[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

RE: How Mercenaries were regarded




Poster: "Sussman, Jeff" <JSussman@sss.niaid.nih.gov>


Greetings from Richard Fitzgilbert!


Master Malcolm wrote:

      "...
In sum, your esteem for mercenaries usually depended on whose side
they were on, yours or your enemies."

I think we're confusing a couple of diferent kinds of esteem.  There are   
many examples of mercenaries who were excellent quality troops.  However,   
there is a long tradition of commanders who throw the mercenaries into   
the fray first and pull them out last.  Common sense after all, why take   
casulaties on your own troops when you can cut your post-battle expenses   
by culling the mercenaries?  This kind of attitude, holding their combat   
ability in high esteem but caring little for their health and welfare,   
becomes more common, not less, after our period when some mercenary units   
develop long traditions and histories.

It's not clear for those rare cases, like the Gallowglasses, if rank was   
conferred as "esteem" or as payment for services rendered.

Because King John was able to hire more mercenaries than the barons means   
that he needed the troops, not that he wanted to bring them home to   
dinner.

Richard







=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org