Quote Originally Posted by Brandy Blue
If I understand the consensus correctly, then my question is almost without meaning. Any soldier who received pay could be considered a mercinary. Well, by that reasoning, even a feudal levy could be considered mercinary, because the noble who raised the force for his king was paid with a land grant. Admittedly, that would be stretching the meaning of the term mercinary almost to the breaking point.
Not quite. Feudal levies were almost never full time. Being given land in lieu of coin is what Feudalism is all about. They'd be called up for a campagin or a battle then go home. What we most of us are saying is, before the later 18th century professional full time soldier and mercenary can be used interchangably. However if one were to draw a distinction. A key difference between a professional soldier and a mercenary would be whether they were foregin to their rulers state or not.


Quote Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Question: What was Machiavelli on about, then? Or was he something like the "pioneer" literature-wise when it comes to the issue?

Ah, I'm finally back!
Never read Machiavelli. But he seems to have been big on covering all the angles, and avoiding wildcards. Condottieri, being loyal to money and little else would have really rankled a guy who was all about rulers relying on what they had, not what they could buy.