So I was playing around and doing some calculations for a mercenary company that I want the PCs to have dealings with while in Fauth. Oustenreich captain, has fought Stahl and Gelure and decided to erm... "retire". Taking his not inconsiderable knowledge of killing on a large scale with him.
Regardless, the problem is determining the size of the company I would have him form- its a mix of pike, crossbowmen and doppelsolders and specializing in breaking charges and smashing other pike formations.

Here's the problem: the expense. *grabs notes*

This is a professional heavy infantry company as follows:

100 pikemen: pikes, short swords, breastplate and nasal helm.

26 crossbowmen: crossbows, short sword, breastplate, nasal helm

25 doppelsolders: doppelhander, breastplate, chain greaves and sleeves, full helm.

Ignoring the cost of providing for such an unruly mass, even ignoring the fact that you have to pay them on a semi-regular basis so that they don't rebel, where would someone get the 2,722 gold to outfit such a force (noting that the income for a landed noble is 50 gold a year).

Mind you this is strictly a mercenary company with a limited scope, probably forming the shock troops of a larger force that would also consist of cavalry, additional missile support, and skirmishers.

I suppose my dilemma is that any one individual that could outfit such a unit would have more than enough money to live comfortably for any number of years and would not need to worry about such a dangerous career as professional soldiering. Thoughts?

That's not a typical company. That could be an entire single battle formation of a medieval army. (about 1/3 or the combatants)
Consider that you logistics personnel might be 150% as compared to your soldiers. Try starting smaller and building up. Collect what gear you can for general issue, but the soldiers would likely provide most of their own arms and armour, at least for a while.

Remember also that historically, such forces were usually not paid, but existed on the pillage of those who they fought. This is also how they outfitted themselves.

A small guard etc is a different matter, but you're talking a mercenary company (and a large one at that). You would pay the officers a small amount, and make up the shortfall when there wasn't enough pillage etc for food, but otherwise the reward is whatever they can salvage.

Brian.

There is a novel called Ash by Mary Gentle that might provide some nice background to this. It's about the leader of a mercenary company in an alternate 15C europe.

Dan.

If I remember correctly, the book "The Medieval Soldier" had some info on mercs of the time, and was in general, a pretty decent sourcebook.
I can't remember who it's by though.

Draigh wrote: If I remember correctly, the book "The Medieval Soldier" had some info on mercs of the time, and was in general, a pretty decent sourcebook.
I can't remember who it's by though.

I was basing a lot of the general principle off of the condottieri in the Italian penisula, and am very well aware that such a large force would be an anomaly. I think what I am going to use as part of the justification is that one of the larger guilds is helping to fund the company's payroll and supplies (they'd be one of the few that could do so). Given the current situation in Fauth as outlined in the core rulebook, I don't see that the guilds preemptively hiring the services of acompany such as that would be such a leap in logic. They would also probably frown on wholescale pillaging and lotting as it does cut down on their profit margins and decreases their own ability to fund the impending guild war. Not to say that it's not going to happen anyway, just that they would want the worst of the excess curbed.

As for scope, I was picturing armies in the 2,000 to 5,000 range where the company I just described would serve as a sort of elite guard or shock troop.

As for starting small: this is an NPC, not a PC force, so the intermediate steps are a lot less important, unless of course one of the PCs gets it into his head that he wants to form a competing company.

The whole idea of the cost of mercenary units depends upon the time from which they come. In the beginning of the modern era c.1483 the mercenary was basically paid enough to keep him interested in walking to the battle. After that the fight would ensue and the winners would loot the bodies/homes of the defenders/whatever... Most of these units evolved into professional standing armies via the concept of the retainer over the years. A mercenary unit, as others have pointed out, would not be so well equipped, except a company of wealthy young men out for some adventure and booty. A "typical" (term used loosley) Condotierre company member was usually (self) equipped with a primary weapon (often a pike or other hafted/pole arm), a leather jack, a secondary weapon (a long knife or short sword), a helmet (sallet or pot helm), possibly a buckler, sundry items (bed roll, mess kit, ablutions kit, a few bandages some coin and a few bits of food) and his wits.

Wealthy and/or able units, much like the Swiss Mercs or German Landesknechts tended to be a bit better off. They had the benefit of crossbows (musket around 1550), longswords, bidenhanders, maille, katzbalgers, daggers, helms of many types, shields, pikes, halberds and so on in a startling variety of combinations. The very wealthy and the successful officers could even afford harness from time to time.

The point is that you're saying two different things. At first you compare the cost of equiping the soldiers to the income of a typical noble. Then you say that this is the vanguard unit of a national army. Well, a noble can't afford that. Nor can the mercenaries, as people keep on pointing out. The only way you're going to get that unit, is, as you suggest, to have them equipped by some wealthy organization, or the crown. Which, given the size and quality isn't unlikely. This means that somebody else owns the equipment, not the soldiers, so the whole retirement argument is irrellevant; not their money.

That said, however, imagine that the unit in questionis somehow defeated by a more determined, and possibly larger or bettter led mercenary force. What then happens to the arms and armor of the Guild's defeated army? Well, the victors have captured all this stuff. Now you have your retirement dillemma in theory.

But let's look at that. This is about 18 gold per man. One third of a noble's income for a year. Can a man really retire on that? Well, the leader could alone (there's likely a share scheme where he'd get the lion's share), maybe, but then what? Settle down? These are mercenaries, and they probably don't know another life. And what will the men who have smaller shares say? They'll demand to keep going until they've got their retirement funds set up as well. Most likely they'll take the arms and armor, use it, and look for a much larger prize before retiring.

So, now you have a unit with this stuff, wandering around looking for work. They can charge more, because their better equipped, but that likely simply means a better cut of the loot at the next pillage. So not all that expensive at all.

In fact, with the Condotierre, now that you mention them, often the largest expense was counter-bribing them so that they wouldn't turn on you and work for your enemy when he bribed them to do so. Basically the cost of mercenaries in this sort of situation is based on how much money your opponent has.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: The point is that you're saying two different things. At first you compare the cost of equiping the soldiers to the income of a typical noble. Then you say that this is the vanguard unit of a national army. Well, a noble can't afford that. Nor can the mercenaries, as people keep on pointing out. The only way you're going to get that unit, is, as you suggest, to have them equipped by some wealthy organization, or the crown. Which, given the size and quality isn't unlikely. This means that somebody else owns the equipment, not the soldiers, so the whole retirement argument is irrellevant; not their money.

Ashton wrote: My major sticking point, and I apologize for not making this clearer from the start, is whether or not the commander of a company would bankroll its formation, thereby helping to insure the loyalty of the men to him, or if the guild would instead hire the command structure separate from the line soldiers.

If its a company formed from veterans, then they may well have come equipped from previous looting or absconding with their gear, or simply being left behind, or being equipped by virtue of being previously retained to a defeated lord. In that scenario the operational capital for a would-be commander would mostly be concerned with food, lodgings and transport.

So such a company could well be hired en bloc if they are essentially looking for maintenance. But all negotiations would usually be done with the captain I'd expect, depending on the constitution of the band.

Also, how landed is this landed noble?

No noble, Gareth, the concept changed (and I failed to note it). We now have a guild who may well have the cash to equip them or do what it takes.

Mike

Ashton wrote: They would also probably frown on wholescale pillaging and lotting as it does cut down on their profit margins and decreases their own ability to fund the impending guild war. Not to say that it's not going to happen anyway, just that they would want the worst of the excess curbed.

Ashton wrote: They would also probably frown on wholescale pillaging and lotting as it does cut down on their profit margins and decreases their own ability to fund the impending guild war. Not to say that it's not going to happen anyway, just that they would want the worst of the excess curbed.

Brian Leybourne wrote:
Heh... It would be an interesting exercise trying to tell the victorious soldiers to stop raping the women and looting the houses. You would need some seriously scary-ass (and well paid) sergants and captains for that to work...

Brian.

Brian Leybourne wrote:
Heh... It would be an interesting exercise trying to tell the victorious soldiers to stop raping the women and looting the houses. You would need some seriously scary-ass (and well paid) sergants and captains for that to work...

Brian.

Salamander wrote:
Brian, mate! Who do you think ORGANIZED the raping and pillaging?
;)

Salamander wrote:
If the Guilds don't want this to happen, they had better pay the troops pretty darm well. I am talking about 2-3 times the pay listed for a Merc in the book. Otherwise these guys will not really feel compelled to keep hands off.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Yeah, but contrary to what others imply, this did happen. I mean, what if you're hiring the mercenary army to retake your home city? You're going to do what it takes to have pillaging not happen.

In these cases, the rule was simple. The captian put out work that anyone caught looting would be hanged for it. This probably wasn't 100% effective, but it was used because it worked. Especially after the first soldier caught was made an example to the others.

But, yes, there has to be appropriate remuneration at some point, or the attack isn't going to happen.

Mike

Salamander:

This being the case of Fauth though, where its the guilds are hiring and not the main government, the danger is that the official Fauth army, for whatever it is worth, might get involved, especially with guild armies doing more than fighting the other guild. Wholesale destruction might be a very good way of the mercenary armies finding themselves on the most wanted list, or for bounties being placed on the heads of the commanders.

Ashton wrote: Salamander:

This being the case of Fauth though, where its the guilds are hiring and not the main government, the danger is that the official Fauth army, for whatever it is worth, might get involved, especially with guild armies doing more than fighting the other guild. Wholesale destruction might be a very good way of the mercenary armies finding themselves on the most wanted list, or for bounties being placed on the heads of the commanders.

I believe that pillage was a pretty common form of payemnt for mercenary troops. Armies also generally had 'rules' as to how loot would be divided. I think a pretty common rule was for each soldier to give 1/3 of his loot to his superior, who also gave 1/3 of his....

Also, if I remember correctly, cities that fell to assault were generally pillaged (often for 3 days). Cities that surrendered paid a randsom instead.

NT

toli wrote: Also, if I remember correctly, cities that fell to assault were generally pillaged (often for 3 days). Cities that surrendered paid a randsom instead.