Is there a 'realistic' use for mercenaries?

I was just thinking, if one hires mercenaries is it realistic to use them literally as one sees fit? For instance, when i know i've got a really hard city battle coming up where i know i'm going to lose lots of soldiers, i always hire what mercenaries i can that are suitable to storm the walls and fight them literally to death on purpose so that my own soldiers don't take so many casualties and the enemy is tired once they go in, but how realistic is this? Would mercenaries really fight to the death under orders from their master that hired them? Would they be fine with you putting them in the front line when/if you are outnumbered numerically or they have superior troops or even worse, both?

I justify what i do by the high cost of mecenaries... Anywhere from 3-7000 minai, i feel like after paying so much i should own them, their families AND their pets too, and they should have to do whatever the hell i tell them.

But how realistic is it to use mercenaries as death fodder, arrow sponges or just send them to a certain death to tire out the enemy before your own troops go in?

I would suppose they had less reason to stay and fight, but not much less. Soldiers at times didn't understand why they were a gazillion miles from home, attacking some people for no tangible profit of their own, particularly non-professional soldiers I would imagine.

Being under your command however, I believe I would be deserting before long. Noone likes being seen as second-rate, and as the mercenaries were better trained fighters than most of the armies they took part in I would expect that they were considered valuable by their employers. I'm no historian though.

For hellenistic armies mercenaries were a way to have profesional corps of men able to stay in service all year round. As such the most common use was to garnison rebel prone lands and border fortreses. Majority of merc were never used in "Great" battles, as during main campain somebody have to guard your back especially as your levy is away.

That said it was quite common to recruit as merc people from rebel prone areas as a way to drain those places from most aggresive and warlike elements. And then send them to some difficult post or into heavy fighting. ~;)

I don't see why you would wish to waist mercenaries, incredibley expensive as they are. I always use crappy levy troops for the deadliest jobs, such as storming walls. They're cheap!

Indeed. No sense throwing Mercenaries away. They're harder to replace than regular troops and twice as expensive, but don't cost any more in upkeep I've found.

I prefer my native troops - even the poorer ones - to learn from experience. Using the Mercs in the manner you described might save me some troops but certainly cost me a chevron or 3. Even those cheap native levy troops start to become pretty effective once they've gotten into the silver chevrons.

I rarely hire Mercs unless I expect an immenent attack and don't have enough native troops nearby OR if I overextend myself a bit and need some extra troops for garrison duty.

I use my mercenaries and reserves, missile, and flanking troops, due to the fact that they can't be retrained, and so any experience they earn will be useless if they are sufficiently depleted.

If I have a choice I dont use mercenaries for suicidal missions.
They are very expensive to replace but are not expensive to upkeep.
From financial point of view it doesnt make sense to hire mercenaries and annihilate them in first battle.
That said it had happened few times. But I just didnt have a choice.
You just cant assault city with hors army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

But how realistic is it to use mercenaries as death fodder, arrow sponges or just send them to a certain death to tire out the enemy before your own troops go in?

---

Storming walls and the like was always a business for first class elite troopers. They knew it was going to be nasty, they expected it to become nasty, and it always became nasty. That is the reason why the soldiers (mercs in particular) always run amok when the town was taken "by storming hand".

Mercenaries considered themselves to be elite soldiers, or at least better than the majority of your militia army, and better than the levy soldiers that were defending a town. So, it would be realistic for them to volunteer for such an assault, but only when it was guaranteed in advandce that they will have the opportunity to plunder the town afterwards. When you take the town by using mercs, you should click "exterminate" afterwards and destroy all unique buildings and all those high upgraded ones that give you a good sum in plunder.


On the other hand, beeing the "first on the wall" was also a question of honor. When you play the Sweboz or KH the most experinced bodyguard of a FM - if not the General himself - should lead the charge. The same with other factions when you have some factional elite unit, especially when this is experinced, among your army these soldiers will certainly demand to be the first to attack.

Casulties? Well, you don't pay your Agema units 700+ per season to act as spectators as soon as it becomes a little dangerous and to hide behind some hired foreigners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LorDBulA

If I have a choice I dont use mercenaries for suicidal missions.
They are very expensive to replace but are not expensive to upkeep.
From financial point of view it doesnt make sense to hire mercenaries and annihilate them in first battle.
That said it had happened few times. But I just didnt have a choice.
You just cant assault city with horse army.

---

agreed.
in any battle i fight i throw them in only if absolutely nessecary, otherwise they are kept as reserves (in most cases).
main reasons they are so valuble to me -
1. they are very expensive to hire anew.
2. you cant retrain them in most cases.
3. like said above, they can fill the gap in what otherwise just isnt your faction's strong point.

I would like to see mercenaries have at least +1 or +2 expirience when you buy them.. And yes.. they are the best pro troops of their time in general.. so making them +1 expirience wont hurt EB moch at all..

EB team please see if you can make them all have at least +1 expirience just to add to realism..:shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maksimus

I would like to see mercenaries have at least +1 or +2 expirience when you buy them.. And yes.. they are the best pro troops of their time in general.. so making them +1 expirience wont hurt EB moch at all..

EB team please see if you can make them all have at least +1 expirience just to add to realism..:shame:

---

Experience seriously imbalances the stat system so we won't be doing this.

Foot

You can even do it yourself... Search for something like descr_mercenaries in the world folder/data folder (can't recall which folder it is) and off you go... :wink:

Actually there are a couple of rather important objections (IMHO) to additional exp:
1) Experience points have a rather strong impact on morale and upset the precious attack/defense balance by simply throwing in additional points.
2) The experienced guys of the historical unit usually are represented in their own unit in EB. Example: Pezhetairoi/Klerouchoi Phalangitai -> Argyraspides.
3) Similar units would have had about similar experience in real life no matter who their employer is.

It may sound odd: mercs make war their profession and their colleagues in regular duty might not... *But* their colleagues would get about the same level of action as there would nearly always be a war going on (in the merc heavy regions that is). And yet another class simply fought the way they lived (nomads).

But exp system is screwed up in case of ALL units, not only mercs. Preferably, all units should start with at least 3 chevrons in campaign (with corresponding changes in EDU stats - BTW, there are TWO EDUs, which makes the job easier).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Experience seriously imbalances the stat system so we won't be doing this.

Foot

---

Actually we have a very few experienced mercs now in about half the pools. They are more expensive and typically replenish really slowly, although the balearic slingers and one weaker horse archer has a bit higher replenishment; if you max out replenishment rolls you could get an experienced horse archer unit as often as every third year (nearly) in Parthian lands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bovi

Actually we have a very few experienced mercs now in about half the pools. They are more expensive and typically replenish really slowly, although the balearic slingers and one weaker horse archer has a bit higher replenishment; if you max out replenishment rolls you could get an experienced horse archer unit as often as every third year (nearly) in Parthian lands.

---

That would be one very nice solution.. + if you count in that nearly 90% of mercs are not hired through all of your campaign.. so:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

You can even do it yourself...

---

it's in eb/data/world/maps/campaign/imperial campaign/DESCR_MERCENARIES.TXT
And I will 'tweak' it.. in 1.1 along with some other tweaks :yes: .. but thank you :bow: my friend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foot

Experience seriously imbalances the stat system so we won't be doing this.

---

Well, I know that realy.. still, thank you for your answer that was fast and fair :bow:

I usually hire mercs when my main forces are away and I need some good quality troop to counter an outnumbering enemy (that often hire most of the mercs itself)

Mercenaries are obviously better for factions that swim in money but might have trouble fielding large armies. Carthage comes to mind as your units take forever to reach Iberia or Syracuse or even Egypt, they also make a lot of money.
For certain factions, being able to recruit units like greek phalanx, hoplites or powerful cavalry is also a welcome addition.
In deep enemy land sometimes you might even hire mercenaries ahead of a big battle.

They supplement your army where the natives fail.

Anyone seen the film called the last valley, it's set in the 16th centuary, Michael Cain as the merc captain has to lead his men in a forlorn hope, no idea how accurate this is regarding real life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

But how realistic is it to use mercenaries as death fodder, arrow sponges or just send them to a certain death to tire out the enemy before your own troops go in?

---

If I remember correctly, Hannibal used Gallic mercenaries at the Battle of Cannae as the apex in his arced battle line so they would be the first soldiers faced and have to fight the hardest, eventually taking the most damage and retreating back. This caused the Romans to charge forward following the retreating Gallic mercs and allowed the remaining Carthaginian army to encirle them.

I doubt he used the Gallic mercs because they were "death fodder" though, probably because they were strong enough soldiers to be able to be used as such.

Then again, I could be talking rhubarb. Perhaps Zaknafien could correct me if I'm incorrect, as I believe this battle is still taught at military academies today.

Heck, it was shot where I love to climb mountains - in the summer and the winter...

Cheers
OA

[Technically off topic, but in reply to what some have said about using mercs as death fodder being a bad idea]

[Assumptions about playing styles ON]

Using mercs as "death fodder" in a siege assault makes good financial sense. Although they're more expensive to hire, you don't have to pay for their upkeep while they're on their way over, so it works out being cheaper in 9/10 cases. Mercs are also cheap garrison troops (over at least the short-medium term) for similar reasons.

Further, it doesn't make financial sense to have non-core troops in your field armies for anything other than the shortest period. Core troops can be replenished, which means they eventually attain extremely high levels of experience. Such units still cost the same amount to maintain but can then match or outperform their more expensive foes. This means that a stack of elite-equivalent quality costs you 10,000 - 15,000 less per turn.

Hence, if you retain four or five mercs (replacing them when depleted) and as a result it takes you twenty turns longer to get those experienced core troops, it'll cost you a hidden 240,000 - 360,000 mnai. That's the cost of hiring and upkeep for the extra soldiers you'll need to bridge the gap in military strength that arises from not having experienced field armies.

So, use mercenaries as death fodder so you don't needlessly wipe out experienced core troops. Use them as garrison troops. Use them as specialist troops to fill a hole in your roster. Use them for role-playing purposes.

But other than that, take Machiavelli's advice and avoid the buggers.

[/AAPSO]

[/TOTBIRTWSHS...]

If the experience system is screwed, though, this might be an exploit.

The problem with too much mercs is that it removes a sense of urgency - you can be invaded by a large army and you won't have to worry since if you're swimming in money, you can hire huge stack of mercs 4 times a year... :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

The problem with too much mercs is that it removes a sense of urgency - you can be invaded by a large army and you won't have to worry since if you're swimming in money, you can hire huge stack of mercs 4 times a year... :(

---

Good point, I don't like using them apart from cost, it's a waste of experienced gained(you can't retrain mercs). Like others have mentioned if I am assaulting walls, I may hire mercs to do the dirty work to save important troops, that's of course if the opposition looks a bit tasty.

Historically how much risk was there of mercs used as a garrison getting up to no good? I was wandering if mercs are used, that a script with a chance for the city to rebel or be sacked, might be applicable!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Digby Tatham Warter

Historically how much risk was there of mercs used as a garrison getting up to no good? I was wandering if mercs are used, that a script with a chance for the city to rebel or be sacked, might be applicable!

---

There were risks especially if there were more mercs than other troops. Scripting it might be a bit tricky, since the engine probably can't check which troops are in the garrison.

Nice idea, but could noly be done if there was a govenor in the city, which would bethe time when mercs would behave themselves, so I don't think this going to happen.

Shame, would deff be interesting. Stupid Epirotes.:smash:

Not to mention that AFAIK some units use a trick whereby they are tagged as merc in the EDU when in fact they are recruited as every other regular soldier...

whoa.

i just realized, i've never used mercenary units in EB, ever. XD

i doubt if that's historical.

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...

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.