Mercenary Behavior

[Barkhorn1x]

A long time ago I played a board game called Alexander the Great (still have it BTW) that had some fairly detailed morale rules. Basically, your morale was lowered to some extent when you took casualties and at a certain point bad things began to happen - like your mercenaries would desert.

Will M2TW feature mercenary units w/ a lower morale that will quite the field or surrender before your faction units do? This would be a fine reflection of historical accuracy as you would expect that these troops would not be as committed as your actual vassals.

Barkhorn.

[hoom]

And yet it was reasonably often the mercenaries that were last on the field still fighting in many battles...
Eg in particular Granicus & Issus.

[Peasant Phill]

I think it would be great if mercenaries would have different morale. Some mercenary units would have high morale (probably elite units) and others very low morale. You wouldn't know this until in the battle.
This is historical (I think, if your don't agree explain to me why). It would also be very good gameplaywise as this would make you think twice about hiring to much mercenaries. Low morale mercenaries could start a chain rout where your army, smaller but bolder, would've fought on.

[Barkhorn1x]

And yet it was reasonably often the mercenaries that were last on the field still fighting in many battles...
Eg in particular Granicus & Issus.

You speak of the Greek mercenaries in Persian service. They were surrounded and had little choice as the Macedonians did not offer them any quatre.

Barkhorn.

[Barkhorn1x]

I think it would be great if mercenaries would have different morale. Some mercenary units would have high morale (probably elite units) and others very low morale. You wouldn't know this until in the battle.
This is historical (I think, if your don't agree explain to me why). It would also be very good gameplaywise as this would make you think twice about hiring to much mercenaries. Low morale mercenaries could start a chain rout where your army, smaller but bolder, would've fought on.

Now that's not a bad idea - as I do agree some of these units were indeed elite. But...I would like to see some sort of "loyalty factor" included to simulate the fragile nature of a mercenary army and to make reliance on these forces somewhat of a risk.

Barkhorn.

[Furious Mental]

Actually the idea that mercenaries were liable to up and desert as soon as a battle seemed to be going the other way is to a large extent a myth. For a start, the most loyal and steadfast soldiers in a kingdom were frequently the members of the military household of the king and his tenants-in-chief, and military households often contained many mercenaries. The military households of the Anglo-Norman kings were almost entirely mercenaries and we know this because contemporary sources kept calling them "mercenarii". One of those sources, Orderic Vitalis, also gives examples of how even temporarily employed mercenaries could be determined in a war. First of all, he referred to Angevin mercenaries threatening to desert William the Conqueror in England, but that was after almost five years of deployment, and notably the rest of William's mercenaries were apparently willing to fight on as long as rewards were promised. Second, he also referred to an instance in 1102 where the castle of a rebel baron was surrendered to Henry I by its feudal constable, without the knowledge or consent of the mercenary portion of the garrison. This enraged them and they left the castle telling the besieging force that they and their employer had been betrayed by their commander. In actuality they might have just been annoyed that they weren't going to get paid, but either way it makes no difference. Mercenaries, being itinerant professional soldiers, had a stake in the victory of their employer, since that was often the only way they would get paid. The only alternative for them was to turn to banditry in which case they would often be hunted down and executed by whoever controlled the land they were looting, and hence it offered no advantage (in fact it was alot less lucrative).

"the fragile nature of a mercenary army and to make reliance on these forces somewhat of a risk."

Pretty much every army deployed by the English Kings from William I to Henry III was comprised substantially or even almost entirely of mercenaries of one kind or another, and I can assure you they were not characterised by "fragility". In fact said kings and their barons preferred to employ mercenaries because they
- Were full time rather than part time soldiers
- Had no conflicting seignurial loyalties
- Didn't object to serving overseas or for long periods of time, in fact they preferred this since it guaranteed employment

In fact for most of the period in question "feudal" soldiers were relatively scarce because almost from the time "knights' fees" were introduced to England a process began of dividing them up and simply having the sub-tenants pay a sum to the landlord which was used to employ mercenaries. Other countries may well have been completely different ways of raising armies but there is no way they could have relied on a fuedal system the same as England's and yet deployed armies of equal effectiveness. Such an army would have been too homogenous, politically divided and ephemeral to have achieved much.

[LadyAnn]

I agree too. Mercenaries had to have their reputation upheld. They made their name (and the retainer fees) largely due to their reputation. It is true however that Mercenaries could change allegeance, but that generally not during battle. They will leave if there is no money to pay them.

[Aracnid]

What were the Welsh archers who were vital in the Hundred Years war, they weren't patriots, after all Owen Glendower had jsut revolted against the English crown and taken most of Wales with him, they were men with a very sepcific skill who could make a lot money on good raid into France. Despite Shakespeare it was greed not patriotism that raised the Anglo-Norman armies.

[Bob the Insane]

I guess what this discussion is showing is that a lot of the units we raise in the normal manner in M2TW would be in fact mercenaries (not in-game mind you) and not really so very different to the 'mercenary units' hired in the field by generals.

So there is not really any reason for any distinct morale or ability difference between in-game mercenary units and regular units.

You could view Mercenaries in-game as a preformed and equiped band ready to serve, were as hired units are (while still essentially mercenaries) formed from individuals equiped at the King's expense...