[Basic] Realistic Low Tech Challengers

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by phayman53

Indeed, mail was more common than lorica segmentata. There is some debate, however, about scale armor. As I understand it, there is some evidence for true scale armor worn by standard bearers. However, what most people think of as scale armor is actually lorica hamate (mail) with small metal scales threaded through the mail. This was reserved mostly for high ranking officers and must have been extremely expensive to make. Loadouts: Low-Tech pg. 23 calls this Hamata Squamataque, and it is DR5/3*, but is lighter than heavy mail and more expensive.

Roman scale armour (plumata/squamata) was more common than hamata squamataque but probably not as common as mail.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by fredtheobviouspseudonym

There were exceptions. IIRC the condottieri of the fourteenth/fifteenth centuries were almost always Italians themselves, but still known as mercenaries. For Germany, Fritz Redlich in his "The German Military Enterpriser and his Work Force" talks about the sixteenth & seventeenth centuries, but does look at the antecedents of mercenary use in the fourteenth/fifteenth centuries. All the employees of the above were German.

Troops of the late Middle Ages and the early modern era serving for pay, rather than to fulfill a feudal obligation, tended to be known as mercenaries despite their national origins.

We have a pretty clear definition of the word "mercenary". The majority of fighters in late medieval armies and castle garrisons don't fit that definition.

[A Ladder]

Originally Posted by clu2415

I feel like it should be mentioned that mail and scale were also in common use by the Romans.

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Roman scale armour (plumata/squamata) was more common than hamata squamataque but probably not as common as mail.

Originally Posted by phayman53

Indeed, mail was more common than lorica segmentata. {snip}.

I read that too, but man, Roman Legionnaires without the lorica segmentata just seems so...lame on paper. I decided I prefered the named Roman armor from Basic than using mail/scale. YMMV.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by A Ladder

I read that too, but man, Roman Legionnaires without the lorica segmentata just seems so...lame on paper. I decided I prefered the named Roman armor from Basic than using mail/scale. YMMV.

In the Loadouts book I avoided the issue by including two different legionaries; a Republican one with mail and an Imperial one with segmentata.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by fredtheobviouspseudonym

There were exceptions. IIRC the condottieri of the fourteenth/fifteenth centuries were almost always Italians themselves, but still known as mercenaries. For Germany, Fritz Redlich in his "The German Military Enterpriser and his Work Force" talks about the sixteenth & seventeenth centuries, but does look at the antecedents of mercenary use in the fourteenth/fifteenth centuries. All the employees of the above were German.

And both Italy and Germany were divided into many small polities at the time. They did not become unified counties with national governments until the nineteenth century.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by fredtheobviouspseudonym

There were exceptions. IIRC the condottieri of the fourteenth/fifteenth centuries were almost always Italians themselves, but still known as mercenaries.

Find a fourteenth/fifteenth century map of Europe and point at the state called Italy.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

A mercenary is a soldier who serves in a foreign army.

That doesn't appear quite right. Checking the Geneva Conventions, we get:

1. is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
   So if you show up and offer services, not a mercenary?
2. does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
   Not a mercenary if you don't actually fight. I guess they're classed as non-combatants if they don't?
3. is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
   Unclear what this means if the Party does not have regular armed forces.
4. is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
   That approaches your definition, though it's not specific to nations.
5. is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
   So you can recruit foreigners all you want as long as you actually include them in your own armed forces.
6. has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
   So 'military advisors' are not mercenaries. Even if paid.