Where should you put your mercenary companies in a battle
At the front, so they die before your actual soldiers?
At the flanks, where they can move out and attack the enemy where they are weak?
At the rear, so they can move in and help shore up any weakpoints in your battle lines.
Where they perform their role best.
Whatever I paid them to do.
Generally though I would opt for a flanking tactic. This is the assumption that I have a decent enough army and I hired mercenaries to make the battle quicker and hold less casualties on my side.
My army is expected, but I'd keep the Mercenary group as hidden as possible and have them flank from either sides or rear, where ever the important targets/weakest points are. I.E. Archer group, siege engines, general/leader, etc etc.
I would only resort to having them be my initial meat shields if I am facing something on the lines of RIP AND TEAR daemonz. Or I would have them bolster my numbers generally if I was stuck against my whim in a battle of attrition.
>>47042724
>Where should you put your mercenary companies in a battle
What did you pay them to do?
>>47042894
I hired Italian Condottieri.
They seem to insist that just about any position I want to put them in is "unfavorable" and want to reposition as much as possible to "gain a tactical advantage."
>>47042927
>Italian Condottieri
They will either run away, switch sides or try not to hurt the enemy at all.
>>47042927
>I hired Italian Condottieri.
>They seem to insist that just about any position I want to put them in is "unfavorable" and want to reposition as much as possible to "gain a tactical advantage."
What game are you playing? :interested:
>>47042724
Remember that mercenaries are there for the coin, not for you. If the tide turns, they will likely run instead of standing and fighting.
The flanks would be the best place for them, since attacks of opportunity tend to be their forte. Putting them at the front is a waste of resources, and putting them at the rear risks them fleeing the battle.
>>47042724
Depends on the mercs and the time.
You do not want to send amulgavars to a frontal assault. And Gallowgasses are shit skirmishers.
Regarding the time: In the middle ages mercs would be your most competend and reliable troops, so you were sending your levy to die first and then use your mercs.
And for Condotteri: In early times, nice. Worst soldiers ever later on.
>>47043045
Which is more than most feudal levy will do, in history mercs fought incredibly well as long as getting paid in time. If you miss on payments, expect massive looting and running away.
>>47043283
With levy I hope you don't mean peasants, because you don't send the people that feed you to die.
>>47043326
>because you don't send the people that feed you to die.
"Why not? They're in great abundance and we'll always have more of them.
It's not like they aren't going to start dying in droves back home from a great disease or something."
>>47042724
>mercenaries
>actual soldiers
I don't think you know how mercenaries work, man.
>>47043489
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsknecht
>>47042724
Step 1: Hire the Swiss
Step 2: Put them up front in the middle
Step 3: Win war
Step 4: Make sure you pay the Swiss
Step 5: Make sure you remembered Step 4
>>47043283
>You do not want to send amulgavars to a frontal assault.
But almogavars frontal assauled cavalry.
Do like Machiavelli advises and tell them to fuck off before they figure out they can just take your shit and leave.
>>47043045
>Remember that Soldiers are there for the coin, not for you. If the tide turns, they will likely run instead of standing and fighting
>>47044936
>>47044590
These desu
Mercenary crossbowmen, real or fiction?
>>47045716
Real
Countries that routinely relied on mercenaries are because they have a weak ass national army. The mercenaries would be placed in the most critical roles or would be expected to do battle first. Your most reliable troops (if you had any non mercenary ones) would be kept close on hand in case the mercs falter or have a change of heart.
>Paid ahead of time
In the best tactical role for their specialty and maximum return on investment
>Paying them after
In the role that will result in all of them being slaughtered so I don't have to pay.
>>47045814
All countries before 1750 relied on mercenaries.
Except maybe the Swiss.They sold themselves as mercs instead
>>47045788
Sounds cushy, learn the easy to use crossbow, hide behind a pavise, kill knights and other men at arms because crossbows are OP
>>47045919
Get charged by arrogant Frenchmen because they sent you forward without your Pavise and wet crossbow strings
>>47045953
Easy, don't work with the French
>>47045974
>don't work with the richest motherfuckers in Europe who fight so much you can work for them all day.
If you were a minor medieval power surrounded by other minor but opportunistic neighbors how would you best handle and use mercenaries?
>>47046072
>If you were a minor medieval power surrounded by other minor but opportunistic neighbors how would you best handle and use mercenaries?
I would hire myself and my army out as mercenaries and perform a valuable function in uniting and serving a larger polity
>nah I'll just work for whoever pays me, if they want it to be permanent thats fine to
>>47042724
Not at the flanks, as they'll suddenly be some of the slowest fucks you've ever seen, and you've seen the King's fat nephew. Certainly not where the enemy has put their mercenaries, or you'll have two mercenary bands playing patty cake.
>>47042724
possibly one of the saddest/greatest monuments to merc'dom there is, deffo the top 1 for me
Why isn't mercenary cavalry a thing, horses to expensive for mercenaries to maintain?
>>47046399
It was.
The Italians and French and even English split mercs into "lances" of several cavalry, usually one heavy and several light squires who enrolled together. Each mercenary captain would be required to hire multiple lances and the units fielded as cavalry
>>47046474
I'm guessing the horse of choice for mercs was the Rouncey
>>47046399
It was, in virtually every era that saw mercenary use.
Hellenistic Tarantines, Iberian Jinetes, Turcopoles during the Crusades, Italian Condottieri, Anglo-Scottish Border Horse and German Reiters to name only some of the most famous types from a variety of periods.
>>47046515
It depends entirely on the role. A mercenary man-at-arms would ride the same Courser or Destrier warhorses as their feudal counter-parts.
As others have said, with a few notable exceptions medieval mercenaries were some of the best-equipped, veteran and loyal soldiers a Prince could lay his hands on. Above all they were dependable and could be kept on tap compared to the feudal troops with conditions and limited periods of service in a year.
As time wore on it became more and more common to substitute scutage for feudal military service that your liege would use to hire some mercenaries.
>>47042927
>I hired Italian Condottieri.
So you've wasted your money and already lost. Congrats, now get either conscripts or at least Swiss
>>47042724
Oh, so this time the army will have infantry support? Great, deploy them next to supply wagon so it will be well-protected and we can focus on crushing all their forces
>>47047049
You bet.
Can you believe it? We hired Cossack Mercenaries. They were more than eager to work for us, surely they'll know how best to fight their blasted Cossack rebel kin.
Chmelnitzki won't know what hit him!
>>47047124
>Cossack mercs
I beg your pardon. If hiring mercs, then fucking professional soldiers, not bunch of Ukrainian savages
>>47042927
>>47042953
>>47042968
You're missing the most important use of Condottieri.
Your enemy hires real, honest-to-god Condottieri who will fight. You hire any old "Condottieri" with a charter, even if they are not real fighters.
You send your Condottieri against your foes. They meet, realize they are both Italians, and "neutralize by contract", retiring from the field.
Now your random Italians have countered his real Condottieri, and your enemy is at a loss of both force and money. You're out a few ducats and a couple tuns of wine. Proceed to slaughter.
>>47042724
In the front, wearing the garb and insingia of my most infamously known unit of fuck-ups, given the leet nature of the mercs they'll fuck with logistic knowledge of the enemies, the shitscrubs will be positioned in front of the veteran line to keep the from running, the most loyal and frankly ragged looking will be in enemy lines in the mercenaries captured garb, ready to kill their way to commanders at a signal.
Did something like this in a very dragon age inquisition-scaled custom homebrew.
Tuned out OKconsidering the player tunning Intel forgot to tell the cannons to aim for the front most ranks at all times
>>47042724
detached duty. glen cook had it right. all those ugly jobs that you can't trust your normal army to do, or which will draw an immense amount of anger from the locals- that's what you use mercs for
