idealist, who thinks he is fighting for a just cause, really any better than the mercenary who has no morals, and no scruples?