Hello to every one,
perhaps it is clearly written somewhere, but I cannot find it.

In different occasion on the GPC book is written that some lord seeks mercenary knights at the standard fare.

How much that is?
How much does a knight gain, a part from loot, if he serves as a mercenary under a lord for the "combat season" ?

perhaps it is clearly written somewhere, but I cannot find it.
In different occasion on the GPC book is written that some lord seeks mercenary knights at the standard fare.
How much that is?

I do not have my book handy, but it is in Book of the Manor


How much does a knight gain, a part from loot, if he serves as a mercenary under a lord for the "combat season" ?

A combat season is 4 months, with an preparation month at the start for lords of a vassal, but not for mercenaries.
In nice climates, like S France, it can extend to 6 months

It's £2/month.

However, note that there may be problems acting as a mercenary if you are a player knight.

If you are a household knight: you serve your lord, all the time, you can't be a mercenary.
Landed/Vassal Knight: You don't work for money, and you still owe a lord allegiance for sevveral months a year. Most likely, he'll call you up during the same part of the year that mercenaries are paid, so you won't be able to. Or you might take a job, and then get summoned by your lord. You will lose honour whichever one you abandon...

Other problems: if your side loses, you probably won't get paid.

For these and other reasons, it's my feeling that knights with lords do not have the opportunity to be mercenary knights. Knights with lords get involved with battles for higher reasons (like a favour to a friend, the call of family, opportunity for plunder, the love of conquest, glory, etc).

Mercenaries are typically landless knights, people without lords and who are trying to survive. They are the lowest of the knight class, the vulgar riff-raff of nobility, each of which has an air of "what disgrace lies in this man's past to have been dismissed by his first lord". Exactly the sort of people that nobles will pay to do their dirty work, because they are generally thought to have not much honour. (And the practicalities of their life tend to make this true.)

However, note that there may be problems acting as a mercenary if you are a player knight.

If you are a household knight: you serve your lord, all the time, you can't be a mercenary.
Landed/Vassal Knight: You don't work for money, and you still owe a lord allegiance for sevveral months a year. Most likely, he'll call you up during the same part of the year that mercenaries are paid, so you won't be able to. Or you might take a job, and then get summoned by your lord. You will lose honour whichever one you abandon...

Other problems: if your side loses, you probably won't get paid.

For these and other reasons, it's my feeling that knights with lords do not have the opportunity to be mercenary knights. Knights with lords get involved with battles for higher reasons (like a favour to a friend, the call of family, opportunity for plunder, the love of conquest, glory, etc).

Mercenaries are typically landless knights, people without lords and who are trying to survive. They are the lowest of the knight class, the vulgar riff-raff of nobility, each of which has an air of "what disgrace lies in this man's past to have been dismissed by his first lord". Exactly the sort of people that nobles will pay to do their dirty work, because they are generally thought to have not much honour. (And the practicalities of their life tend to make this true.)


I agree, but this changes from roughly the time of the Roman wars. 40 days of feudal service won't get you long if you want to conquer Rome or have to fight Pict and Irish guerrillas, who skulk cowardly in hills and swamps until the feudal host goes home. Hence the custom of scutage, and the hiring of mercenaries. From that time, most vassal knights can serve honorably as mercenaries (this is of course what happened in Britain historically too, from the 13th century if I remember correctly).

In Our Campaign:

Mercenary prices (/month):
Knight: £2
Mounted Sergeant (or a distinctly poorly equipped knight): £1
Sergeant on foot AKA armored infantry (chainmail, shield, sword, shield): £0.5
Spearman or Archer (leather armor, shield & spear or bow): £0.25

Length of contract (part of the thinking here is that the actual fighting is likely closer to 4 months per year, if even that, and especially on longer contracts, much of the job is actually quite safe garrison/patrol duty):
Hire for a full year: monthly fee x 6
Hire for 2 - 3 years: monthly fee x 4 / year
Hire for 4 - 10 years: monthly fee x 3 / year
Hire 'permanently' (i.e. household knight, garrison): monthly fee x 2 / year for upkeep

Note that if the mercenaries need to travel, this counts as part of their service. For instance, if you hire a group of mercenaries in London in May to go to war in Ganis come July, they expect to have their transport and time taken paid as well, not just the raiding/fighting in Ganis from July onwards.

The supply and demand can affect the prices as well. If someone is hiring lots of mercenaries for what looks to be a long war and is paying good money for every man (say, the King is planning a war), then hiring up with the King on year to year bases sounds more attractive than a 4 year contract doing the same for less money. Household positions, however, are generally very desirable, as they are, in effect, permanent. Whereas if there is a long peace, mercenaries might be struggling to make money, and might be willing to be hired for less.

Also, the perceived risk-benefit ratio affects the willingness of the mercenaries to accept the job. For instance, a prospective employer is planning on going to fight the loincloth wearing Picts on the Highlands, famous for their horse-killing tactics, and the mounted mercenaries are certainly less eager. Whereas if the employer is planning on launching raids on a 'soft & rich' target, the mercenaries would certainly be more interested.

Also, the perceived risk-benefit ratio affects the willingness of the mercenaries to accept the job. For instance, a prospective employer is planning on going to fight the loincloth wearing Picts on the Highlands, famous for their horse-killing tactics, and the mounted mercenaries are certainly less eager. Whereas if the employer is planning on launching raids on a 'soft & rich' target, the mercenaries would certainly be more interested.


Additionally, the employer might not even be willing to hire mounted men for a campaign in mountainous wilderness. Thus the knights might be forced to work on an "infantry sergeant"-salary (Galling, perhaps even outright unacceptable for Proud knights!)

Additionally, the employer might not even be willing to hire mounted men for a campaign in mountainous wilderness. Thus the knights might be forced to work on an "infantry sergeant"-salary (Galling, perhaps even outright unacceptable for Proud knights!)


True, and also potentially a losing proposition, if the knight will not make enough money to feed himself, his squire and his horses. After all, a year's assignment as a sergeant on foot would only net him 6*£0.5 = £3, barely enough to feed himself and his horse. Still, better than nothing, if nothing better is being offered. This would be quite dire straits for the mercenary knight, though. But could happen, if there is a general peace time. On the other hand, there is usually fighting in Ireland and in Scotland. And having a horse is usually an advantage, too. So by and large, one would expect the knights to find a better paying assignment, as long as they are willing to risk it. Of course, a mercenary knight might easily lose his horse in battle, and without a replacement war horse, he would be reduced into a infantry sergeant class (although potentially, if he has the skills for it, he might be able to negotiate a higher salary as a mercenary commander, i.e. a professional with a high Battle skill).