So are mercenaries supposed to start conflicts to stay in business? I mean sellswords with no wars means they have no jobs.
>>47919647
I wouldn't expect it, as a general thing. People are perfectly capable of conflicting with each other on their own. If you want to cast them as big villains, though, then sure.
mercenaries tend to only appear in times where there is war. Even then, there needs to be a demand for them. If you have plenty of quality soldiers, you're wasting money on mercenaries.
In order for a mercenary company to survive, there needs to be: 1)demand for mercenary fighters, 2)wars to fight, and 3)money or goods to be exchanged for services.
But yes, I suppose a very powerful or influential mercenary force could attempt to instigate a war or continue to prolong a war for their profit.
>>47919647
>So are prostitutes supposed to incite lust to stay in business? I mean whores with no johns means they have no jobs.
>>47919647
Mercenaries need the correct climate to exist in. They either exist as relatively small forces, no more than 200 men, to provide muscle for nobles, merchants, bankers, etc., making a power play, coup attempt, etc., or they exist in larger companies as military professionals.
The main distinction between a small group of "sellswords" and a larger "mercenary company" is that the latter has various treaties and agreements already in place to provide their men with equipment, transportation, food, etc.
Here's a pdf of David Parrott's book, Business of War.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/v2vi3w52qtbm944/OpSec10.zip
Also, never listen to Machiavelli
>>47919859
^this
Mercenaries are merely men and women who take advantage of the fact that people are murdering each other and perhaps need a helping, third-party hand.
>>47919647
I mean people/insurance companies always need security. Ocean shipping alone invites god knows how much theft
>>47919876
what's wrong with Machivelli?
>>47919831
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi
>>47919939
but private security can be wildly different from actual for-hire military units.
>>47919647
the thing you have to remember is that for the longest time, professional armies and soldiers did not exist. Even among the Greeks, it took a group like the Spartans or Sacred Band to exist as full-time soldiers, which is why they were so good. Most soldiers of the era took up arms as a kind of citizen-soldier. They were often potters or farmers before there was a need for them.
Come post-Rome europe and it's the same thing: soldiering was not a career, it was a part time occupation. That's why mercenaries got big. They existed as standing armies, ready to go on a moments notice, and they existed in large quantities.. If a nation needed an army, they hired mercenaries. Raising an army from the citizens was often not possible.
As another anon has posted (>>47919876), Parrot does a good job with this. As he explains in the first chapter, some 19,000 of the French army were mercenaries. The other 2,000 were all of the citizenry that was able to fight on a moment's notice.
>>47919903
his account of history is often contradicted by other sources, namely those who were actually present at the event. Remember that Machivelli was a political idealist: he hated mercenaries on principle because they made a business of war, when he saw war as a means of the people of a nation fighting a war that would forge the nation in some bloody baptism.
>>47919647
>I'm using war as a business to end war as a business
>>47919972
Why wasn't it possible to raise an army of full time soldiers?
>>47920051
STANDING HERE, I REALIZE
>>47920065
not really. Unless it was really small. That would be called a retinue, and be more of a guard than an army.
>>47920065
Not enough money. Pretty much everyone in the world was living hand to mouth and if you taxed them enough to produce a standing army you'd make them go broke and, since the peasantry is the basis of the economy, you'd go broke as well.
The thing that let Rome conquer the world was that it could support an enormous surplus population thanks to its economic structure and no one else could
>>47920065
Not that guy, but economies didn't generate enough wealth to have workers spend all their time training to fight instead of producing. Moreover, most bodies that would organize standing armies couldn't collect enough revenue to maintain a standing army.
Exceptions, of course, exist.
>>47920065
because it wasn't so easy to get the food, weapons, and transportation made.
Remember, this is before centralized government. A feudal lord only realistically controlled a single city. He relied on the surrounding lords to control the rest of his lands.
To raise an army, his lords must be both able and willing. That's not just a phrase by the way, but fact. Moreover, the army all required money from the King's treasury, and from the treasuries of his lords. This was often more expensive than just hiring mercenaries, who could operate on credit rather than hard cash.
>>47919647
GIVE WAR A CHANCE
>>47919647
>a fucking Thunder Hawk
What the fuck kinda mercs are those.
>>47919647
No. No one is going to pay you if you start a war, they're going to target you.
And you're going to be vastly outnumbered with no logistical support, no reinforcements, and no where to run.
>>47919903
In addition to what >>47919991 said, there's also kind of a big historic debate as to whether or not his work was intended to be serious. There's quite a few things in his books (most specifically The Prince) that are either counter-intuitive or almost deceitful, and the fact that he wrote the book for a man he supposedly did not get along with doesn't help the case.
Just take what he says with a grain of salt, and check up other sources as well before you take it as gospel.
>>47920156
>This was often more expensive than just hiring mercenaries, who could operate on credit rather than hard cash.
Combined with fact that mercenaries also already had the internal structure and discipline necessary to be soldiers without major training, and often had a reliable source of arms and armor that didn't need to be maintained by the king (unless specifically stated, but even then it was often still cheaper to do that than hire new soldiers).
Also, mercs were "cats paws" that a king could wash his hands of if they did some distasteful thing, like, say, rape the daughters of a rival noble during a campaign of subjugation (sure, you want to teach the guy a lesson, but a mans got to have SOME standards!) or other socially distasteful behavior. If it were his own troops, it falls directly in his lap, and is now his problem to deal with.
Another note on Mercenaries. They dropped like flies. At least in the "Renaissance" era, armies would take something like 50% casualties from disease alone. Imagine if a Lord's own men were dying like that. Or worse, the peasants that provided his income.
>>47920815
>50% casualties
over a campaign, including the incapacitated and bedridden, I assume?
>>47920848
Yeah, on a campaign. And remember, the early modern strategy of warfare was to actually avoid pitched battles unless forced to or with an overwhelming advantage. So often the soldiers would just be marching around denying the enemy, while dropping from all sorts of diseases that followed the camp.
>>47919859
They do tho. Y do u dink dey dress provocatively?
>>47919647
There has never been a time without war.
How valuable is a mercenary with far more loyalty than one would expect from someone of such a profession?
>>47921100
A individual mercenary us worthless. 5 thousand loyal ones would be with fortunes
>>47921159
all I need is 20 good men
>>47921226
What if this single loyal fella is a fookin legend?
If there's no war to keep all the sellsword companies busy then they start taking over cities for giggles and a war springs up to kick them out anyway.
>>47919647
Ever heard of security forces or corporate hires?
Unless we are talking more historic mercs then things get complicated.
