A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / A Clash of Kings II / Mercs

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Street Prophet
User ID: 2107894 May 11th 5:18 PM
Could someone tell me the difference between a free rider and a sellsword?

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 May 11th 5:24 PM
One rides, the other walks. I think.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 May 11th 5:36 PM
Pretty much it. ;) Though sellswords is used pretty loosely, and can refer to both. In particular, when looking at a large group of mercenaries, chances are you'll call them sellswords even if they're all or partially mounted(i.e., Tyrion's little army which seems to have been largely provided with horses, the Brave Companions.)

labor
User ID: 0798784 May 11th 5:40 PM
Um... Aren't freeriders heavy cavalry who aren't knights? IIRC there was some talk about "Mallister freeriders", about taking freeriders in Robert's service, etc. I am under strong impression that not all (if any)freeriders are mercenaries.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 May 11th 6:04 PM
Never gotten that impression, myself. We have only one example of a well-described freerider, and that's Lothor Brune. Is his gear typical for freeriders? Don't know.

The way they're described in Gregor's left wing at the Green Fork suggests they're mercenaries rather than retainers of any sort, since they're apparently very undisciplined.

I notice, also, that Tyrion says the right is "a mailed fist of knights and heavy lancers." I think the latter suggests disciplined, heavily armored men who aren't knights. I suppose freeriders, then, might be heavy cavalry who aren't knights and are mercenaries. But Lothor Brune is our only point of data for the heavy cavalry bit.

labor
User ID: 0798784 May 12th 5:37 AM
How about Mallister freeriders arresting Will, then? I don't see why the Mallisters would keep mercenaries in the peace time. Also, Ned took 2 freeriders in Robert's service. Yet Tyrion's talk with Bronn indicated that it was really rare for sellswords to find a permanent "berth" because they were considered extremely unloyal. And that the Starks would be the last to offer a sellsword permanent employment. Also, IIRC Bronn was never called a freerider although he did ride on and fight on a horse. Neither were Vargo Hoat and Co., IIRC. And there is Lothor Brun, as you have mentioned.

Lannister freeriders were undisciplined, true and IIRC poorly armed. Maybe they were just mounted levies, who were neither knights no men-at-arms of someone's household guard? A richer peasant or a merchant could join the levy with on a horse, I guess...

Ran
User ID: 0867924 May 12th 5:53 AM
Yet Lothor Brune is said to be in Littlefinger's hire -- he's not some sort of sworn man, far as I can tell. That Ned took two freeriders for Robert's service, that Lord Mallister had some freeriders, etc. is just too littled data.

Lothor Brune is the only point of data for freeriders=heavily armored, non-knight cavalry. We get freeriders being a swarm of undisciplined horsemen at the Green Fork, with the disciplined men-at-arms being heavy lancers.

And I noted how variable the use was. Bronn remains a sellsword whether he's mounted or not. Maybe it has to do with armor. Maybe it has to do with the nature of one's termss of service. Who knows? Only GRRM can really answer this one, because there's too little information in the books.

labor
User ID: 0798784 May 12th 5:57 AM
Yes, but the hedge knights also can be on-hire without being considered sellswords with all the negative connotations. Maybe some kind of oath is exchanged?
That would be a good question to ask GRRM when he isn't so busy, I guess.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 May 12th 6:01 AM
That could be it, that the freeriders tend to make an oral oath to the lord who has hired them, rather than simply being a monetary agreement. A freerider might look for the same thing as a hedge knight -- permanent service.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 May 12th 7:57 AM
I would think that a hedge kngiht is generally nore referred to as a sellsword because he is actually a _knight_. Just a guess, though.

labor
User ID: 0798784 May 12th 7:41 PM
From Tyrion's POV on battle on the Green Fork: "This wing too was all cavalry... a swarming mass of undisciplined freeriders _and_ sellswords". They definitely aren't one and the same, IMHO.

I wonder if the Bloody Mummers also were in the van. Seems a bit wasteful to employ the company that had to be extra shipped over from the Free Cities in such a way, but YMMV. Speaking of which it was always a mystery to me why they had a maester and a septon with them.

Also, GRRM's "mounted archers" in the van are definitely a mistake. Mideavil mounted archers in Europe used the horses solely for quicker transportation and fought afoot. In fact IIRC it was said somewhere (Froissart?) that mounted archers were encouraged to have cheap horses, so that they wouldn't be overly concerned about their welfare during the battle.

Another thing that alwas seemed strange to me was the knights wearing their cloaks in battle (I don't know if they did or not in RL) and especially Lord Tywin with his extra-heavy goldcloth cloak.
Seems that he handicapped himself rather handily with that garment, which would greatly decrease his stamina in any kind of prolonged fight, greatly hinder him if he had to fight afoot and seems an invitation for pole-arm wielders to hook him and pull him out of the saddle. And that's not mentioning the heatstroke it could very well cause...

Ran
User ID: 0867924 May 12th 7:54 PM
No, not one and the same -- yet the sellswords could be rather interchangable as men who primarily fought on foot, but happened to have horses, and Lord Tywin didn't want them to be messing up Kevan's lines . . . so, stick them in the left, where their lack of discipline and good skill on horse will be all the more obvious.

I'll presume that the idea of the mounted archers is that they used their horses to get in better position as the battle closed, and so were supposed to provide some sort of archery coverage on the most useful edges of the fight. A reach, maybe, but then again it might just be the sort of thing that convinces "green boy" Robb that Tywin's left has been rushed and very badly organized.

As for cloaks, it depended on the occassion. I do believe that the Knights Templar were not absolutely unknown in wearing cloaks in battle -- under a hot son, a cloak would do much to keep armor from getting too hot. And the same for the Teutonic Knights and other such knights, to try to keep themselves warmer in wintery weather.

Tywin himself ... I doubt he had any expectation of getting knocked off his horse, or being on long enough to risk heat stroke, or having his stamina affected. I also imagine that it would not take much effort for him to remove the cloak at need.

Jeff
User ID: 8813033 May 12th 8:53 PM
Silk cloaks were actually quite useful in that arrows often would not pierce the silk. The arrow might drive the silk deep into that skin and make a wound, but the arrow often could be removed just by pulling on the silk.

King of Winter
User ID: 0791694 May 12th 10:42 PM
Just my two cents on this topic.
Bronn is mainly referred to as a sellsword, but in Tyrion's "confession" scene he is called a freerider. Also, the Bloody Mummers are called both sellswords and freeriders. I don't think there's any real difference between the two.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 May 13th 5:27 AM
Jeff,

Did regular silk work that way? I know that the Mongols wore raw silk shirts for precisely that reason, but as I know nothing of silk I presumed it was the rawness that made the silk able to pull that trick.

Of course, it has crossed my mind before that perhaps it was repeatedly noted as raw silk in various texts because that was the cheapest kind of silk you could get, suitable to nomadic herdsmen, but ... well, I know nothing of silk. ;) I suppose, thinking on it, that any good silk would do.

King of Winter,

Indeed, you're right. Good catch. It does seem interchangeable, then, though perhaps freerider is a word that has a less negative connotation or ... I don't know. Obviously, if you're a mercenary on foot you're always a sellsword. But when you become a freerider seems trickier.

labor
User ID: 0798784 May 13th 6:18 AM
Also, would a cloak play the same role as a shirt versus arrows? I mean, if it is not underneath, then damaged armor still can contaminate the wound... But Tyrion should have been wearing a silk shirt during the battle at KL, yes.

IMHO, the issue of freeriders is rather muddy. On the Green Fork they seem to be different from the sellswords (freeriders and sellswords), although everyone is mounted. I.e. it is not the matter of fighting ahorse or afoot. Maybe "freerider" versus Bronn and Bloody mummers was just a mistake?

Ran
User ID: 0867924 May 13th 6:38 AM
I would find that a very odd thing for Martin to make an error upon, and the fact remains that every example he's given us has been rather obscure. Even if it _is_ an error, it needs to be explained. Lothor Brune clearly doesn't serve as a standard for what a freerider is.

Here's a new guess : I think one possibility for the Green Fork is that the sellswords were those who were clearly primarily foot mercenaries, while the freeriders were clearly primarily mounted mercenaries -- i.e., the sellswords had no spears or lances, the freeriders did.

In other occassions, freerider and sellsword is rather interchangeable when referring to a mercenary who happens to have a horse -- such as with Bronn and Hoat's men.

labor
User ID: 0798784 May 13th 8:19 AM
No, both sellswords and freeriders were mounted on the Green Fork and fighting in Ser Gregor's van. I very much doubt, BTW, that anyone who is primarily a foot fighter would be stupid enough to fight ahorse. A very good way to get oneself killed, I'd say. Also, I never heard about such a thing in my historical readings.

BTW, there are only 2 instances in 2 thick books when sellswords are called freeriders. I doubt that it could be an indication one way or another, especially since there was a mention of "Mallister freeriders" and freeriders being taken in Robert's service, all in peace time. Yet even Lannisters, even Cersei mention how notoriously fickle and unreliable the sellswords tend to be. Who would want them if there is no war?

BTW, I wonder how Bronn and Kettleblacks between them managed to recruit at least 1K sellswords in beleaguered KL alone. I mean, what where these people living on for all the years since Greyjoy's rebellion? Why didn't they just join the Goldcloaks or the army? Or did they come across the Narrow Sea when they heard about the troubles in Westeros?

Ran
User ID: 0867924 May 13th 8:54 AM
I gave a reason for the distinction -- sellswords were men who were mounted but without lance/spear, freeriders were men who were mounted but with lance/spear. Does it matter whether it's shown up historically? When I said primarily foot fighters, I meant men who generally _did_ expect to fight on foot, using their horses as transportation -- and so not carrying specialized horseman's fighting equipment. That's not unusual and historical

And suicide? Sure, but that's what Tywin wanted, as I noted earlier. I don't think the sellswords thought much of it, too busy trying to keep themselves in some sort of order or whatever.

Bronn is called a freerider at least once, as are Vargos Hoat's men. Lothor Brune is the single example for the argument that a free rider is heavy cavalry who isn't a knight, despite the fact that Tyrion draws a clear distinction between freeriders and heavy lancers.

It's reaching to try and paint it as an authorial error. We should ask Martin but the text is the text and immutable and we might as well come up with an explaination, and for my part, it seems to me that freerider and sellsword being interchangable under some conditions is perfectly acceptable.

As for the sellswords that were hired I don't find it too odd. They had expectation of getting hired in KL, what with the war. So, I expect many sellswords who preferred to stay out of the fighting for the time being, but wanted some coin, flocked to KL specifically to get hired while waiting it out to see how things go.

Of course, once KL was pretty much locked up, they didn't have much choice -- though I shouldn't be surprise if a few managed to slip out of the city, coin in their purses, to go over to Stannis when they heard that he had gotten Storm's End.

Where do these folk make a living? They get hired. They escort merchants, they get hired to do the dirty work of chasing down some local brigands, and so on. Or they become brigands. Some men don't want to be guardsmen or disciplined soliders. The mercenary problems of France lasted for many years, even in times of long peace between wars.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 May 13th 11:22 AM
Found another place where sellswords are called freeriders: right after the first fight with the clansmen on the high road. After Chiggen and Bronn have been called sellswords a couple of times, Tyrion then refers to them as freeriders ... and not long after, they're sellswords again.

I really think it's a roughly interchangable term -- two spheres of meanng that intersect at some nebulous point, essentially.

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Street Prophet User ID: 2107894	May 11th 5:18 PM Could someone tell me the difference between a free rider and a sellsword?
Jeff User ID: 1536664	May 11th 5:24 PM One rides, the other walks. I think.
Ran User ID: 0867924	May 11th 5:36 PM Pretty much it. ;) Though sellswords is used pretty loosely, and can refer to both. In particular, when looking at a large group of mercenaries, chances are you'll call them sellswords even if they're all or partially mounted(i.e., Tyrion's little army which seems to have been largely provided with horses, the Brave Companions.)
labor User ID: 0798784	May 11th 5:40 PM Um... Aren't freeriders heavy cavalry who aren't knights? IIRC there was some talk about "Mallister freeriders", about taking freeriders in Robert's service, etc. I am under strong impression that not all (if any)freeriders are mercenaries.
Ran User ID: 0867924	May 11th 6:04 PM Never gotten that impression, myself. We have only one example of a well-described freerider, and that's Lothor Brune. Is his gear typical for freeriders? Don't know. The way they're described in Gregor's left wing at the Green Fork suggests they're mercenaries rather than retainers of any sort, since they're apparently very undisciplined. I notice, also, that Tyrion says the right is "a mailed fist of knights and heavy lancers." I think the latter suggests disciplined, heavily armored men who aren't knights. I suppose freeriders, then, might be heavy cavalry who aren't knights and are mercenaries. But Lothor Brune is our only point of data for the heavy cavalry bit.
labor User ID: 0798784	May 12th 5:37 AM How about Mallister freeriders arresting Will, then? I don't see why the Mallisters would keep mercenaries in the peace time. Also, Ned took 2 freeriders in Robert's service. Yet Tyrion's talk with Bronn indicated that it was really rare for sellswords to find a permanent "berth" because they were considered extremely unloyal. And that the Starks would be the last to offer a sellsword permanent employment. Also, IIRC Bronn was never called a freerider although he did ride on and fight on a horse. Neither were Vargo Hoat and Co., IIRC. And there is Lothor Brun, as you have mentioned. Lannister freeriders were undisciplined, true and IIRC poorly armed. Maybe they were just mounted levies, who were neither knights no men-at-arms of someone's household guard? A richer peasant or a merchant could join the levy with on a horse, I guess...
Ran User ID: 0867924	May 12th 5:53 AM Yet Lothor Brune is said to be in Littlefinger's hire -- he's not some sort of sworn man, far as I can tell. That Ned took two freeriders for Robert's service, that Lord Mallister had some freeriders, etc. is just too littled data. Lothor Brune is the only point of data for freeriders=heavily armored, non-knight cavalry. We get freeriders being a swarm of undisciplined horsemen at the Green Fork, with the disciplined men-at-arms being heavy lancers. And I noted how variable the use was. Bronn remains a sellsword whether he's mounted or not. Maybe it has to do with armor. Maybe it has to do with the nature of one's termss of service. Who knows? Only GRRM can really answer this one, because there's too little information in the books.
labor User ID: 0798784	May 12th 5:57 AM Yes, but the hedge knights also can be on-hire without being considered sellswords with all the negative connotations. Maybe some kind of oath is exchanged? That would be a good question to ask GRRM when he isn't so busy, I guess.
Ran User ID: 0867924	May 12th 6:01 AM That could be it, that the freeriders tend to make an oral oath to the lord who has hired them, rather than simply being a monetary agreement. A freerider might look for the same thing as a hedge knight -- permanent service.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	May 12th 7:57 AM I would think that a hedge kngiht is generally nore referred to as a sellsword because he is actually a _knight_. Just a guess, though.
labor User ID: 0798784	May 12th 7:41 PM From Tyrion's POV on battle on the Green Fork: "This wing too was all cavalry... a swarming mass of undisciplined freeriders _and_ sellswords". They definitely aren't one and the same, IMHO. I wonder if the Bloody Mummers also were in the van. Seems a bit wasteful to employ the company that had to be extra shipped over from the Free Cities in such a way, but YMMV. Speaking of which it was always a mystery to me why they had a maester and a septon with them. Also, GRRM's "mounted archers" in the van are definitely a mistake. Mideavil mounted archers in Europe used the horses solely for quicker transportation and fought afoot. In fact IIRC it was said somewhere (Froissart?) that mounted archers were encouraged to have cheap horses, so that they wouldn't be overly concerned about their welfare during the battle. Another thing that alwas seemed strange to me was the knights wearing their cloaks in battle (I don't know if they did or not in RL) and especially Lord Tywin with his extra-heavy goldcloth cloak. Seems that he handicapped himself rather handily with that garment, which would greatly decrease his stamina in any kind of prolonged fight, greatly hinder him if he had to fight afoot and seems an invitation for pole-arm wielders to hook him and pull him out of the saddle. And that's not mentioning the heatstroke it could very well cause...
Ran User ID: 0867924	May 12th 7:54 PM No, not one and the same -- yet the sellswords could be rather interchangable as men who primarily fought on foot, but happened to have horses, and Lord Tywin didn't want them to be messing up Kevan's lines . . . so, stick them in the left, where their lack of discipline and good skill on horse will be all the more obvious. I'll presume that the idea of the mounted archers is that they used their horses to get in better position as the battle closed, and so were supposed to provide some sort of archery coverage on the most useful edges of the fight. A reach, maybe, but then again it might just be the sort of thing that convinces "green boy" Robb that Tywin's left has been rushed and very badly organized. As for cloaks, it depended on the occassion. I do believe that the Knights Templar were not absolutely unknown in wearing cloaks in battle -- under a hot son, a cloak would do much to keep armor from getting too hot. And the same for the Teutonic Knights and other such knights, to try to keep themselves warmer in wintery weather. Tywin himself ... I doubt he had any expectation of getting knocked off his horse, or being on long enough to risk heat stroke, or having his stamina affected. I also imagine that it would not take much effort for him to remove the cloak at need.
Jeff User ID: 8813033	May 12th 8:53 PM Silk cloaks were actually quite useful in that arrows often would not pierce the silk. The arrow might drive the silk deep into that skin and make a wound, but the arrow often could be removed just by pulling on the silk.
King of Winter User ID: 0791694	May 12th 10:42 PM Just my two cents on this topic. Bronn is mainly referred to as a sellsword, but in Tyrion's "confession" scene he is called a freerider. Also, the Bloody Mummers are called both sellswords and freeriders. I don't think there's any real difference between the two.
Ran User ID: 0867924	May 13th 5:27 AM Jeff, Did regular silk work that way? I know that the Mongols wore raw silk shirts for precisely that reason, but as I know nothing of silk I presumed it was the rawness that made the silk able to pull that trick. Of course, it has crossed my mind before that perhaps it was repeatedly noted as raw silk in various texts because that was the cheapest kind of silk you could get, suitable to nomadic herdsmen, but ... well, I know nothing of silk. ;) I suppose, thinking on it, that any good silk would do. King of Winter, Indeed, you're right. Good catch. It does seem interchangeable, then, though perhaps freerider is a word that has a less negative connotation or ... I don't know. Obviously, if you're a mercenary on foot you're always a sellsword. But when you become a freerider seems trickier.
labor User ID: 0798784	May 13th 6:18 AM Also, would a cloak play the same role as a shirt versus arrows? I mean, if it is not underneath, then damaged armor still can contaminate the wound... But Tyrion should have been wearing a silk shirt during the battle at KL, yes. IMHO, the issue of freeriders is rather muddy. On the Green Fork they seem to be different from the sellswords (freeriders and sellswords), although everyone is mounted. I.e. it is not the matter of fighting ahorse or afoot. Maybe "freerider" versus Bronn and Bloody mummers was just a mistake?
Ran User ID: 0867924	May 13th 6:38 AM I would find that a very odd thing for Martin to make an error upon, and the fact remains that every example he's given us has been rather obscure. Even if it _is_ an error, it needs to be explained. Lothor Brune clearly doesn't serve as a standard for what a freerider is. Here's a new guess : I think one possibility for the Green Fork is that the sellswords were those who were clearly primarily foot mercenaries, while the freeriders were clearly primarily mounted mercenaries -- i.e., the sellswords had no spears or lances, the freeriders did. In other occassions, freerider and sellsword is rather interchangeable when referring to a mercenary who happens to have a horse -- such as with Bronn and Hoat's men.
labor User ID: 0798784	May 13th 8:19 AM No, both sellswords and freeriders were mounted on the Green Fork and fighting in Ser Gregor's van. I very much doubt, BTW, that anyone who is primarily a foot fighter would be stupid enough to fight ahorse. A very good way to get oneself killed, I'd say. Also, I never heard about such a thing in my historical readings. BTW, there are only 2 instances in 2 thick books when sellswords are called freeriders. I doubt that it could be an indication one way or another, especially since there was a mention of "Mallister freeriders" and freeriders being taken in Robert's service, all in peace time. Yet even Lannisters, even Cersei mention how notoriously fickle and unreliable the sellswords tend to be. Who would want them if there is no war? BTW, I wonder how Bronn and Kettleblacks between them managed to recruit at least 1K sellswords in beleaguered KL alone. I mean, what where these people living on for all the years since Greyjoy's rebellion? Why didn't they just join the Goldcloaks or the army? Or did they come across the Narrow Sea when they heard about the troubles in Westeros?
Ran User ID: 0867924	May 13th 8:54 AM I gave a reason for the distinction -- sellswords were men who were mounted but without lance/spear, freeriders were men who were mounted but with lance/spear. Does it matter whether it's shown up historically? When I said primarily foot fighters, I meant men who generally _did_ expect to fight on foot, using their horses as transportation -- and so not carrying specialized horseman's fighting equipment. That's not unusual and historical And suicide? Sure, but that's what Tywin wanted, as I noted earlier. I don't think the sellswords thought much of it, too busy trying to keep themselves in some sort of order or whatever. Bronn is called a freerider at least once, as are Vargos Hoat's men. Lothor Brune is the single example for the argument that a free rider is heavy cavalry who isn't a knight, despite the fact that Tyrion draws a clear distinction between freeriders and heavy lancers. It's reaching to try and paint it as an authorial error. We should ask Martin but the text is the text and immutable and we might as well come up with an explaination, and for my part, it seems to me that freerider and sellsword being interchangable under some conditions is perfectly acceptable. As for the sellswords that were hired I don't find it too odd. They had expectation of getting hired in KL, what with the war. So, I expect many sellswords who preferred to stay out of the fighting for the time being, but wanted some coin, flocked to KL specifically to get hired while waiting it out to see how things go. Of course, once KL was pretty much locked up, they didn't have much choice -- though I shouldn't be surprise if a few managed to slip out of the city, coin in their purses, to go over to Stannis when they heard that he had gotten Storm's End. Where do these folk make a living? They get hired. They escort merchants, they get hired to do the dirty work of chasing down some local brigands, and so on. Or they become brigands. Some men don't want to be guardsmen or disciplined soliders. The mercenary problems of France lasted for many years, even in times of long peace between wars.
Ran User ID: 0867924	May 13th 11:22 AM Found another place where sellswords are called freeriders: right after the first fight with the clansmen on the high road. After Chiggen and Bronn have been called sellswords a couple of times, Tyrion then refers to them as freeriders ... and not long after, they're sellswords again. I really think it's a roughly interchangable term -- two spheres of meanng that intersect at some nebulous point, essentially.