Mercenary Hoplites

[Geffalrus]

From my point of view, Merc Hoplites are cost inefficient compared to Citizen hoplites since they have the same POA but cost 6 points more. Their main advantage is having the maneuver trait allowing them to rotate at the end of moving two spaces (and in other circumstances when within command range). To me, this is a useful trait for medium foot who are more often operating as flankers via rough ground where heavy infantry don't like to go. It seems like a much less useful trait for heavy infantry who mostly operate in solid lines or stationary defensive positions where maneuver is unnecessary.

I think a better option for the unit would be the identically priced dismounted lancers in the Early Medieval time frame who are above average and unmaneuverable. To me, this seems like a better representation of the combat potential of mercenary hoplites who would have a bit better morale and combat skill than the part time soldiers of the citizen hoplites. I'd be much more likely to purchase merc hoplites in situations where I have both units, instead of currently, where I'd rather have more citizen hoplites to replace the more expensive mercenary option.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I find Merc Hops useful, but not in numbers. Generally with Greek armies I shove Citizen Hoplites into the center, where there will be little in the way of maneuvering anyway, and a smaller number of Merc Hoplites on the wings to support the cavalry. I do think the Maneuverable vs Unmaneuverable distinction is pretty good way to portray the difference between the more experienced professionals and the bumbling but nevertheless brave & enthusiastic amateurs.

[Geffalrus]

But why doesn't "experienced professionals" in this case result in them having better POA than citizen soldiers who don't have nearly as much combat experience? I can kind of see the maneuver argument, but we're talking about a hoplite phalanx here; not exactly known for fancy maneuvers.

[General Shapur]

Isocrates was highly critical of Athens for employing mercenaries whom he denounced as the "common enemies of mankind". Athenian citizens, he said, must not be "rejoicing in the atrocities of such violent, lawless brigands".

Aristotle accepted that mercenaries were competent but he doubted their courage and loyalty. In his view, mercenaries "become cowards when the danger seems too great for them", being the "first to run" when defeat is imminent. Aristotle argued in favour of citizen soldiers who see flight from battle as a disgrace, preferring death with honour. Mercenaries, said Aristotle, "fear death more than shame".

[MVP7]

Isocrates was highly critical of Athens for employing mercenaries whom he denounced as the "common enemies of mankind". Athenian citizens, he said, must not be "rejoicing in the atrocities of such violent, lawless brigands".

Aristotle accepted that mercenaries were competent but he doubted their courage and loyalty. In his view, mercenaries "become cowards when the danger seems too great for them", being the "first to run" when defeat is imminent. Aristotle argued in favour of citizen soldiers who see flight from battle as a disgrace, preferring death with honour. Mercenaries, said Aristotle, "fear death more than shame".

I would take both Isocrate's and Aristotle's words with a grain of salt like I would any modern day philosopher's or "rhetorician's" assessments and opinions on contemporary military matters. Isocrate's had to get a job after Peloponnesian wars devastated his father's estate and during the war Mercenaries had refused to work for Athens due to a plague. Aristotle's suspicions of mercenary morale were probably based more on his own ideals than empirical evidence.

Even if Aristotle likes to romanticize the pride and patriotism of citizen troops, the Greeks armies generally ran pretty quickly if the phalanx was disrupted with the overall losses being relatively low. Greek mercenaries being unreliable and cowardly isn't really backed up by evidence. I'm not aware of any cases where mercenary army would have been routed by the honor of the citizens alone but there are examples of mercenaries being the last to retreat from battlefield in organized manner after the citizens had fled. Retreat of the Ten Thousand is a good example of mercenaries' organization and morale in a situation where most armies in history would have been routed and destroyed.

Greek mercenaries were the dominating troop type of Mediterranean region in their time and every serious military employed and often tried to copy them. Greek citizen hoplites were generally not trained systematically (with a notable exception of Sparta during its heyday) and when some states started putting more effort into maintaining well trained forces those were often trained by hired veteran mercenary leaders. In my opinion Mercenary hoplites should definitely have some small experience advantage over the Citizen Hoplites (and I think that advantage being small would still be conservative and should cover any doubts over the mercs motivation and morale).

[Geffalrus]

How much experience did Aristotle have with serving as a hoplite in Athens? He only moved there from Thessaloniki at the age of 18, and I'm unaware of any mention of him being involved in military activity with the polis. Mercenaries in general were regularly used for critical roles in Greek and Macedonian armies, so I would be highly skeptical of any analysis calling them averse to danger.

My opinion is that Aristotle's remarks speak to a very different issue - loyalty to the POLIS. A citizen army was relatively loyal to the "best interests" of the polis, whereas the ancients recognized that a mercenary force was loyal to who paid them. And that this dynamic was one path to tyranny. Dionysius of Syracuse was said to have increased his tyrannical power by using funds to recruit mercenaries loyal directly to him. And during the Third Sacred War just prior to Philip II's rise to hegemon, Phokis was essentially held hostage by the mercenary force that their own general had raised to fight on their behalf. This to me is the more important issue with mercenaries for the Greeks of the time. They were worried about mercenaries as a tool for the subversion of the established political order.

[General Shapur]

There is a good article in Ancient Warfare Magazine - Issue XIII-5
Mercenaries in the ancient World by Murry Dahm.
Interesting points
-they were often positioned to fight other mercenary troops from their own country.
-The contracts were usually with cities, so that city was hired to provide 1000 mercenaries and send replacements to cover casualties so the standing unit was always full.
-They got the 'unsavory duties'- torture/murder etc.
- Loyalty was often doubtful - esp if paid in fiduciary bronze!!! - often counterfeited.
-they were ill-disciplined - more interested in plunder

[MVP7]

I don't have access to the article but I have couple points on the points you listed (regarding their battlefield relevance especially):

-they were often positioned to fight other mercenary troops from their own country.

Greeks generally fought Greeks more than they did foreigners. Furthermore, nation states and nationalism wouldn't really become a thing for another two thousand years.

-They got the 'unsavory duties'- torture/murder etc.

I have never heard of a military force that would have got fed up and quit (or even significantly protested) over being involved in torture and murder. Consider WW2 Germany and Japan for example. Both countries had their armies committing plenty of atrocities against the general populace yet neither had any noteworthy amount of protesters even when it was clear the war had been lost.

- Loyalty was often doubtful - esp if paid in fiduciary bronze!!! - often counterfeited.
-they were ill-disciplined - more interested in plunder

Loyalty of mercenaries is more of a strategic and operational level problem than it is battlefield consideration. If the mercenary force sees that they are fighting on a losing side then naturally they might not be inclined to renew their contract. If mercenaries are not being paid or are scammed then obviously they won't be hanging around risking their lives in a war that ultimately means nothing to them. When it comes to plunder, it was often a significant part of mercenary contracts through the history. However, I can't recall any battles where Greek mercenaries would have suffered a defeat because of looting. In general, many of the history's most famed warriors fought as mercenaries and were clearly not unreliable because of that (Rhodian slingers, Thracian peltasts, Greek hoplites, Varangian guards and other bodyguards, Norman knights, Genoese crossbowmen and Swiss pikemen to mention a few, the list goes on and on). Calling the Greek mercenaries ill-disciplined in combat just isn't backed up by history.

Complaining about mercenaries fighting for money and questioning their combat performance because of that motivation is just silly. It's like going to a fine restaurant, committing and dine and dash, then coming back next day and blaming the chef for lacking passion for his job and being greedy when they refuse to serve you again, then questioning whether the food was that good in the first place since it was clearly made by someone who only cares about money.

It's worth noting that lack of nationalist pride and motivation, or the search of profit, isn't that different from majority of pre-modern military forces (and many modern ones as well). Plunder has always been one of the real driving causes of war even if the "civilized" people like to justify it with casus bellis and such. A medieval Duke couldn't fight a war over his titles (and the accompanying estates and taxes) alone. A common medieval man didn't go to risk his life in the said war because he firmly believed that the Duke of the Count of the Baron to whom his family paid taxes had a stronger claim to a title than the Duke of the neighboring duchy. He went to war because he was bored with the daily grind and because his uncle had come back from the previous war with several years' pays worth of plunder (conveniently forgetting that his two other uncles had not come back at all).

There have been countless military forces in history that have been incredibly unreliable on battlefield when it comes to danger or plunder. Reading, for example, Ian Heath's Armies and Enemies of the Crusades you notice that almost every major battle in the region had some element of this unreliability. Sometimes it was indeed by mercenaries who would refuse to engage anything other than broken enemies and who would trickle off the battlefield as soon as they had filled their bags with plunder. On the other hand there are as many cases of Knights blatantly ignoring orders of their lieges when presented with a chance to plunder the enemy's baggage train and losing the battles as result. There are more cases of armies switching sides or marching off the field mid battle over some petty personal reasons of their leaders than there are of mercenaries doing so over money. When mercenaries turned on their employees that was usually because of unpaid wages or other breaches of contract. In general some of the most feared troops in history have been mercenaries and often they would be trusted with important tasks like being the bodyguards (in this case the lack of ties and loyalty to cold hard cash was deemed better than any "nobler" motivations!).

[deeter]

To say nothing of Carthage who managed quite well with mostly mercenary troops.

Deeter

[SimonLancaster]

Given the primacy of cohesion checks in the FoG 2 system, the -1 CT modifier that Citizen Hoplites get as Undrilled Heavy Foot is a clear disadvantage compared to the Mercenary Hoplites which are Heavy Foot. I think Merc Hoplites are worth the extra 6 points.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Given the primacy of cohesion checks in the FoG 2 system, the -1 CT modifier that Citizen Hoplites get as Undrilled Heavy Foot is a clear disadvantage compared to the Mercenary Hoplites which are Heavy Foot. I think Merc Hoplites are worth the extra 6 points.

That's not a thing. The Citizen Hoplites test the same as Mercenary Hoplites.

[deeter]

Doesn't that -1 only apply to raw hoplites and such?

Deeter

[SimonLancaster]

Given the primacy of cohesion checks in the FoG 2 system, the -1 CT modifier that Citizen Hoplites get as Undrilled Heavy Foot is a clear disadvantage compared to the Mercenary Hoplites which are Heavy Foot. I think Merc Hoplites are worth the extra 6 points.

That's not a thing. The Citizen Hoplites test the same as Mercenary Hoplites.

Undrilled Heavy Foot get a -1 CT modifier. Has that changed in recent patches?

[pompeytheflatulent]

I'm definitely against this change. It would turn mercenary hoplites from having a distinct and useful role in the army, to just be something you upgrade from citizen hoplites or downgrade to citizen hoplites depending on how much spare change you have left in your pocket after buying everything.

[pompeytheflatulent]

Given the primacy of cohesion checks in the FoG 2 system, the -1 CT modifier that Citizen Hoplites get as Undrilled Heavy Foot is a clear disadvantage compared to the Mercenary Hoplites which are Heavy Foot. I think Merc Hoplites are worth the extra 6 points.

That's not a thing. The Citizen Hoplites test the same as Mercenary Hoplites.

Undrilled Heavy Foot get a -1 CT modifier. Has that changed in recent patches?

That's only heavy foot with less than average quality or all close order warbands. Undrilled has nothing to do with it.

[Nosy_Rat]

Given the primacy of cohesion checks in the FoG 2 system, the -1 CT modifier that Citizen Hoplites get as Undrilled Heavy Foot is a clear disadvantage compared to the Mercenary Hoplites which are Heavy Foot. I think Merc Hoplites are worth the extra 6 points.

Undrilled only means they don't get the free turn when in command range.

[SimonLancaster]

That's not a thing. The Citizen Hoplites test the same as Mercenary Hoplites.

Undrilled Heavy Foot get a -1 CT modifier. Has that changed in recent patches?

That's only heavy foot with less than average quality or all close order warbands. Undrilled has nothing to do with it.

Okay, thanks for info. The Loose Order Warbands get the -1 CT modifier. The Close Order Warbands just don't get the +1 modifier for Heavy Foot.

This is unless things have changed in recent patches.

[rbodleyscott]

Undrilled Heavy Foot don't get a -1 CT modifier, and never have done.

[garymann]

I suppose another alternative would be to go the other way and keep mercenary hoplites as are and downgrade citizen hoplites to below average (ie not raw. so less of a POA drop) and unmanouverable.

[rbodleyscott]

I suppose another alternative would be to go the other way and keep mercenary hoplites as are and downgrade citizen hoplites to below average (ie not raw. so less of a POA drop) and unmanouverable.

The lists already have plenty of Raw Hoplites to represent the less martial cities.