Is there a 'realistic' use for mercenaries?

The use depends on the unit, and what I'm hiring them for.

Some might be intended to act as city guards if I can't recruit any there, and then I just, of course, aim for the best price-quantity relation.

Some mercs I might hire to act as catapult fodder/for specific combat reasons, and they'll probably get sacked after the battle (if I see no use for them anymore).

However, some mercs I might use for longer periods of time, and this includes, for example, Toxotai Kretikoi (which you can, even retrain as several factions, no?), and such otherwise unavailable troops (I might need more cavalry, for example, and have no access to recruitable types).

Of course, I prefer factional (trainable regionals included) over mercs, because of the aforementioned chevron-gaining and retrainability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zarax

You could always put an is_peasant tag to merc units, this way they would be only half as effective as garrison, meaning higher risks of rebellion especially without governor...

---

This sounds promising, how about an offical opinion on this?

I thought the peasant tag made the unit better at garrison duty.

aaaaaaah! earthquake have just destroyed my newly hired half a stack of Galatian mercenaries along with 2 FMs! spent fortune hiring them! my Pontic kingdom lays defenseless with full AS' stack just a season march away!:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

I thought the peasant tag made the unit better at garrison duty.

---

IIRC that tag makes the unit 50% less effective as garrison...

Well, it must be quite easy to test. I assume it is an edu stat, so it will be save compatible, so why doens't someone find out?

I believe it has no effect. Not sure though.

It should make the garrison effect 50% weaker according to the research done when BI was released...

Using mercs as death fodder is realistic . Think that the mercs put theyr skills in your service for a good sum of money as it was in reality . They had to honour the agreement, the task for what they were paid. Like a company. If they weren't serious noone would ever hire them. So I believe is realistic to use mercs as they offer medium services, but I will always prefer the elite troops that my lands can raise than can be easly replenish. :beam:

If you asked them to go and die while you and your men sit and wait, I imagine they would see you as a not very serious employer.

I don't understand the mentality of mercenaries. They're putting their lives on the line for money. They're not fighiting because the state requires a 16-year military service from them, they're not fighting out of patriotism or for their country, they're fighting for money and the chance to legally rape women if they're lucky enough to be involved in taking a town. So, obviously they want to be alive to spend all the hard earned money you pay them for fighting.

Does this mean that it was the mercenaries who 'called the shots' rather than the commander that hired them? For instance, imagine a commander putting them on the front line against a tough enemy here there's a bloody good chance they'll be killed. Would they have the right to tell the commander where to shove his commands, or would they have to follow orders?

On the one hand, the commander has bought them so he has the right to throw their lives away in a tactical sacrifice if he so wishes. On the other hand they don't want to put themselves in too much danger because they want to be able to spend all the money and loot they recieve for their services.

Or were mercenaries just bands of men who had little to live for and enjoyed battle, regardless of the danger?

Quite probably a number of mercenaries did enjoy that life and the dangers it brought. I also think that a number of them were dismissed soldiers that no longer had the land/equipment/inclination to take up their previous professions, if they had one. Those would probably continue doing what they do best.

Of course the mercenaries did not take over command. I do believe they would not go alone though, but rather along with the main host. First into the breach? Taking a huge risk? Quite possibly. Attacking with near-certain death while the employer refuses to go the same place? I know I wouldn't. Perhaps the mercenary Gaesatae or others who crave a glorious death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bovi

Of course the mercenaries did not take over command. I do believe they would not go alone though, but rather along with the main host. First into the breach? Taking a huge risk? Quite possibly. Attacking with near-certain death while the employer refuses to go the same place? I know I wouldn't. Perhaps the mercenary Gaesatae or others who crave a glorious death.

---

Or that battle quote about how the mercenaries hired by Epieros rebelled and took over an Epierot garrison.

I guess quite many mercs were simply employed to serve as a loyal force to keep the people from rebelling when the employer was out in the field on campaign. Or as loyal garrisons to keep the province from rebelling...

As such their job wouldn't have been particularly difficult: it mostly required them to be somewhere and to stage a parade every now and then when an important someone from 'central government' payed the town a visit.

And if they did go on campaign their job could be much more lucrative. Within a few months they potentially could earn so much by taking it from newly subjugated peoples that they only needed to spend some years in service to buy themselves a retirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

I guess quite many mercs were simply employed to serve as a loyal force to keep the people from rebelling when the employer was out in the field on campaign. Or as loyal garrisons to keep the province from rebelling...

---

I'm not sure mercs would be used as a garrison since they could rebel and take over a garrison/city. I know I sure wouldn't trust mercenaries to defend my most vital cities...(unless I'm Carthage)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

And if they did go on campaign their job could be much more lucrative. Within a few months they potentially could earn so much by taking it from newly subjugated peoples that they only needed to spend some years in service to buy themselves a retirement.

---

That was probably the most common reason for people to become mercs.

We are getting a better and better image of the social composition of former mercenary armies by indepth research of the mercenary armies of the 30 Years Wars (I think that is the earliest periode for which it can be done so). It turns out that there was no "mercenary class" different to the "civilians' class", but that there was a lot of movement between both groups: Citizens taking arms to seek their fortune as a mercenary and mercenaries retiring to a civil profession after a few years.

That makes it even more understandable why mercenaries were always eager to fight (and plunder!). They regarded their living as a soldier only as a temporary employment, and a short way to make money. Beeing occupied with lengthy sieges or staying in camps without going on campaign meant for them to serve a year more before they'll get the chance to make profit out of their soldiery.


Another thing is that there was a high corps spirit within the single mercenary groops (on the level of a company or regimental equivalent). So, it is more unlikely that a groop of mercenaries would have refused to be placed on a dangerous position of the battleline. Because once they had been known as cowards or unreliable they would have had severe difficulties to find another army willing to employ them later.


I don't think that the mercenary society of the Ancient Times did differe from that very much, especially because most cultures had some kind of militia force, what meant that weapons and armour in civil possesion, and the knowledge to use them, was even more common than in the Early Modern Times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa
I'm not sure mercs would be used as a garrison since they could rebel and take over a garrison/city

---

The mercs were used also because they wouldn't betray . They were getting rich. When a king would expect that his men would betray he would hire mercs for safety. An example is the late Bizantyne Empire , the emperor hired mercs The Varangian Guard (norseman mercs very strong and reliable). :beam:

Another thing is that mercs as I know in the medieval ages were spared after a battle and released but I think this was in a chivalry battle.

I use mercenaries when storming the wall :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by an_do_89

The mercs were used also because they wouldn't betray . They were getting rich. When a king would expect that his men would betray he would hire mercs for safety. An example is the late Bizantyne Empire , the emperor hired mercs The Varangian Guard (norseman mercs very strong and reliable). :beam:

Another thing is that mercs as I know in the medieval ages were spared after a battle and released but I think this was in a chivalry battle.

---

Well, I guess that's "usually" true...except for the case of rebelling Carthaginian mercenaries or mercenaries hired by Epieros that betrayed them and mercenaries that started working for Romans.