Machiavelli on mercanaries.

I was reading Machiavelli's The Prince the other day and came across this interesting observation of his.

"Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe;"

I learned that the hard way during a Saxon campaign in VI. I was expanding up into Mercia(or is it North Umbria?) and noticed a border province w of mine was able to hire nearly a full stack of mercenaries, mostly armored spearmen, some regular, viking mercenaries, and a couple archers. SO I hired them and invaded a province defended by a slightly larger army consisting mainly of peasant rabble. During the battle the comp ganged up on one of my weaker units, managed to route it, which routed the armoured spearmen next to them, and the ones next to them, before I knew it, my whole army routes and is chased off the map by peasants. :wall:

Edited to note that I had a five start general, while the opposing army had about a two star one.

:laugh4: Just found this digging through the posts here.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=52733

lol

I find that they are useful for adding casualties to a large enemy before my main army strikes the turn after.

They can also be useful for padding out Crusades. Since units in a Crusade army don't cost upkeep, and mercs' hiring cost is only half that of a "national" unit of the same type, you can really fill out a Crusading army's ranks on the cheap.

Of course, I still don't recommend adding a lot of mercenaries to a Crusade since they do generally run like little girls once in combat. The only exception to this rule is artillery--I will hire them in relatively large numbers, particlarly if I can't build that artillery piece myself yet.

I like merc myself. As I posted earlier about my English campaign (on hold as new semester gets ready to start), I use mercs to clean house and conduct my 'dry earth' campaigns. I usually try to bring along some regulars too to get training, with the mercs sometimes selflessly sacrifising themselves for the good of the empire setting up final counter blows by my regulars or just getting mor stars for my generals.

I like to hire mercs. But only specialty mercs. AKA Extremely powerful archers, pikemen, artillery, heavy horsemen. And so on, basically any unit thats rare and can do some danmage.

Of course, i prefer to hire the speciality units, but sometimes you need units now, and can't wait to train (if possible) or wait to move the units to where you need them.

In concordance with Martok's statement I rely on mercenaries almost exclusively as artillery supply. The reasons are simple:
1. with those units, morale practically doesn't matter at all and
2. it takes up quite some time and effort to build them myself, thereby preventing provinces from churning out more useful troops. This is especially valid for small factions, and in MedMod, the siege engineer is a unique building, making it even more attractive / compelling to scoop from the mercenary pool.

The remaining mercenary types are only relied upon in emergency situations. More than once I witnessed proud kwarazmian cav rout shortly after slamming into the exposed flank of some FMAA :wall: so even if I recruit them, it is mostly to quickly beef up my forces in order to avoid a difficult offensive battle through sheer numbers.

I use mercs sometimes, too, particularly when I have money to spare and want to weaken a faction before attacking. They just seem to behave inconsistently. Sometimes I do very well with them, sometimes terribly.

Usually when I use mercenaries they are either for emergency border defense or I will toss them into a fight with a properly balanced group and press autoresolve.

When you use mercenaries for border defense, you are essentially taking out a loan of time, trading their high maintenance cost for availability and discouraging the computer from attacking. When you've had time to convert more of your money into high quality troops and troop producing facilities, then you disband them. Of course, this is only adviseable if you have an abundance of money. Otherwise, taking out the loan become self-destructive to your long term goal of stability.

When you use mercenaries in combat, the fact is each one that you lose lowers your upkeep costs disproportionately so unless you absolutely need them as a presence (see above), it's a good thing so long as you lose them well. In effect your goal turns from out and out elegant victory to causing casualties. So take your mercenaries, balance them out to ensure the computer will fight but such that you will win or lose by a narrow margin. Then fire and forget. Autoresolve is still better than me in certain situations, but it's way better than me at causing bloody battles.

I never use mercenaries for artillery. Actually I consider siege artillery in general to be highly specialized. If a siege takes prohibitively long due to small garrison, then the problem lies earlier in operations: Something wasn't done right to force a large garrison into the castle. If throwing more men (or mercenaries) at the problem isn't practical then you don't have enough of them to consider artillery. If excommunication is the issue, then you forgot to trigger the Pope-warning on Denmark. Only a rare mix of situations should make siege artillery practical. I suppose that does argue for hiring them as mercs when you need to rather than trying to make your own siege train but I've never needed to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maloncanth

If a siege takes prohibitively long due to small garrison, then the problem lies earlier in operations: Something wasn't done right to force a large garrison into the castle. If throwing more men (or mercenaries) at the problem isn't practical then you don't have enough of them to consider artillery.

---

well we seem to have a different approach to the issue. when I attack an opponent, I don't always go after his largest armies and try to force them into their castles with an even larger force, but pick my targets according to their strategic value: border situation, income, level of buildup etc. The chosen province may well be garrisoned by no more than a bunch of peasants, and even if I try to get a field battle through careful weighing of the invasion force it's not always possible to avoid a siege with just a couple of men inside. in which case it is infinitely more practical to have a nice battery at hand which takes out the castle defenses and allows for a rather painless victory instead of amassing a huge assault force to storm the stronghold by sheer weight of men (and losing quite a number of them). The more artillery one brings, the easier the victory will be. And that's why it's a good idea to satisfy the need for cannons with mercenaries since they are easy to get and their redoubled upkeep still doesn't make them very expensive.

I understand Machiavelli's points regarding mercs; the Japanese had similar views regarding ronin, for similar reasons. But that's real-world stuff.

In the game, mercs can be extremely useful--in the Byzantine Early campaign for example. Using a large army composed solely of mercs under the command of a very skilled general (a Byzantine Prince), I will attack the Turks almost immediatley and systematically wipe them out. I use the troops I build to back fill and hold the territories I conquer (with the Byzantine King on point, who begins as an Expert Defender), and keep attacking with the merc army, hiring more each turn to replace those I've lost. Many are killed in battle--which is what I want as long as they win--they cost a lot to maintain. After wiping out the Turks, I immediately proceed to near-annihilating the Egyptians, pushing them all the way back to Egypt, and attacking Egypt to reduce their total troops to a handful. Then I leave them alone as a buffer against the Almohads until I can get my ships going. I disband all mercs as soon as I have enough troops to effectively garrison all the Muslim provinces I've just lightning-struck, leave a decent army of my own troops in the Sinai to protect that front (a one-province front against a defeated and demoralized enemy--gotta love that), and take the rest of my now very experienced generals back to the northern front of my now greatly expanded empire.

By using mercs you can raise a huge army fast with florins, which the Byz have at game start. This gives you a jump on your enemy neighbors, and allows you to wipe them out quickly. The key is, once you've used them, disband them, as they cost way too much to maintain for long. And do put them under the command of one of the Byzantine Princes (6-7 stars, usually), t keep them in control.

Machiavelli was proven very wrong on mercenaries iirc. Citizen armies had no chance against the professional armies of that era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deus ret.

well we seem to have a different approach to the issue. when I attack an opponent, I don't always go after his largest armies and try to force them into their castles with an even larger force, but pick my targets according to their strategic value: border situation, income, level of buildup etc. The chosen province may well be garrisoned by no more than a bunch of peasants, and even if I try to get a field battle through careful weighing of the invasion force it's not always possible to avoid a siege with just a couple of men inside. in which case it is infinitely more practical to have a nice battery at hand which takes out the castle defenses and allows for a rather painless victory instead of amassing a huge assault force to storm the stronghold by sheer weight of men (and losing quite a number of them). The more artillery one brings, the easier the victory will be. And that's why it's a good idea to satisfy the need for cannons with mercenaries since they are easy to get and their redoubled upkeep still doesn't make them very expensive.

---

Targeting for strategic value and forcing garrisons aren't mutually exclusive and I've learned to pay exhaustive attention to what I attack and how I attack it. Generally speaking, one should aim for a province that is strategically important when all factors (including the ones you mention) are taken into account, but it attacking it head on is not necessary. Thus, I launch army(ies) in appropriate directions to force retreating or beaten AI forces as I desire before finally striking at the real target. It isn't always possible, but it is almost always possible to force garrisons such that long sieges or siege train attacks are unnecessary or even to bloodlessly sieze the fortress by checking their king. The AI is not scripted to understand this sort of movement. Hiring siege engines from mercenaries is fair if you find no other option but it should be considered a tertiary option. I for one have played numerous games now, on Hard and Very Hard on VI and XL and I've never used siege equipment.

Now I got your point. Also I might have been biased because I've been playing PMTW exclusively during the last couple of months where artillery is quite important in general and becomes useful apart from siege battles also.

Anyway the best method to capture a stronghold doesn't involve artillery or starvation imho but requires just a lucky (high-valour) spy or an emissary with some cash.

Quote:

---

... and I've never used siege equipment

---

What a sad and unfulfilled life :laugh4: (Nothing personal, I just LOVE my artillery and get enormous satisfaction from levelling the enemy's castles :2thumbsup: )

But having said that, it's often easier to send in an emissary or spy (or assassin if it's a garrison of one man!)

This can usually be avoided, that leaving the AI with a small army. A seige is still okay, with mercs or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

What a sad and unfulfilled life :laugh4: (Nothing personal, I just LOVE my artillery and get enormous satisfaction from levelling the enemy's castles :2thumbsup: )

But having said that, it's often easier to send in an emissary or spy (or assassin if it's a garrison of one man!)

---

Well I once massed 12 culverins and started shooting the Pope in Rome once in the end game, but that doesn't really count. ~:p