"Why were mercenaries so common in the Middle Ages?" Topic

"The largest driver was economics, but also the social structure of the times.

In the early middle ages you had a lord. He didn't pay his warriors. Cash money was very scarce. He granted them land to support themselves and in return they were obligated to serve him as his soldiers. This is classic liege/lord structure you always hear about.

What happened later is that kings started to get more and more powerful and lords were less and less willing to risk their lives in combat. They had better things to do. The king would allow a noble to pay a special tax to avoid having to personally serve called scutage.

What started out as an exception became the rule. After a while the king would much rather have the tax money instead of the service – especially if the noble was likely to be late to muster, poorly equipped, poorly trained…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Yep. Just like hiring skilled employees at a growing business. Sometimes you have to hire temps.

When your own citizens are unable or unwilling to serve long enough to become competent at defending the nation's interests, and you are suddenly out of time, hiring professionals is the only logical option you have left.

You only hire the number you need for the task and only keep them while you need them.

Also, when dealing with internal matters, if your subjects are unable to shake off their particular tribal/faction loyalties in favor of a national one, the mercenaries will come in and treat everyone of your subjects equally … equally brutal of course, but equally.

Just like temps or outside hires at a business.

Dan

Worth remembering that you've got a nearly-static economy and social structure, both predominantly rural. It keeps creating a surplus of adult males who are not going to inherit the farm--or the manor. Pre-mechanization farms are always a good source of soldiers.

Once you have a money economy, you can have a regular income and a regular army to go with, but until then--well, plenty of surplus males where these came from.

Unless demand was truly overwhelming and a little treachery didn't weigh against the bitter need, mercenaries switching sides was a rare occurrence, and most often the mercenaries were paid not to show up (or be late) rather than join the other side because pulling that kind of trick quickly got around. People weren't stupid, if you tried to play both sides, chances was that somebody put a bounty on your head and made sure one of your eager lieutenants got your job instead.

Mercenaries switching sides wasn't the problem, it was the quiet periods, in between active phases of the war where mercenaries were mostly idle and without a source of income.

This ended up promoting professionalism. Mercenaries turning brigand usually ended dangling from a rope, the smart ones drew up retainer contracts and made sure their men behaved. Oddly enough some mercenary units only allowed landed men to join because once their term was up they simply would go home and the mercenary life was simply a means to get a little extra money.

The most decadent where the Italian mercenaries and Condottiere. The system was so tailored to the Italian conflicts being bloodless money rackets that when real armies invaded the "invincible" Condottiere crumbled because they had to actually fight, rather than pretend. The whole thing is lamented by Machiavelli in the Prince.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

Also the English embraced Scutage not for mercenaries but for professional soldiers. The hundred years war English could pick the very best of the best to campaign in France. Almost a regular army, scutage also makes it easier to maintain large garrisons of troops with loyalty to the King not the magnates.

Thanks also.

Amicalement
Armand

The most decadent where the Italian mercenaries and Condottiere. The system was so tailored to the Italian conflicts being bloodless money rackets that when real armies invaded the "invincible" Condottiere crumbled because they had to actually fight, rather than pretend. The whole thing is lamented by Machiavelli in the Prince.

Lamented by Macchiavelly perhaps, but wrong nonetheless.

While its true that "total war" was not the habit of the Condottieri – the same holds true for most other conflicts of their time, too, though – they were neither bloodless, nor did Italian armies "crumble". When some city states chose to defer rather then fight France, the main reason was the difference in monetary resources and army size, rather then military prowess.

Take a look at the battle of Arbedo:
link

The battle of Novara was a pretty close affair, too, no sign of "crumbling".

What Macchiavelly wrote was intended to further his political goals. Streamlining facts to the point of becoming "alternative" views is not uncommon for him.

Have to agree, the principle reason for the "Prince" was to get said author out of prison and into the good graces of the authorities. The Italians are well into the Renaissance and have come to realize that just because one is the Duke that does make him strategist or tactician any more than it does a champion of weapons. They learn that you need professionals; these professions have little desire to see their asset killed without return.
Yes my lord we can take that hill it will cost half my men and they enemy will take it back whenever they like, furthermore while you're affronted by their flag fly over there, that hill does not help them with their siege, so no my lord we are not taking that hill.