I think that it is loss of the ABILITY to continue. You, the defeated, can do nothing to affect the contest, leaving the opponent the right to bid everything to get a more severe defeat, or even to perform a coup-de-grace. This way, you can repeatedly surrender until the enemy realizes that your ransom is a lot of money. In the example that I used, from Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror, the French King took the initiative to boldly surrender, rather than take the chance of (himself or his bodyguards) dying in the first exchange of combat. Thus it also keeps your supporters alive, when you could abandon them and ride away (see Henry V, and the actions of the Dauphin) or fight on until they are all dead, as well (see the painting of Custer's Last Stand, even if it is historically inaccurate).
Actually, I suppose that your ransom should engage the opponent's in a contest, since the king of an opposing tribe (probably a rich noble) wouldn't much notice the ransom of a stickpicker unless he was also extremely greedy. Likewise, your ransom won't affect a Lunar regiment unless it can affect the Yelmic noble in command.
Powered by hypermail