Armies of The Ancient World

[Tiefling]

The Roman Empire at its peak controlled some of the richest lands on Earth. A quarter of the world's population lived under its Emporers. It's pretty obvious that they would have huge armies, and I'm sure if somebody created a similar realm in their world it would have similar power. But most campaign worlds are largely made up of kingdoms of, say, France-size. For them to field armies of 80,000 men would require a considerable sacrifice in the suspension-of-disbelief department.

"Well, since the Middle Ages, 5000 men was a huge army, then in the game it would be unlikely to see armies larger than that."

On the other hand, this isn't really true either. It might, actually, but it depends on the scale.

Assuming a kingdom with the size of France and average resources, 5000 would be small. I'm not sure exactly, but huge would probably be around 25-30 thousand. Assuming a duke's fief in the same kingdom, 5000 would be sizeable. Assuming an earl's fief it would be enourmous.

Even with hundreds of wizards spending all their spells on teleport you couldn't make them much bigger. The army is simply forced to pillage and consume everything in its path.

Come on folks! D&D ain't like this! We have flying castles, magic, and monsters!! No Aekob the serf who makes 1 cp per week! No one-blacksmith-per-town! We can create our own worlds with 200,000 years of history. We have had wizards through the ages creating vast works of magic! We can have kingdoms with many cities, each (city) with a population greater than 1 million! We can have great armies and gigantic war machines! etc.

Not in my world you can't.

 

[Eosin the Red]

Not in my world you can't.

Ditto.



Hey SHARK,

The Romans AND their cousins the Byzantine empire were capable of some staggering military feats. While, the East generally did everything "BIGGER."

I love the topic and the well thought out post. I use a Byzantine like empire (something like your Vallorian Empire, I think) in the Water Magins of my homebrew world to keep things interesting. Often my players gape at me when I tell them that their home country can feild 12,000, but the Empire can field the second Legion at approx 60,000 trained soldiers. They whine, they cry, then they find ways to avoid the attention of the Empire!!

I thought I would mention Hastings (?) where a significant % of the population was at the battle. Not all battles have to conform to the standard 5-10% of male population. Especially in a fantasy setting where loss could mean capture or worse by the Ultimate Evil (TM).

 

[Ulrick]

One thing I do admire about the Roman Armies was their ability to fight when outnumbered. In fact they trained for it, an carried around modular forts to build when encamped. And it amazes me that some remnants of these forts can still be found.

Such as the encampment at the base of Masada (Sp?). The outline of the fortress is still there in sand....after something like 2000 years! Now what happen there is indeed stuff of legend.


From what I've read and heard (And I think SHARK can back me up on this), is that a significant number of the battles lost to the Romans were cause by their enemies WAAAY outnumbering them or just poor command decisions.

Ulrick

 

[Avarice]

SHARK, your posts are fascinating reading, as always. While I certainly agree that we shouldn't be constrained by medeival limitations when explaining armies in a fantasy world, I think that in some ways at least, smaller army sizes might be more common, even for great empires. Consider that Rome, at its height was able to control its vast territories with a standing army of (IIRC) less than half a million men. It was able to do this, in large part because it was able to move these soldiers over vast distances relatively quickly via a system of well engineered roads. But would Rome even have needed this many soldiers if it had been able to send them into battle using a system of magical portals? It could have made do with a fraction of this number if they had all been gathered in a centralized location, awaiting instantaneous deployment. Consider also the potential costs involved with properly equipping a fantasy army (trained battle mages, magical eq, etc.) and I think smaller armies (at least in proportion to the overall population) make more sense.

Then again, I may just be out of my mind. Feel free to pick this apart at your leisure.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Greetings!

Yes, terrorist attacks in D&D could be very devastating for those determined to pree home the attack! However, despite the lethal effect of assassin-wizards and such, imagine what kind of magical and mundane protections a powerful emperor would have?

What kind of security would you develpo for a fantasy palace, and a fantasy emperor?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

The best money can buy.

But as they say today, no matter how great your security is, it is nothing when you can't trust those on the inside.

That protection would come from the guilds or the church, which means that they would also gather power to themselves. The church would make the renewal of the King a parade and enhance their power base. Wizards would not want someone more powerful than themselves, so a back door would be created in the spells.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Fenris:

Hello Fenris my friend! Fair enough, fair enough. However, I suppose the distinctions that I would like to make is that Historians of our own era have gone over the evidence, consulted with archeologists, anthropologists, and so on, in order to sift out the best explanation. There are many professional historical techniques that the Historian employs to discover the truth. For example, the Criterion of Multiple Attestation, Specific Historic Knowledge, and so on. I can't recall them all at the moment, but there is a large list of these criteria that the Historian analyzes and compares, in order to arrive at an accurate interpretation of the historical events in question. For example, from these methods, modern Historians can know what ancient historians are authoritative and accurate, and trustworthy in their accounts, and other ancient Historians that are not as reliable, or even distinctly questionable.

For example, in one of my Ancient History classes, my professor, a Ph.D in Ancient History, from USC, would give you an "F" if you maintained that the Romans fielded 40,000 men in the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC, or they fielded 120,000 troops. Why? Because both of those answers are wrong. The correct answer is at least 60,000 troops, and perhaps no more than 90,000. The point being though, that History can be known, and there are reasonably accurate facts, or interpretations of those facts. Because various events in history may have happened centuries ago, and because precise estimates have been difficult to pin down, does not therefore entitle one to just make up whatever interpretation that one desires, or to casually dismiss what expert Historians in the field today have determined, because of the notion that "Historians in the past exxagerated." I hope that makes sense.

But yes, there is some variation throughout history. Some elements are less detailed than others. There are some things that Historians today cannot figure out from the past. These things remain a mystery. However, much can be known, and reasonable, accurate interpretations can be made. Still, Fenris, your point is well-taken.

Tiefling:

It's nice to hear from you. Yes, your post is right on target of course. The Roman Empire was enormous, and it had huge amounts of manpower and resources available to it.

Eosin:

Yes, the Romans and the Byzantines did do things "BIG" didn't they? Indeed, warfare doesn't have to conform to the 5-10% of the male population figure!

Ulrick:

Yes, that's quite right Ulrick my friend! The Romans only lost because they were hugely outnumbered, or because of some idiot commander. Otherwise, you know who whipped it on! The Romans were highly trained, and conditioned to fight against overwhelming numbers. They were accustomed to crushing the barbarian rabble!

Avarice:

Thankyou by the way! Your not out of your mind at all!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Turlogh]

Didn't Rome consistantly fail to conquer Persia?
I'm not a history expert but as good as the Roman system is it wasn't perfect and makes a pretty bland backdrop for fantasy gaming (in my opinion anyway).

 

[Alaric_Prympax]

Essentially yes the Romans did fail to conquer Persia. But under Emperor Trajan the Romans did conquer Mesopotamia all the way to the Persian Gulf around ca. AD 114-115, he was fighting the Parthians who controlled the area, the Romans never conquered what is now modern day Iran which is ancient Persia. After his death the Romans had to withdraw from the Lower Mesopotamia and held the upper region. This area changed hands several times. Under Emperor Julian the Romans again tried to conquer Lower Mesopotamia in AD 363 and he even besieged Ctesiphon but bad terrian and weather and good tactics by the Persians forced him to retreat and he was killed in the a small skirmish, and thus the line of Constantine the Great came to an end (thought Julian was a nephew to Constantine) the head of Julian's body guard, Jovian became emperor but did not live long (AD 363-364) and Valentinian I (AD 364- 375) became emperor then.

 

[Reprisal]

The Divine Right of (Sovereigns)

imagine what kind of magical and mundane protections a powerful emperor would have?

Excellent thread, my good man, excellent indeed.

The Kingdoms of Kalamar Player's Guide has an entry pertaining to something they call "The Divine Right of Kings" where the nobility (From Baron to King & Emperor) are each accorded certain benefits for ruling in the name of a certain number of Gods and Goddesses. Apart from mortal created arcane protection, these rulers are given divine protection straight from the Gods...

Some powers of note are Divine Grace, Divine Health, Bonuses to saves against Poison, and even Damage Reduction once you get past Prince...

Interesting, isn't it?

 

[Nasma]

Reprisal, the idea of Rulers getting some kind of divine protection is very interesting. As well as giving them benefits it would also indicate who is the rightful heir. The succession could be decided based on who has the divine gifts