D&D economics. Good pay for a defensive militia man?

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Hello,

I'm trying to keep the world I'm running in line with book costs as much as possible. What do you all believe would be good pay for a local militia man?

The town the party has been based in has just been put under martial law and the "national" military has been authorized to enlist all local men into a defensive force. This does not mean leaving town but it does mean training and being "under" military leadership.

[Ninja_Prawn]

good pay for a local militia

Pay? You don't pay a militia. Right? They fight to defend their homes and/or because their liege has the right to call them up.

Or have I got that completely wrong?

[Vaz]

PHB has this;


Skilled hirelings include anyone hired to perform a service that involves a proficiency (including weapon, tool, or skill)

Skilled = 2gp, Unskilled = 2sp.

Given that these are militia, Unskilled 2sp/day seems right. However, there needs to be a source of equipment - something in between Commoner and Guard may be representative of them.


Pay? You don't pay a militia. Right? They fight to defend their homes and/or because their liege has the right to call them up.

Or have I got that completely wrong?

Do you want them to rebel? They are likely farmers or laborers, being called upon to serve a cause, then they still have family to provide for.

[Emay Ecks]

Considering that militia work is dangerous and risks loss of life, I would say it merits more than standard unskilled wages. I think anywhere between 5 silver and 1 gold per day would be appropriate (depending on how at risk the town is. If you're right on the border with goblin territory, it's probably closer to that 1 gold).

[Unoriginal]

Hello,

I'm trying to keep the world I'm running in line with book costs as much as possible. What do you all believe would be good pay for a local militia man?

The town the party has been based in has just been put under martial law and the "national" military has been authorized to enlist all local men into a defensive force. This does not mean leaving town but it does mean training and being "under" military leadership.

As per the book:

"Skilled hirelings include anyone hired to perform a service that involves a proficiency (including weapon, tool, or skill): a mercenary, artisan, scribe, and so on."

A Skilled hireling has a salary of 2 gp a day.

Someone who is proficient with weapon would be worth 2 gp a day. Less if they're just beginning to learn, and since the whole place has been placed under military control, the military can just decide of the price.

However, in Tomb of Annihilation, it's possible to hire mercenaries for 1 gp for 10 days (if you purchase the 50 gp authorization).

[Doug Lampert]

Pay? You don't pay a militia. Right? They fight to defend their homes and/or because their liege has the right to call them up.

Or have I got that completely wrong?

Yeah, I'm not sure militiaman is what the bulk of the replies or the original question is thinking of. Militia aren't soldiers, they are people you can call on to act as soldiers in a real emergency. In the Modern USA, the militia is as follows: Every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age. I never got paid for my militia membership, and since I registered for the draft I was unquestionably part of the militia. If the Modern USA doesn't pay militia, then I doubt D&D land does.

In D&D land you might pay the officers/training cadre and the men doing watch-standing at the gates and on fire-watch inside the town. But even watch-standers will often just be on a regular rotation, and some guys pay off others to take their duty on that rotation.

There may well be a very hefty tax/fee to be in town and NOT have at least one person per household in the militia, similarly various guilds and organizations may require service. You could think of this as a big property tax/residence tax with pay exactly equal to the taxes due, but no money is likely to be changing hands for the militiamen, they're serving in lieu of such taxes.

As for hiring someone: except during harvest, you can probably hire a watchman or guardsman for subsistence. You're just getting a workman during what would otherwise be idle time, so he can work cheap, but he's not a fighter, he's there to yell "Fire" or "Stop thief" or whatever and attract the attention of the neighborhood.

[JackPhoenix]

Do you want them to rebel? They are likely farmers or laborers, being called upon to serve a cause, then they still have family to provide for.

That's what they do in peacetime. In times of war, they are called to fulfill their duty to their lord. They do not get paid, but they may be able to claim some loot. And as the OP mentions it's defensive force, they are providing for their family by defending them from whoever is threatening their town.

Peasants don't get paid. They pay taxes. That's what their lord keeps them around for. Nobody ever said the life of a pseudo-medieval commoner was fair.

[SharkForce]

usually militia would come with some minor (often unstated) perks i think.

for one thing, you may get access to training, and sometimes equipment (not likely to be much... they probably don't issue armour but if they do it'll be something cheap, and apart from that something like a spear and shield or a sling and a supply of bullets), or reduced prices on equipment. you may gain some measure of social standing, especially if you're an officer in the militia. they may also pay you in the event that you go to active status, and if nothing else while on active status they'll need to provide for your basic needs. if they're looking to incentivize it, they may pay you for training days, but probably not.

that said, with only a few exceptions, militias are typically not much more than armed peasants. while they may get some training (and some don't even really get that), it usually isn't very thorough, if nothing else because it's typically quite infrequent. they lack the discipline and the mindset that makes regulars so much more effective... historically, they're known for having major problems with breaking and running as well as just not performing terribly well in a fight even if they don't run.

[Vaz]

That's what they do in peacetime. In times of war, they are called to fulfill their duty to their lord. They do not get paid, but they may be able to claim some loot. And as the OP mentions it's defensive force, they are providing for their family by defending them from whoever is threatening their town.

Peasants don't get paid. They pay taxes. That's what their lord keeps them around for. Nobody ever said the life of a pseudo-medieval commoner was fair.

You're talking absolute bobbins and nonsense. Go away.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Thanks for the comments. I bet the are all true in some way or at some time and place.

I'll have to have my wife drive us around later so I can think out how I'll work this. The proper leader of the town's military is a pretty decent upstanding fellow who is going to institute a draft of sorts into an active militia. Maybe I'll have him pay them while in training and when rotated on active duty then just demand they not flee town or give them a copper piece a day of inactivity or something.

That sounds on the generous end so I'll be sure to have his superiors complain and maybe that will be part of my "deep" background lol

[Kane0]

A gold a day and a spot in the barracks. Standard equipment is provided but your job to maintain.

[Unoriginal]

A gold a day and a spot in the barracks. Standard equipment is provided but your job to maintain.

Sound reasonable. Though it might be more "5 silver coins worth of food and 5 actual silver coins."

[JackPhoenix]

Giving peasants money? Do you think gold grows on trees? I mean, if it did, I would send the peasants to collect it for *me*, and I would make sure they don't steal anything. They wouldn't know what to do with it anyway. They are bloody peasants! They should be glad I let them live on my land, and that I send my knights and subordinate murderhoboes... I mean, retainers... to deal with the occassional rampaging monster or raiding orcs.

Seriously, medieval people don't get wages. Peasants produce raw goods and sell what they don't need for themselves (or what their lord and the relevant church won't take as taxes and titles). They don't sell their products for money either: they mostly barter it for stuff they can't provide for themselves, at least not in local scale. They may trade for coins in a city, but coins are useless in a small community. Nobles, in return for the taxes (paid in goods, not in coin), protect the commoners... which may include conscripting the commoners as needed. The peasants don't get a choice and pay from that, either: they either show up to do their duty, or face the consequences for disobeing their betters. Again: being a peasant sucks.

Townsmen are a little better off. They don't produce raw goods, but they are mostly craftsmen who turn the raw material into more useful forms. They have coins, because everyone in the city wants and can use cash. Militia duty works the same for them as for peasants, though: they buy their own equipment and show up when their boss calls, or else. Serving in the militia is mostly matter of pride, but they can propably pay to equip and maintain professional force in their stead to avoid the militia duty.

Professional military forces include nobles (who don't make their own money, and instead spend their time doing nothing useful (or train to kill other nobles and any hapless peasant that gets in the way)) and mercenaries. Only mercenaries get paid... those are the kind of people PHB offers. Their pay may be reduced on a campaign by promising them the right to loot... not that they won't steal anything vaguely valuable anyway. They must be paid, because they have better equipment, training, and organization than peasants, nothing better to do with their time than causing trouble, and if you don't pay them, they turn to banditry or find someone who will... propably your enemy.

[Vaz]

Waitz you're telling me farm hands were not being paid, despite Lincoln cathedral actually having sources listing names, roles (including labourer) with a weekly wage? The Domesday boom was literally written to record tithes.

The 2sp might not be actual silver coins, but you're ****en a right they got paid.

[JackPhoenix]

Waitz you're telling me farm hands were not being paid, despite Lincoln cathedral actually having sources listing names, roles (including labourer) with a weekly wage? The Domesday boom was literally written to record tithes.

The 2sp might not be actual silver coins, but you're ****en a right they got paid.

Builders working on a cathedral weren't farmers. Farmhands weren't farmers either, they were hired help. And, at least here, their pay consisted of being given lodgings and food, and sometimes (but not always) part of the product. The Domesday Book was written to record taxes to be paid to the crown, not wages. There were few ways to calculate taxes during the history: from the owned land (which ran into problem of not getting anything from landless people), per person (which ran into problem of lack of records and general confusion when people haven't used surnames and everyone having one of about ten or so given names) and per houses (again, similar to land, if more people lived in a single house, the nobleman was getting less taxes... it was changed to tax being measured from the number of doors and windows, on the assumption that more people living in a single house= more openings in the house needed. Of course, people don't like paying taxes, so they gamed the system by building houses with less openings). Only in about 17th-18th century did the governments grew organized enough to put their affairs together.

Beside goods and coins, taxes could be also paid in services to the lord, military service included, but also work in agriculture and maintaining and building infrastructure. Again, cities worked differently from countryside: there were better records, and craftsmen did get paid. And coins actually had use there.

[Vaz]

Who said anything about builders on a cathedral? Not going to lie, I think you don't quite know what you are on about, but are too stupid to back down, that there are literally recorded examples of peasants being given wages, and being tithed based on that income.

[Talamare]

It depends when and where it was occurring.

In some locations the Lord owned the land and Peasants paid the Lord a percentage of their earnings to be allowed to work the Land (to make a profit, tho more realistically a living.)
So Peasants did have money, but they didn't get paid in a Boss / Employee relationship.
They were more like... Building Owner / Business Building Is In, relationship.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Yeah, I did some digging, and the treatment (and even definition) of 'militia' varies massively depending on when and where you are.

In some cases, they wouldn't be paid, but militia service means you don't have to pay tax. In other cases, they are paid in food. In others, they'd be paid cash. Sometimes weapons and training are provided, but in England it looks like peasants were required to maintain their own private weapons and skills for when they got called up.

In Faerûn, I'd assume there is cash payment for peasant soldiers. There's a lot of hard currency sloshing about in the Realms, and the Sword Coast at least doesn't seem to have an especially strong feudal structure that would allow peasants to be levied en masse. I'd also note that policing and security is very often provided by mercenaries, like the Flaming Fist in Baldur's Gate. So the principle of paying soldiers is well established.

[qube]

My suggestion?

How much of the population is serf (like farmer? someone who works the land of the lord)? Those you don't pay. Helping in time of need is (most likely) one of their duties.

How much of the population is indedded or slave? you don't pay those either. Instead they get to fight instead of their 'owner'. (of course, their owner can also fight, ref below).

How much of the population is freemen (or owner, ref above) ? Those you pay 2sp per day; or less if you provide food and such

((In face of mandatory millitia, I'd even pay the skileld ones 2sp. It's a time of need, and we weren't really asking you if you wanted to join the millitia - it's already a strain on the village's vault, and we're nice enough to provide some compensation. Your alternative is getting hung for treason.))

[qube]

I'd also note that policing and security is very often provided by mercenaries, like the Flaming Fist in Baldur's Gate.FYI: this is also historically correct: the first police forces were very much akin mercenairy troops. Militairy groups paid by a lord to keep the peace in a region

[Talamare]

Population of the Location is pretty crucial

A small village (50 people or less) might actually have a fee from everyone (even the militia) so that they can afford the weapons for the Militia to use or require that the Militia pay for their own equipment. They also wouldn't likely pay the Militia, but expect every able bodied man, and fierce enough woman to help defend in times of need.

A large village (500 people or less) might pay the Officers, but not the Soldier. The Soldiers pay is in the training they get from the Officers.

A town (5000 people or less) might provide lodging, weapons, and food for the Soldiers, but no pay.

A city (50,000 people or less) might finally start paying their soldiers...

[Unoriginal]

Also note that normally, both men and women would be included in the militia, in a D&D world. Which should double the numbers (or nearly so) of people in the militia compared to the real-world equivalently-sized village/town/city.

[Talamare]

Also note that normally, both men and women would be included in the militia, in a D&D world. Which should double the numbers (or nearly so) of people in the militia compared to the real-world equivalently-sized village/town/city.

I get the equality in DnD approach, but even in real life it wasn't about an inherent desire to screw women out of the military or something.

Men are biologically more physical powerful. Not to mention the penalty for death in Women is higher. (1 man can impregnate a dozen women, but the reverse isn't true.)

We could get into a pretty offtopic debate about this, but I would just play it out as it depends on the village.

[JackPhoenix]

Who said anything about builders on a cathedral? Not going to lie, I think you don't quite know what you are on about, but are too stupid to back down, that there are literally recorded examples of peasants being given wages, and being tithed based on that income.

I'm not sure what's written there, that's true. I've never been there and expected the list of names being similar to similar lists being found elsewhere, which include people working on the building in question. What I describe also wasn't true everywhere, all the time. Europe is pretty big, and middle ages were long.

In a feudal society, at the top, there's the king. He owns all the land (at least in theory), but as he can't manage it all by himself, he grants some of it to nobles. Nobles, in turn, provide him with soldiers, and with taxes. There's no standing army in a modern sense, there are nobles themselves, their retinues, and in times of need, conscripted peasants. And of course mercenaries. The king must be careful not to anger the nobles too much, because together, they are more powerful than him... luckily, they usualy don't like each other and bicker amongst themselves too. Still, rebellions are common (mostly in the form of "I don't feel like paying my due"). If one happens, the king gets his retinue, conscripts some soldiers, and calls other nobles to help him crush it.

Beneath the king, there's nobility. They are given the lands their live on, and various rights other people don't have, in turn, they are expected to send armed help to the king when he calls. There's usually whole complex web of aristocracy, with nobles having subordinate nobles they've granted land, in the same way the king granted them theirs. They are obliged to protect their subordinates, and in turn, are given tax and labor from them. Taxes are used to support the noble's soldiers. Again, this is no great standing army, but usually, peasant household is expected to paid certain amount of tax to support one (or more) soldiers.

Beneath that, there are freemen. Those are commoners who own their land (the land still officially belong to the nobles, but freemen lived there for generations). The noble protects them (in theory), and they pay taxes. They don't get wages, because there's nobody to paid them... they are free, they work their piece of land, and sell the goods. There may be other laws that regulate what they must do. In England, all ablebodied men had to train with longbow one day in the week, for example. When they get called to serve in the army, they have to bring their own gear (which is why medieval armies had very mismatched equipment) and they aren't getting paid... their service is part of their duties, and a form of tax. Most people work in agriculture.

Beneath that, there are landless commoners. They don't have land of their own to produce goods, which means they have to work for someone else. Those are the farm hands you've mentioned, but also various other needed laborers. They get paid, because they don't have a source of income of their own, and they are still subjects to other laws and duties.

Cities works differently, because townsmen don't own arable land. People in cities get wages, if they don't work for themselves, and their duties and rights are often different from those of peasants.

Now, that is true for medieval Europe, and not necessarily for a fantasy setting. Most fantasy settings are too influenced by modern thinking, where almost everyone works directly for someone else and gets paid.

[qube]

Population of the Location is pretty crucial

A small village (50 people or less) might actually have a fee from everyone (even the militia) so that they can afford the weapons for the Militia to use or require that the Militia pay for their own equipment. They also wouldn't likely pay the Militia, but expect every able bodied man, and fierce enough woman to help defend in times of need.

A large village (500 people or less) might pay the Officers, but not the Soldier. The Soldiers pay is in the training they get from the Officers.

A town (5000 people or less) might provide lodging, weapons, and food for the Soldiers, but no pay.

A city (50,000 people or less) might finally start paying their soldiers...while true - I'd like to note that 5K people is enough to have a basic militairy.
I made a city of 8000, and after calculating taxes and how money was spend (using RL countries as comparison), I had enough to set up a standing army of 640 men (8 companies) paid 5sp per day*


* while one could argue that's not much - note they get paid all year truth, while they aren't neccecairly working:

At any time there's an army of 4 companies (75 strong) ready for deployment (a.k.a. in peace time, that's just some drills), while 1 company is on guard duty. The last 3 are on leave (yet still get paid).

month 1 : [1,2,3,4] [5] [6,7,8]
month 2 : [1,2,3,4] [6] [5,7,8]
month 3 : [5,6,7,8] [1] [2,3,4]
month 4 : [5,6,7,8] [2] [1,3,4]
month 5 : [1,2,3,4] [7] [5,6,8]
month 6 : [1,2,3,4] [8] [5,6,7]
month 7 : [5,6,7,8] [3] [1,2,4]
month 8 : [5,6,7,8] [4] [1,2,3]

[Vaz]

I'm not sure what's written there, that's true. I've never been there and expected the list of names being similar to similar lists being found elsewhere, which include people working on the building in question. What I describe also wasn't true everywhere, all the time. Europe is pretty big, and middle ages were long.

In a feudal society, at the top, there's the king. He owns all the land (at least in theory), but as he can't manage it all by himself, he grants some of it to nobles. Nobles, in turn, provide him with soldiers, and with taxes. There's no standing army in a modern sense, there are nobles themselves, their retinues, and in times of need, conscripted peasants. And of course mercenaries. The king must be careful not to anger the nobles too much, because together, they are more powerful than him... luckily, they usualy don't like each other and bicker amongst themselves too. Still, rebellions are common (mostly in the form of "I don't feel like paying my due"). If one happens, the king gets his retinue, conscripts some soldiers, and calls other nobles to help him crush it.

Beneath the king, there's nobility. They are given the lands their live on, and various rights other people don't have, in turn, they are expected to send armed help to the king when he calls. There's usually whole complex web of aristocracy, with nobles having subordinate nobles they've granted land, in the same way the king granted them theirs. They are obliged to protect their subordinates, and in turn, are given tax and labor from them. Taxes are used to support the noble's soldiers. Again, this is no great standing army, but usually, peasant household is expected to paid certain amount of tax to support one (or more) soldiers.

Beneath that, there are freemen. Those are commoners who own their land (the land still officially belong to the nobles, but freemen lived there for generations). The noble protects them (in theory), and they pay taxes. They don't get wages, because there's nobody to paid them... they are free, they work their piece of land, and sell the goods. There may be other laws that regulate what they must do. In England, all ablebodied men had to train with longbow one day in the week, for example. When they get called to serve in the army, they have to bring their own gear (which is why medieval armies had very mismatched equipment) and they aren't getting paid... their service is part of their duties, and a form of tax. Most people work in agriculture.

Beneath that, there are landless commoners. They don't have land of their own to produce goods, which means they have to work for someone else. Those are the farm hands you've mentioned, but also various other needed laborers. They get paid, because they don't have a source of income of their own, and they are still subjects to other laws and duties.

Cities works differently, because townsmen don't own arable land. People in cities get wages, if they don't work for themselves, and their duties and rights are often different from those of peasants.

Now, that is true for medieval Europe, and not necessarily for a fantasy setting. Most fantasy settings are too influenced by modern thinking, where almost everyone works directly for someone else and gets paid.

So what you're saying is that Peasants got a wage. Just because they don't get a BACS payment doesn't mean they didn't get paid.

[Unoriginal]

Free peasants were payed, serfs weren't (but still were given food and a place to live, because killing your workforce with starvation and exposure is generally considered a bad idea).

In some places, free peasants had a certain ammount of days they had to spend working on the lord's land (or they could pay to compensate, instead of working), and in exchange they were allowed to keep using the part of land the lord lensed to them for their own benefits.

[smcmike]

So what you're saying is that Peasants got a wage. Just because they don't get a BACS payment doesn't mean they didn't get paid.

Paid by who, for what?



We can go round and round about different places and times, but there isn’t any particular right answer about what sort of social standing or remuneration a militia member has in a D&D campaign. Maybe they are paid like a laborer. Maybe they are serfs pressed into service by an evil lord. Maybe they are the wealthy landholders of a city-state, and it actually costs them quite a bit to kit themselves out and protect their property. Maybe they are called to service by their god, and paid in divine blessings. Maybe every man, woman, and child drills daily for combat after the trauma of the last Orc incursion.


In my world, a small village won’t have any sort of paid armed force. They may have a sheriff, and he can probably muster a force of armed civilians in case of emergency. That’s what I think of when I hear “militia.”

A large town probably has professional fighters, though they may not be paid by a formal government - they might answer to the baker’s guild, or to various leading families.

[Unoriginal]

What's funny is that in practice, your common, average goblin is a better fighter than many of your common, average humanoid combatant (Guard, Tribal Warrior, Bandits, the like).

[qube]

*nods* it's all about rights & duties. It's nonseniscal to pay an additional wage for them to do their duties.


Maybe they are serfs pressed into service by an evil lordYou can scratch evil.

A serf's fate is directly attached to his contract with his lord, and a lord could not evict a serf without legal reason.
Oppositely, a lords defeat is a very dangerous for a serf, as he might get evicted by the new lord, whom he has no contract with. (losing most if not all of your belongings, as those belonged to the lord, not you)

[smcmike]

*nods* it's all about rights & duties. It's nonseniscal to pay an additional wage for them to do their duties.

You can scratch evil.

A serf's fate is directly attached to his contract with his lord, and a lord could not evict a serf without legal reason.
Oppositely, a lords defeat is a very dangerous for a serf, as he might get evicted by the new lord, whom he has no contract with. (losing most if not all of your belongings, as those belonged to the lord, not you)

I almost added a second line about good lords, but it seemed repetitive. Also, lords are evil.

[Laserlight]

Considering that militia work is dangerous and risks loss of life, I would say it merits more than standard unskilled wages.

a) militia doesn't get paid.
b) as I recall, mercenaries from Renaissance Italy and 30YW Germany often earned less in wages than an unskilled laborer; soldiers hoped for enlistment bonuses, combat pay, and loot.

[Unoriginal]

Note that D&D's pseudo-medieval world is generally much closer to the late Middle Age/early Renaissance period. While nobles are still important, what is described in the various books seem to indicate there is mostly land owners, not necessarily nobles, hiring people to work the field, with serfdom not really being a thing.


Also, lords are evil.

Why would they all be evil?

[smcmike]

Note that D&D's pseudo-medieval world is generally much closer to the late Middle Age/early Renaissance period. While nobles are still important, what is described in the various books seem to indicate there is mostly land owners, not necessarily nobles, hiring people to work the field, with serfdom not really being a thing.

Serfdom lasted well into the 19th century. I would expect a large D&D world to have a variety of social and political systems. I guess most modern D&D tends to avoid oppressive social structures as an issue, though. Don’t see much discussion of slavery or serfdom.



Why would they all be evil?

Mostly said in jest, but nobility is a system of oppression.

[Vaz]

Paid by who, for what?
The person who pays them to pick edible plants out of the ground? The person who enploys them to break rock? The person who has need of an unskilled but willing worker.

For what reason? Well, food, shelter, water for 3 to kick you off with.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

Pay? You don't pay a militia. Right? They fight to defend their homes and/or because their liege has the right to call them up.

Or have I got that completely wrong?

Depends on the era, and country.

Even in the English system "It depends"

In modern times the American States have almost completely abandoned the militia system, however many States still legally have them.

In Pennsylvania: Title 51, Military Affairs

§ 301. Formation.

(a) Pennsylvania militia.--The militia of this Commonwealth shall consist of:

(1) all able-bodied citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this Commonwealth, who are at least 17 years six months of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age; and

(2) such other persons as may, upon their own application, be enlisted or commissioned therein.

(b) Pennsylvania naval militia.--The naval militia of this Commonwealth, when organized pursuant to rules and regulations promulgated by the Governor, shall consist of those persons as may, upon their own application, be enlisted or commissioned therein.

Any members of the militia may at any time at the direction of the Governor be drafted in the Pennsylvania National Guard, with the only restriction being such a draft may not interfere with a federal draft.


That said, Pennsylvania has not organized their militia since the 2nd world war. The Governor is charged with maintaining (paying) and equipping the militia. It is important to note that although many National Guard units trace their lineage to historically organized militia units, the national guard is not in any way the militia, but an organized standing military force available for federal or state duty, domestically or outside of these United States. Training is not optional. It is extremely questionable if a militia unit could be deployed outside of these United States without the consent of the Unit and their State.


****

In Commonwealth Countries (Canada and England I have personal Knowledge of): their "reservists" function as a standing, activated militia. They meet weekly, but there is no penalties for not attending meetings or their large training events (they simply are not paid). America's militia system was similar up until the first world war, and this system was abandoned with the formation of the National Guard.

***

A thing to consider is the Hue and Cry. Under English Common Law, you could not see a crime and record if with your iphone (stone and chisel), you had to actively alert the community and make effort to obtain the arrest, using force (including lethal force) of a criminal. This is where the fleeing felon doctrine comes from, still practiced in much of America, and still the law of the land in Pennsylvania. IF a (Common law) felon refuses to yield to public (Citizens) arrest, and attempts to resist OR Run, it is perfectly legal to shoot him dead (or run him down with your horse) in order to attempt to obtain his arrest.

Likewise a law man (sheriff or Coroner for example) could order the public to assist in making an arrest, one of the reasons why historically Commonwealth countries have not required armed lawmen (police/government abuse of power, which always happens) has long restricted government agents from being armed in commonwealth countries, as a lawman who can not compel the criminal or the public to assist obviously does not have the legal moral authority to do their job, which is an important check on the abuse of power in the English system. After all, if an crime was truly committed, the public would wish justice. This is separate from the Feudal military obligation which occurred before the social contract system which created a militia.


It doesn't take a great study of English history to know that although Lords could raise armies of subjects (which the lords & their vassals would usually equip and feed) they could only do so for a limited time. Farmers have to farm or their family dies, and the entire economy, which is entirely agriculturally based.

Those troops, in the English System were almost always expected to present with a longbow & the knowledge to use it. It wasn't just because soccer is a boring crap sport the numerous English Monarchs banned it. IT was also because the Crown said the national Sport was archery, and every Englishmen had better be able to shoot as good as Robin Hood. There is a reason the King attended archery competitions with peasants, even in a story about a hated and evil tyrant king.


There is also a difference between expecting people to show up for occasional training (unpaid) and expecting them to preform regular duty. If duty is regular(read, frequent), it is a standing army, and not a militia. IT is reasonable for a Township to require ever resident to have a modern firearm and practice it quarterly at the range the township provides. It is unreasonable for a township to expect every resident to patrol the streets once a week for 8 hours.

[smcmike]

The person who pays them to pick edible plants out of the ground? The person who enploys them to break rock? The person who has need of an unskilled but willing worker.

For what reason? Well, food, shelter, water for 3 to kick you off with.

Why would anyone pay a peasant a wage to pick the peasant’s crops?

The lord has a bunch of land. He lets the peasants work the land, and takes some of their produce. He doesn’t pay them, they pay him.

Yes, it’s possible to mix the arrangement up in innumerable ways, but the assumption that subsistence farmers are paid something similar to a modern wage for subsistence farming is truly bizarre.

[Vaz]

Why would anyone pay a peasant a wage to pick the peasant’s crops?

The lord has a bunch of land. He lets the peasants work the land, and takes some of their produce. He doesn’t pay them, they pay him.

Yes, it’s possible to mix the arrangement up in innumerable ways, but the assumption that subsistence farmers are paid something similar to a modern wage for subsistence farming is truly bizarre.
The farmer.

Oh, wait, please, do you think a farmer picks their own crops? 😂 😂 😂 oh, precious.

[Ninja_Prawn]

The farmer.

Oh, wait, please, do you think a farmer picks their own crops? 😂 😂 😂 oh, precious.

I think smcmike is imagining the situation where the peasant is the 'farmer'. I.e., the situation in most of Europe prior to the agricultural revolution.

[smcmike]

The farmer.

Oh, wait, please, do you think a farmer picks their own crops? 😂 😂 😂 oh, precious.


I think smcmike is imagining the situation where the peasant is the 'farmer'. I.e., the situation in most of Europe prior to the agricultural revolution.

Right. As Ninja Prawn points out, Vaz, I do in fact think that subsistence farmers (“peasants”) for most of human history picked their own crops. While there are a variety of other possible agricultural labor arrangements, the workers in those arrangements are less likely to be called “peasants.” For example, on American plantations, crops were picked by slaves (also not paid!). Later, a lot of land was worked by tenant farmers - again, not paid. On a lot of modern American produce farms, crops are picked by paid migrant labor - not generally referred to as peasants.

[Vaz]

Right. As Ninja Prawn points out, Vaz, I do in fact think that subsistence farmers (“peasants”) for most of human history picked their own crops. While there are a variety of other possible agricultural labor arrangements, the workers in those arrangements are less likely to be called “peasants.” For example, on American plantations, crops were picked by slaves (also not paid!). Later, a lot of land was worked by tenant farmers - again, not paid. On a lot of modern American produce farms, crops are picked by paid migrant labor - not generally referred to as peasants.

They may well have done at some point. But there are literally primary records of such 'peasants' being paid a wage to pick stuff up from at least the 15th century, and secondary from 13th, which matches the stereotypical expectation of the technological ability to nake plate armour without the use of magic.

Which invalidates what I've said how?

[smcmike]

They may well have done at some point. But there are literally primary records of such 'peasants' being paid a wage to pick stuff up from at least the 15th century, and secondary from 13th, which matches the stereotypical expectation of the technological ability to nake plate armour without the use of magic.

Which invalidates what I've said how?

The fact that some peasants were paid a wage to pick some crops does not mean that most crops were picked by wage labor.

I’m just trying to picture the social arrangement you are talking about. I’m talking about a peasant farmer, who has the rights to farm a certain patch of land, for which he pays the lord a tithe. Who is paying him, and for what? Perhaps he supplements his income by hiring himself out as labor at certain times of the year. Probably he sells or trades produce or other goods made in the home. But the primary way that this theoretical farmer makes a living is by growing grain and eating it. That’s what subsistence farmers do. “Peasant,” generally, means “subsistence farmer.”

[Vaz]

Because you're imagining a scenario which is outdated, perhaps.

[JackPhoenix]

Because you're imagining a scenario which is outdated, perhaps.

Outdated compared to what? Because perhaps you don't know what you're talking about.

[smcmike]

Because you're imagining a scenario which is outdated, perhaps.

What do you mean by outdated?

[LordEntrails]

It's almost funny, but truly sad how you guys are arguing about all this peasants, farmers, paid and unpaid.

Obviously their are times and places in history where their are cases of all of these. And other than providing examples that it's possible to have any of the situations mentioned, none of it really matters. The OP is looking to figure out how to handle militia in his FANTASY world.

So, rather than try and prove who's got the bigger swinging stick, why don't you try to contribute something useful to his/her request?

OP; I think you got the info you need, but to summarize;
Depending, they would either be considered skilled or unskilled. PC's would imo definitely be considered skilled, and would probably hold some sort of NCO rank in the militia. How much they would actually get in cash is going to depend, but, you are not going to adversely effect the PC's wealth if you pay them the skilled rate (since downtown activities could generate the same income for them).

As for the rest of the economy, you can generally hand wave it, and actually will need to because the D&D economy doesn't really work if looked at in a societal view. It works for adventurers, and that's all it needs to work for.

[Vaz]

Outdated compared to what? Because perhaps you don't know what you're talking about.
You mean despite the historical records? Outdated as in the form of mining which was nearly 200 years out of date by the time of technological ability typically seen within the expected dnd game.

Most peasants were people who lived on land owned by a Bordar, these individuals were serfs, or cottars, and lived cottages provided on the land of the lord they lived on. It was estimated that 5-6 acres were needed to feed a family (equivalent to 40-50 football fields). Do you seriously think that 40-50 football fields was farmed by one man, and his 4 sons, while the wife stayed at home and prepped meals etc?

Who when the lord came a-knocking downed tools, and left his family to starve because noone was abke to pick food or take it market? Or do you think that the bordar and villeins, and bannerets, or thegns of whatever vill, parish or hundred you recognised made use of providing accomodation, water and food for the labourers?

Whether the pay came in raw silver, or it came in other services is up to the reeve, villein, bordar, banneret, thegn or whatever, and how much.

If you want an example of it in a fantasy story as well, cthis is quite literally the start of the Belgariad, as well as being actual history.

[smcmike]

Most peasants were people who lived on land owned by a Bordar, these individuals were serfs, or cottars, and lived cottages provided on the land of the lord they lived on. It was estimated that 5-6 acres were needed to feed a family (equivalent to 40-50 football fields). Do you seriously think that 40-50 football fields was farmed by one man, and his 4 sons, while the wife stayed at home and prepped meals etc?

1. You are wildly wrong about the comparative sizes of an acre and a football field.

2. You are here arguing that a family is incapable of providing the labor necessary to farm land sufficient to feed itself. Think about this argument for one second. See any problems?

[JackPhoenix]

You mean despite the historical records? Outdated as in the form of mining which was nearly 200 years out of date by the time of technological ability typically seen within the expected dnd game.

Most peasants were people who lived on land owned by a Bordar, these individuals were serfs, or cottars, and lived cottages provided on the land of the lord they lived on. It was estimated that 5-6 acres were needed to feed a family (equivalent to 40-50 football fields). Do you seriously think that 40-50 football fields was farmed by one man, and his 4 sons, while the wife stayed at home and prepped meals etc?

Who when the lord came a-knocking downed tools, and left his family to starve because noone was abke to pick food or take it market? Or do you think that the bordar and villeins, and bannerets, or thegns of whatever vill, parish or hundred you recognised made use of providing accomodation, water and food for the labourers?

Whether the pay came in raw silver, or it came in other services is up to the reeve, villein, bordar, banneret, thegn or whatever, and how much.

If you want an example of it in a fantasy story as well, cthis is quite literally the start of the Belgariad, as well as being actual history.

I had to read this about five time to understand what are you trying to say, and I'm still not sure if I understand your attempts to communicate correctly.

6 acres are about 3.8 football fields, assuming american football. You're wrong by more than an order of magnitude.

For about tenth time: lords provided peasants nothing. Not water (maybe they got the peasants to dig a village well as part of the *unpaid* work they did for the lord instead of paying taxes, though), not accomodations (unless you mean the land the peasant leased from their lord, and paid taxes for using), and certainly not food (peasants grew their own... that was the whole point). Military campaigns in general happened in summer, between planting and the harvest, where there wasn't much to do. And yes, if the men fell in war, and the women (who certainly weren't staying home, but worked alongside men) couldn't work all the field themselves (even considering neighbors would usually help each other and less family members means less food needed), they would starve, or be kicked out by the lord when they couldn't pay the tax. The lord then lend the now vacant land to someone else.

[Vaz]

1. My bad, forgot to carry the 0. Rookie maths bad. Didn't sound right in my head. Still, it's 4 football fields, without the aid of mechanical tools, and rarely little more than single working ox per vill so useable 1/week for each bordar is backbreaking. If you can pay someone to do the stuff for you, and make more of a profit selling produce elsewhere, why not? Why have others profit off your land, and rely on potentially corrupt taxmen or legal loopholes to have potential profits taken away, when you can instead pay pittance, or use the justification of paying for their rent through their work?

2. Not really, because not everyone was subsistence. Haha do you actuaoly believe cities like Londinium, Rome, Paris, and Constantinople existed as a result of Subsistence farming. To be a farm and be able to provide food elsewhere, but still have enough for themselves, they needed that 20km sq tk farm as a border.

[smcmike]

1. My bad, forgot to carry the 0. Rookie maths bad. Didn't sound right in my head. Still, it's 4 football fields, without the aid of mechanical tools, and rarely little more than single working ox per vill so useable 1/week for each bordar is backbreaking. If you can pay someone to do the stuff for you, and make more of a profit selling produce elsewhere, why not?

The “if” is the issue, isn’t it? It’s hardly a given.



2. Not really, because not everyone was subsistence. Haha do you actuaoly believe cities like Londinium, Rome, Paris, and Constantinople existed as a result of Subsistence farming. To be a farm and be able to provide food elsewhere, but still have enough for themselves, they needed that 20km sq tk farm as a border.

Vaz, here’s your argument, that I was responding to: it takes more people to farm a given tract of land than that tract of land can support. This is obviously absurd.

Where are you getting the idea that only farms of a certain size can run a surplus?

[Slipperychicken]

Pay? You don't pay a militia. Right? They fight to defend their homes and/or because their liege has the right to call them up.

Or have I got that completely wrong?

Fighting doesn't stop your kids from needing food and clothes, nor does it mean your bills don't have to be paid.

Though like a lot of things, it depends.

[2D8HP]

There was also precedent of militia/military service being something you paid to not do.

(Straight from Wikipedia)[ (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyrd)
"The fyrd was a local militia in the Anglo-Saxon shire, in which all freemen had to serve. Those who refused military service were subject to fines or loss of their land.

According to the laws of Ine:

If a nobleman who holds land neglects military service, he shall pay 120 shillings and forfeit his land; a nobleman who holds no land shall pay 60 shillings; a commoner shall pay a fine of 30 shillings for neglecting military service.

It was the responsibility of the shire fyrd to deal with local raids. The king could call up the national militia to defend the kingdom, however in the case of hit and run raids, particularly by Vikings, problems with communication and raising supplies meant that the national militia could not be mustered quickly enough so was rarely summoned."

Into the 19th century in the United States, if drafted, one could:


1) Serve in thr military.

2) Get/Pay someone to serve instead of you as a substitute.

3) Pay $300


(For one particular 19th century war).

But for the use of the OP perhaps use the the 1979 Dungeon Masters Guide prices for hirelings, which are way cheaper, an archer with a shortbow is only 2 gp a month! And a "light footman" is only 1 gp per month!

Yeah, that's too cheap for 5e, so I'd go 2 sp per day for a commoner with a club, 2 gp per day for someone who supplies any other weapon and/or armor (and is proficient in its use).

[Tiadoppler]

This isn't a historical analysis of militia forces through the ages, this is just what I use in my campaigns as a sorting algorithm of armies/organized military forces in D&D:

TL;DR:
Mob: Torches and pitchforks. Free, but stupid and they wander off when they sober up.
Levy: Reluctant conscript. 1-2 sp per day, but have to be kept in line by more loyal soldiers.
Militia: Temporary local defense force. If they save the town, 3-5 sp per day they were needed.
Town Guard: Permanent local cops. 1-3gp per day. Full-time professionals, but probably lack numbers.
Army/Scouts: Roving reconnaissance. 3-5gp per day. Skilled specialists, but lightly armed and spread out.
Army/Regulars: Large units of soldiers. 2-4gp per day. Heavily armed, full-time professionals, but slow.
Army/Elite: Have class levels. 5-10gp(and up) per day. Scary.




Mob: Torches and pitchforks. Brought together at the spur of the moment. Focused on dealing with a single threat to a specific location (usually a village). Either no leader, or a leader without military experience. May disobey PC orders. May desert in battle. Only exists for a short time (1 day max) before they have to return to their actual occupations. Probably drunk. Definitely incompetent.


Levy: Conscripted commoners forced into military service. Individual troops have little or no experience, but are led by a few genuine soldiers who serve as officers. Possibly following their lord into battle in a feudal arrangement, forced to join a national army, or swept up by a roving war band. The average levy has little to no motivation or skill, and cannot leave the army, but does get 'paid' a small amount in some combination of food, loot, barter and currency. Desertion is extremely common (and desirable). Cannon Orc/Goblin/Troll fodder.


Militia: A local defense force of volunteers. Most members are using hunting weapons (spears, bows, etc.), repurposed tools (sledgehammers, axes, windmills, etc.), or family heirlooms (grandma's old-but-still-surprisingly-sharp-and-frequently-oiled greatsword), but are usually proficient, have had some opportunity to train together, and are motivated to protect their homes and families. The individual militia member would not be paid, but any officer that organizes and trains the militia would be, and the militia as a whole might be compensated for their efforts if they are activated and are able to successfully defeat a threat.
A normal militia would gather together to deal with a single threat to their home, but would not be willing (or logistically able) to travel far from their home base. They would have the organization to patrol or guard a location for days or weeks, but if they are operating continuously year-round they have become the...


Town Guard: A permanent (standing) local defense force that combines soldier and police force. Quality varies from laughably useless to fairly effective. Each member of a town guard is paid a steady wage by the city (or government, or corrupt corporation) as a skilled professional. Their job is to enforce local laws ("Stop right there, criminal scum!") and defend against outside threats. In a tiny town, this is frequently represented by a sheriff and a few deputies who can call upon a militia or (flash)mob for extra muscle as needed. In a larger village or city, this is often a city watch or police force that can call upon a standing army if necessary.



Standing army category: Professional soldiers paid (usually) better than the town guard but with (usually) higher standards.

Scouts and detached units: Patrolling the roads, the wilderness and the borders. Fast, mobile, tasked with investigating strange events, responding to emergencies, and reporting on activities. These can take many forms based on the local culture. Elven rangers wandering the woods alone, teams of light cavalry based in a local town or small fort, gryphon riders who fly out from the capital every day for aerial surveillance, or anything else.


Regular units: Based in central locations, or along a hotly contested border. The most numerous type of soldier. Standardized in training and equipment. Tend to be slow to move or redeploy. Can use siege equipment, heavy cavalry, and any other appropriate military options. Probably has some sort of standardized magical support (as setting appropriate), but few high-powered casters.


The elite: The royal guard, the paladins, the battlemages, the commandos. Highly skilled (and highly paid) these are the best of the best of the best. They may focus on hit and run strikes, or anti-mage tactics, or sabotage, but they have a few things in common: they're scary, they're powerful, and they're relatively small in number.

[Kyler999]

I'm surprised that not a single person mentioned this. Skip all the terrible speculation about cost skilled vs unskilled.
D&D 3.5 Arms & Equipment Guide p.69-71 has a complete list of the costs of militia and hired soldiers. It has the troops broken down by type (light, medium, heavy) and list several types of equipment, armor, ad weapons within each type. Along with the cost of each type of troop.

[Unoriginal]

I'm surprised that not a single person mentioned this. Skip all the terrible speculation about cost skilled vs unskilled.
D&D 3.5 Arms & Equipment Guide p.69-71 has a complete list of the costs of militia and hired soldiers. It has the troops broken down by type (light, medium, heavy) and list several types of equipment, armor, ad weapons within each type. Along with the cost of each type of troop.

One, please don't necro a thread that is 9 months old.

Two, 3.5 costs have no bearing on 5e, given the editions use different expectations for money.

[dmteeter]

"Pay? you want me to pay you to protect your own homes? Homes you built on my land? Ridiculous! Now peasants get you dirty, smelly, stupid, ungrateful ***** out of my sight! "


Pretty much how I envision the conversation on compensation going.