I kinda feel like you skipped to the end here, without reading the whole thing... That is the point I was making (half of it, at least). You literally lose money raiding. It is more expensive by far to raid than not to raid. If raiding can't at least cover your expenses it is not worth it unless it is doing pretty tremendous damage to the enemy, which as my numbers show it really isn't. The upkeep of a simple bowman is twice the maximum they can make raiding. However, I was under the impression that the two bullis max [b]was[/b] per season. Assuming you can raid more than once in a season with the same unit, obviously my entire point up until now is void. 

EDIT: 

Although, no, my point really isn't void even then. Assuming you're exclusively using bowmen and spearmen then sure, you could make money doing it, or at least cover your losses depending on how many times per season a unit can effectively pillage said two bullis, but what of knights and other relatively expensive units? A knight's upkeep is what, seventeen (dunno, not checking)? So if you can raid nine times in a ninty day season then alright, you've covered your losses. Otherwise, assuming it takes longer than ten days to pillage each time anything with an upkeep of six or so is still going to be bleeding money in a raid. Another thought, you act as though you'd make more money attacking richer targets, but with a max of two bullis per pillage no matter how wealthy the target (not including raiding caravans) your still making, you guessed it, two bullis per soldier per pillage.