How big were ancient and medieval armies?

[dave lukins]

I don't know how we can trust the medieval figures. I remember reading Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror, in which she cited the 14th century population of France as 20 million. I can check her source next time I go home.

Was this before or after the Black Death? Napoleon B started the Census so the figures prior to that are surely speculative:)

[Blademaster]

Are we really sure that the population of France was 20 million in the 1400s? Heck, that is only 1/3 of today's French population. If I look at other numbers from other western European countries comparing their 1400s census statistics to today's statistics, you will find that the increase in population is around tenfold. It makes sense when you take in account of better health care and decreasing mortality rate.

So forgive me if I have a hard time believing that France's population was around 20 million, especially when disease and lack of proper water facilities, hygiene, and health care ran rampant. I would be more inclined to believe if the population was around 8 to 10 million at the very most.

[clackers]

The battle of Oudenarde in 1708 (war of Spanish succession) gathered 200.000 soldiers (with an army of 100.000 men strong on the French side) but we had to wait the revolutionary and imperial wars to witness other such battles involving hundreds of thousand of soldiers (Borodino, Wagram).

But I think all three of those battles are good examples of what we've been talking about, Oscar.

Throughout almost all of our history, starvation, disease, and lack of ammunition and command cohesion have hurt anyone, no matter how rich, trying to gather more than about 100,000 soldiers in the same place. The availability of rail and ship transport help raise those numbers.

At Oudenarde, the armies were only about 105,000 and 100,000 in size respectively.

As Kato pointed out, Napoleon helped change warfare with the Corps system ... spreading sizable units apart in the campaign as they moved in columns so they didn't run into each other while foraging, then combining them just in time for the battle itself.

This is great for exciting manouevers, but the risk in a pre-radio age is that you can lose contact with one wing or another, and they might not turn up when you need them (like Grouchy at Waterloo). In such a system you had to have subordinate commanders with talent (like Davout).

Even so, Wagram was 190,500 versus 138,000.

And Borodino was 130,000 versus 120,000. Napoleon, who generally had a poor feel for logistics, had started with more than half a million.

[Blademaster]

whoops a double post.

[kato]

As Kato pointed out [...]

I was talking about 120 years before Napoleon. During Napoleon's time, this practice was pretty much increased by one level upwards in command structure.

[eshcol]

I would be inclined to believe the vast numbers cited by the contemporary historians over the smaller ones given by modern historians. I would like feedback on this post to see what holes there are in my argument.
There are three arguments cited over the larger numbers in an army:
Logistics
Cost.
Population.

1) Logistics.
A bigger problem as times go on and armies require a bigger range of supplies. food, oil, mechanical, ammunition, medical, etc. Just what does an army fielded in 500BC or thereabouts require? essentially just Food. Drink was mainly supplied by nearby rivers or springs. And perhaps a ammunition of arrows for the archers.

All the men an army could field would be eating whether they are in the army on the field or at home seeing to their own occupation. All that was needed was to get that food a few km to the army (most wars were fought close to home)

If Soldiers take about a weeks rations of food with them to start with, and if thats how long they are out there to fight a battle then that would be all they need, no need for any more supplies. When their enlistment would drag on then a number of other things would happen. 1st- they will go home and give up, desert- not an uncommon occurence. 2nd Family, clans, tribes, towns will send in supplies as they need them. 3rd the army would divide up into spoilers and plunder the enemies land.

For leangthier campaigns where the state would supply food armies would consist of smaller numbers. lets look at the calculations.


From what I found One pack mule can carry 150 pounds. food and ammunition for a day for say 120 men. an army of 200,000 would have needed 1,666 mules entering the camp a day

The average day's march for the Roman Army was about 14 - 20 miles, depending on available daylight, weather, terrain. Soldiers would set out with 17 day's rations each, weighing in at about 16 kilos of rations.

So lets say the camp is 30 miles from the food source. the pack mule not as trained as a Roman can march say 10 miles a day, that is a round trip of 6 days to supply from home an army of 200,000 would need 10,000 mules. if the army forages half it's food then only 5,000 mules are needed. A predominantly agricultural kingdom would easily find that number.


Cost.
Armies are expensive. But they are only expensive if you have to pay them, feed them, arm them, and generally look after them.

Payment for military service would have been unheard of outside of the proffesional army. Payment for the conscripts was the spoil that so many armies lost a complete victory when they decided to pillage the enemy camp instead of continue in hot pursuit. If you lost- then you go without. You fought for a common cause, for honour, for survival, mercenaries and proffessionals fought for money. If you didn't want to uphold that honour or defend your nations survival, then you simply avoided joining in.
Food was simply stored, being payed as tax from the farmers, and used for the army and all the kings household. A king could however do as he wished in an absolute monarchy. if he needed to he could rob more from unwilling farmers. It wont win him popularity but it would feed his army.
Amongst an unproffesional army, they generally paid for their own equipment and welfare. If a man had a sword, a sling, a bow, a spear, then that's what he took to battle with him, If not then he took whatever else he had: ox goads, pitchforks and pruning hooks or plowshares.

Population.
Lets say a kingdom has within it 1,000,000 people. half women, 500,000 men. 40% of the men are either too young, too old or too sick to fight. That leaves 300,000 able to fight.
Modern day conscription has a list of professions excempt from service. But what proffesions in the ancient world would be exempt from service? What proffessions were there?
Farmers
Miners
Priests
carpenters
Potters
Blacksmiths
bakers

Most likely some more that I have forgotten
Farms can be tended to as usual with slaves who would not be considered for service anyway, or by the women and children left behind. For 2 weeks after the busy harvest time has past it would not be a disaster.
Mines can be left unatended for a couple of weeks
Priests often went with the army, otherwise they were exempt
carpenters could leave their work for a couple of weeks
the nation can do without pottery for 2 weeks
Blacksmiths would not stay behind to make weapons- any they do make would be too few too late, they would go and put their skills to work in the army repairing those damaged in battle
Women at home can bake their own bread for 2 weeks.

Probably the most common exemption to service would be those that are too afraid
Troops can be inspired or disheartened by a number of facors that are not consistent every time. Sometimes 5% sometimes 95%
In the Bible there are exemptions given that are more social than economic-
1) If they have betrothed a wife and not yet taken her
2) if they have planted a new vinyeard and not eaten of the fruit yet (probably extended to all crops)
3) If they have built a house and not yet dedicated it

Everyday life would be sustained at home by these exemptions, the slaves, the women, the old, and the young. Workplaces in all industries have suffered shortstaffing at times. It is benifitial to an army that this shortstaffing occurs after harvest time during campaign season when things generally slow down anyway.

So of these 300,000. 90,000 desert or didn't show up in the first place. An army of 210,000 fielded for a week or two. A population of 1,000,000 fielding 210,000.

Is that too much When a nations survival is at risk? there was no Geneva convention, To a farmer, sending all his servants and sons to the battle is a better option than staying at home, being taken into captivity, his wives and daughters sold as slaves, his sons murdered and losing everything he ever had. Will the potters really stay behind and make pots while the battle determining his fate is being fought over the hill? Why would only 2% of a nations population take up arms?

Now a proffesional army I understand would need to be lower. a few thousand out of a population of a million I would understand. But I'm not talking about a proffessional standing army.

[troung]

I would be inclined to believe the vast numbers cited by the contemporary historians over the smaller ones given by modern historians.

It was a self-pat on the back.

Just what does an army fielded in 500BC or thereabouts require? essentially just Food. Drink was mainly supplied by nearby rivers or springs. And perhaps a ammunition of arrows for the archers.

If the local water is potable and if it can support the size of a given army. And food can be pretty hard to move on its own. Horses and drought animals need fodder and water. Spears break.

All the men an army could field would be eating whether they are in the army on the field or at home seeing to their own occupation. All that was needed was to get that food a few km to the army (most wars were fought close to home)

These men are no longer growing food and all of this food/fodder has to be supplied to them for long periods of time.

But they are only expensive if you have to pay them, feed them, arm them, and generally look after them.

Otherwise they can be pretty useless.

Your 200k unarmed, unfed, unpaid, untrained peasant army would be more likely to plunder their own countryside and give each other diseases.

Payment for military service would have been unheard of outside of the proffesional army. Payment for the conscripts was the spoil that so many armies lost a complete victory when they decided to pillage the enemy camp instead of continue in hot pursuit.

They have to be given something. A professional army costs a fortune during off seasons while gang pressed peasants can cost a kingdom in wartime.

If you lost- then you go without.

They rape and pillage their own countryside.

Food was simply stored, being payed as tax from the farmers, and used for the army and all the kings household. A king could however do as he wished in an absolute monarchy. if he needed to he could rob more from unwilling farmers. It wont win him popularity but it would feed his army.

Robbing farmers created rebellions.

From what I found One pack mule can carry 150 pounds. food and ammunition for a day for say 120 men. an army of 200,000 would have needed 1,666 mules entering the camp a day

What are the mules eating? What are their horses eating? How far is the food being sent from? Each man and animal is only getting one pound a day in food and water? What happens if enemy cavalry rustle some mules?

Farms can be tended to as usual with slaves who would not be considered for service anyway, or by the women and children left behind.

The farmers are the slaves.

Lets say a kingdom has within it 1,000,000 people. half women, 500,000 men. 40% of the men are either too young, too old or too sick to fight. That leaves 300,000 able to fight.

Who farm, trade, fish, tend the manors of noblemen who don't want the help armed or maimed, or do other things.

So of these 300,000. 90,000 desert or didn't show up in the first place. An army of 210,000 fielded for a week or two. A population of 1,000,000 fielding 210,000.

Who farms? Where does their kit come from? Who feeds them? How are they organized? How do they command them on the battlefield? How do they even keep them in one place before they die off from decease?

Modern day conscription has a list of professions excempt from service. But what proffesions in the ancient world would be exempt from service? What proffessions were there?

Farming was inefficient back then and required a lot of labor.

When a nations survival is at risk? there was no Geneva convention, To a farmer, sending all his servants and sons to the battle is a better option than staying at home, being taken into captivity, his wives and daughters sold as slaves, his sons murdered and losing everything he ever had.

And if their armed thugs win then they are still in the same position in the long term, excluding the brief period of rape and pillage.

Will the potters really stay behind and make pots while the battle determining his fate is being fought over the hill?

Yep, faster than a New York minute. Hope for the best from the new guys.

Plus a potter bolting out of the line in the face of a enemy cavalry charge just helps create panic anyways. A potter or farmer with zero training is nothing more than arrow fodder.

Why would only 2% of a nations population take up arms?

States had a hard time supporting many troops over for any period of time, they had a hard time arming soldiers, training them, controlling them in battle and one really does not want to hand out weapons to the people you shit on and tax through their noses in off seasons.

========
Nomadic societies could put large forces into the field taking into account their own populations, in no small part because their patterns of labor were different and their societies were different.

Some settled empires (China, Rome, etc...) could put and support big numbers into the field, most could not.

[zraver]

Some settled empires (China, Rome, etc...) could put and support big numbers into the field, most could not.

Part of the genius of the Roman system was the tying of political voice to military service in general not individual military service in particular. In Athens 1 spear or 1 oar was effectively 1 vote. In Rome 1 spear was 1/100th of a vote in the Comitia Centuriata (sp?). This combined with patronage to allow more soldiers to be kitted out. For example, if OoE, Sheck, Iron Duke, and Myself are all of moderate wealth we could pool our resources to control the bulk of a single century and thus have 1 full vote amongst us. However, you as a patrician might be able to outfit 3 centuries directly plus what ever vote you controlled via patronage of other less wealthy persons.

More troops would be supplied by the other Latin League members who had not yet traded in league citizenship for Roman citizenship.

This was further helped by the fact that while the bulk of Republican soldiers were farmers, Romans didn't need to farm, slaves could do it. Thus they had large armies and a steady supply of food. Finally, slave labor allowed an almost industrial scale production of arms and roads allowed strategic mobility.

An example of how this all comes together would be the wars against Hannibal. The Latins never betrayed Rome so the Roman system was able to keep creating new armies over and over again. As long as Rome kept producing armies Hannibal could not win.

[eshcol]

During the invasion of the waikato in 1860's the Maori king divided his population in thirds- 2 thirds tending to life back home and 1 third to the war. That still only meant he was able to field no more than 2,000 but proportionately it was huge

[Imho]

Many Empires had 100 000 strong army's throughout medieval times.No one mention Attila the Hun whose army is believed to be 200 000 at its peak.One of the bloodiest/biggest medieval battle was the Battle of Acheloos-917 AD,70 000 Bulgarians against 100 000 Byzantines.

[eshcol]

For a short time armies that size could be supported. I don't know much about that battle but I would say that the armies would be made up mainly of unproffessional soldeirs.
After the Battle of Lake Trasimene, The Romans had to look to the peasants to make up their 100,000 strong army which was destroyed at Cannae

[kato]

So lets say the camp is 30 miles from the food source.

And just how many stocked-up food sources capable of feeding 200,000 men are there in medieval times? For how long? We're talking about societies and areas where most farms dealt in subsistence farming only after all.

For this reason, "mobile" units of around 5,000 men - plus a train of up to similar size - dominated warfare (in Europe) at the very least for 2000 years until the 18th century. These "mobile" units could and did of course combine for a battle, but were essentially the base unit below the army. Although - at least in Europe - battles with more than a dozen such units on either side were rare. This can be traced all the way from Caesar (8 legions / 40.000 soldiers in the Gallic War) to Wallenstein in the 30-year War (12 regiments / 50.000 soldiers under his Second Generalship).

Payment for military service would have been unheard of outside of the proffesional army.

... Rome paid its conscripts a regular salary starting in about 100 BC. The salary system was reminiscent of that of modern armies btw; sorted into a regular pay and a completion premium, as well as the automatic deduction of standardized fees for state-supplied food and clothing.

A king could however do as he wished in an absolute monarchy.

Most absolute monarchies actually had pretty strict rulesets including when dealing with subservient people.
Part of most absolute monarchies was that it was the duty of the local fiefs to raise - and pay for - an army. Maintaining large-scale standing armies was impossible anyway, no one could pay for that; hence why in reality mercenary armies were the staple of medieval warfare in Europe till the late 18th century, and why few local kingdoms could raise more than a few thousand men.

Farms can be tended to as usual with slaves who would not be considered for service anyway

Just how many farms do you think had slaves? That was always a privilege of the rich, and organized farming using slavery didn't really occur until the 16th/17th century in the New World.

for a couple of weeks

And years? Because that's how long deployments actually lasted.

To a farmer, sending all his servants and sons to the battle [...]

means that there's a 50% chance that those he sends do not return, there's a 90% chance he won't be able to manage the harvest, that he'll need to sell off his younger children into slavery, and that the entire household will probably still starve over the next winter.

[mustavaris]

You have to look at the economical foundation. The feudal armies of Europe were small indeed and an army of 10 000 men was considered to be really big in most European regions. Once the economies developed a new era of mass armies begun.

[mustavaris]

Many Empires had 100 000 strong army's throughout medieval times.No one mention Attila the Hun whose army is believed to be 200 000 at its peak.One of the bloodiest/biggest medieval battle was the Battle of Acheloos-917 AD,70 000 Bulgarians against 100 000 Byzantines.

Among the nomadic tribes every able bodied man was (in theory) a soldier. The Arabs and Berbers were also able to muster high number of troops when comparing to their population levels. Byzantine Empire pretty much continued the Roman tradition and had the economical foundation to support big armies.

What comes to Acheloos, those figures are not exact. The whole empire had around 100K men at that time while in that battle around third or max half of the troops enaged the Bulgars and no one actually knows how many Bulgars they faced. It was among the biggest medieval battles nevertheless.

[zraver]

For a short time armies that size could be supported. I don't know much about that battle but I would say that the armies would be made up mainly of unproffessional soldeirs.
After the Battle of Lake Trasimene, The Romans had to look to the peasants to make up their 100,000 strong army which was destroyed at Cannae

Will you just STFU please? Cannae cost the Romans the bulk of 1 field army, with 2 more going untouched (Caesar and Pompey) plus the various garrison units. By the height of the civil war between Antony and Octavian Rome may have had more than half a million men under arms including around 50 complete legions. Post civil war this number bounced between 25-30 with each legion having a TOE of about 11,000 men. That is a division sized force. Until the modern era no one but Rome, China and the Mongols could sustain a force of that size.

From the republican to about the mid imperial time frame Rome couldn't lose armies faster than she could build them. The defeat you mention at Lake Trasimene didn't stop Rome from invading Spain and North Africa and crushing Carthage.

The Marian reforms have nothing to do with Trasimene and everything to do with the battle between the Populares and Optimates and would result in 3 civil wars in rapid succession. Marius v Sulla, Caesar v Pompey and finally Octavian v Antony each of these wars cost Rome more men than they lost at Cannae.