Q: Did Medieval Sellswords Exist?

OK, so it sounds like there's consensus that at the very least men of low or foreign birth who served as bodyguard (mainly for merchants and other non-lords, I assume) who could afford to pay or feed them. Is that about right?
Depends of the era. From the Xth up to the XIIIth century, these people would have knights if they entered under a noble service, or eventually with a military order.
After that, it's probable that they'll join up a with an urban militia or a mercenary company, simply because there was far more employment.

That's a particularity of feudal institution that is to be understood : milites had a technical monopoly on this sort of things, it was as well their social role than social justification, even if it began to crumble after the XIVth.

Individual "sellsword" isn't unthinkable, but would have been extremly exceptional for the time, as it would be concurrenced by a far more widespread and "popular" (as it allowed social ascencion) use of feudal institutions.

If so, how plausible is this scenario? -- a boy/young man ends up stealing among a band of bandits, but eventually leaves the group, deciding there's more job security in protecting merchants from people like his former comrades. (Mind you, he likely won't go bragging about this backstory, so even if it could have happened, it'd make perfect sense if there wasn't a recorded instance of it.)
A bit far-fetched maybe : merchants heavily relied on existing features for their protection (as the Counts of Champagne guaraunteed the fairs with Garde-Foire).
If a merchant was to enter in a dangerous zone, he would probably find people issued from urban militias (from which several companies were issued as well) or from its protector.

That said, I can see a boy/young man gaining the affection of a merchant and ending to be made sergeant at the service of the merchant or merchant's corporation. It would be an unusal way, but could work. It's far more police or guard work than mercenary, still.

Now, if you want to "mark" the destiny of your young man/boy as exceptionnal, it could be useful to begin with that.

The Varangians, for the ERE
I don't think it counts : Varangians were organized collectivly, and newcomers joined it rather than selling their skills on their own.
 
I'm honestly surprised that sellswords are apparently more prolific in the Victorian era rather than the Medieval era.

Though they wouldnt have been using swords anymore by that point.
 
Gotcha; so the militias and mercenary companies acted (kind of) like guilds for non-gentry swordsmen, right? So if we take a young lad with a blade and some sense in how to use it, and dump him in the right spot (whether his background is in a foreign land, what have you), his best shot at making a living would be joining one of these organizations as a foot soldier (or whatever their equivalent of apprenticing is); and his best chance of "moving up" from there is promotion within the ranks. Do I have this right?
 
I'm honestly surprised that sellswords are apparently more prolific in the Victorian era rather than the Medieval era.
Different mentality, especially for milites.

Caricaturizing it, you may say individualism really dominated with the rise of a mercantile and urban elite at a "national" scale (it was the common point-of-view up to some decades, but we know that sense of the individual existed as well, while more put in the context of association).

Though they wouldnt have been using swords anymore by that point.
Well, some of the actual medieval sellsword should probably be called sellcannon :D

Gotcha; so the militias and mercenary companies acted (kind of) like guilds for non-gentry swordsmen, right?
Not exactly. Militias and companies are words that can cover several situations.

An urban militia is basically a raise made among the city : citizens had to give some days of service to the city (as a knight to his suzerain, there as well, vassalic link was the norm). During peace, some guys have to serve on the wall or do police job (it's not mistake if administrative and political subdivisions of cities were often based on military service); and during war they were gathered to form an army.

(You had as well provincial militias as english ones in MA, that are similar to urban militias, while distinct)

Companies could be formed from different backgrounds, merge, divide, etc. according the situation. Some of them were professional soldiers (as condotierre's armies), some were issued from urban militias and "semi-professional" (remember that they recieved a training), some were from peasant levies and tought it was less messy than field work...It was really proteiform and they could turn as actual professional mercenaries or as raiders band.

It didn't functioned as guilds, admitting this word in its Renaissance meaning as multilateral agreement of support, but more as contractual associations for companies; and regular feudal service for urban militias.

Do I have this right?
Honestly, your first idea having someone deciding that "meh, screw thug's life" and entering to the service of someone powerful and rich enough to protect him is less complicated and could work even (and maybe thanks) to its exceptionality. As you would be the author, it's up to you to see if it's fitting and right.
 
Last edited:

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
There has always been mercenaries. But usually they have banded together in groups.

And since you mentioned Bronn, I can add: There has always been bodyguards. Sometimes hired ones.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Crichton

He was a bit late, and he was famous more as a scholar than a mercenary, but he did spend two years in the French army and he was also known for his sword skill.

The problem is that it is wars that are famous and individuals don't fight wars. And I suspect that a merchant would want to employ some he had reason to trust and not somebody he found in the tavern.
 
An individual who fought for bandits for a while and went hungry often. While getting ready to attack (yet) another merchant wagon he notices that the merchant's guards are always fairly well-fed. Thinking with his stomach, he kills the other bandits and offers their bodies as proof that he is on the merchant's side (in exchange for a meal, and a bit of coin at the end). He knows that if he tries to be on his own, he will eventually die (nobody to watch him as he sleeps).

Give him a bit of natural talent to show that he is the best fighter, and the merchant might be tempted. The merchant knows that if the person dies, he doesn't have to pay him. If the merchant dies, the person won't get any more food. The savings from not having to hire as many guards means the merchant will make more money.

From there, you slowly build up his reputation as being good in a fight, even having the merchant track him down before leaving. When others ask why the merchant explains that the character is one of the better fighters he has hired.

You could model him after Richard Gere's Lancelot character from First Knight. A loner, who is undefeated in a fight, and mostly defends the weak (he will defend the weak but will want to be paid either in food, coin, or pleasure). He is mercenary, not noble.
 

Delvestius

Banned
Japan was filled with them, they were called Ronin (lit. "Wave Men") and were lordless Samurai who wandered from town to town in search of work. Their numbers sharply increased after Tokugawa brought an end o the Sengoku-Jidai warlordism of the sixteenth century.
 

Delvestius

Banned
Also, Pagan Germanic Úlfhéðnar bands of berzerker wolf-warriors formed loose brotherhoods and plundered across the Baltic sea, oftentimes working as mercenaries.
 
Aren't you missing the point of the OP, that is individual selling themselves alone, not as part of a group? If we're going to list every companies, brotherhoods, orders and whatnot serving as medieval mercenaries, we're not going to finish up quite late.
 

Delvestius

Banned
Aren't you missing the point of the OP, that is individual selling themselves alone, not as part of a group? If we're going to list every companies, brotherhoods, orders and whatnot serving as medieval mercenaries, we're not going to finish up quite late.

To clarify: Berzerkers oftentimes fought together in groups, but could also be employed individually by a lower ranking Jarl.

Obviously the more centralized the ruler is, the less the person can be called a "sell-sword", but given the decentralization of the Norse world, along with the greater focus on the warrior as an individual and lack of feudal obligations, I would argue that it is during the height of the Viking age that the Norsemen demonstrated in Europe what the OP is looking for, perhaps to the greatest degree in all the middle ages.
 
Last edited:
To clarify: Berzerkers oftentimes fought together in groups, but could also be employed individually by a lower ranking Jarl.
We're not in the individual mercenary then, but in the more usual (for the time) "trust" to another, more powerful man.

The apparently hereditary character of "berserkership" (in lack of a better word) and the social integration of these, trough rites (as the wulf-hidden that cross weapons with Odin before following him).
They seems to have been relativly similar to the contemporary knighthood : a fighting class apart from social elites that could be integrated in the household of a noble and at the contrary of "simple" mercenaries, they seems to have rivaled with jarls in matter of powers, partially explaining (with christianisation) their interdiction.
 

Delvestius

Banned
They seems to have been relativly similar to the contemporary knighthood : a fighting class apart from social elites that could be integrated in the household of a noble and at the contrary of "simple" mercenaries, they seems to have rivaled with jarls in matter of powers, partially explaining (with christianisation) their interdiction.

Eh, I'd have to disagree. The closest thing the Norse had to knights were Hirdmen/Huskarlar, a Jarl's personal retinue. Berzerkers were oftentimes considered outlaws, and acceptance within a community would probably only be possible through direct patronage of a ruler.

That said, there are many Norse Kings who later use entire units of Berzerkers as shock troopers.
 
Eh, I'd have to disagree. The closest thing the Norse had to knights were Hirdmen/Huskarlar, a Jarl's personal retinue.
That as far as medieval knights (and I'm talking about actual ones, not idealised late medieval ones) it could be : these were issued from non-nobles classes (peasants, by exemple) and weren't retinue but men trusted into the household (the only true retinues, or more exactly standing fighters were seargents), sometimes living with the noble, or sometimes with 3 or 4 others.

Berzerkers were oftentimes considered outlaws, and acceptance within a community would probably only be possible through direct patronage of a ruler.
That's another common point with early knighthood : the stereotype of the raiding knight wasn't exactly wrong, and the bad reputation of milites wasn't eventually resolved before movements as Peace of God managed to promote a "christianized" way of life for warriors.
 

Delvestius

Banned
That as far as medieval knights (and I'm talking about actual ones, not idealised late medieval ones) it could be : these were issued from non-nobles classes (peasants, by exemple) and weren't retinue but men trusted into the household (the only true retinues, or more exactly standing fighters were seargents), sometimes living with the noble, or sometimes with 3 or 4 others.

That's another common point with early knighthood : the stereotype of the raiding knight wasn't exactly wrong, and the bad reputation of milites wasn't eventually resolved before movements as Peace of God managed to promote a "christianized" way of life for warriors.

My point exactly; While the savagery of Christian knights may have matched the savagery of your average karl, berzerkers were literally a class of their own.
 
My point exactly; While the savagery of Christian knights may have matched the savagery of your average karl, berzerkers were literally a class of their own.

Your point was that berserkers were considered as outlaws, except if they joined up under a protector. While you obviously don't exactly a mirroring situation, milites were considered badly as well up they pledged allieagance to someone and eventually entered into a christian cadre created by late Xth movements.

I don't really see in what I said in this thread, that made you think milites or knights weren't a group or a class of their own.
I actually gave a pretty much clear definition : originally non-noble fighters that were integrated into nobility in exchange of their service according feudal rites and institutions.
 
Top