How many soldiers could a kingdom realistically muster?

[Chimera]

As SWBAxter says, it depends on the society. Almost every adult male in a nomadic warrior society will be available for combat. Everyone else will be tagging along. Look back and the "barbarian" invasions of the Roman Empire and similar events. Entire tribes moved in enmasse.

The other side is the degree of threat. During WWII, the Finns had 10% of their population under arms to repel the Soviets. At the same time, the military of the USA reached almost 14 million strong at a time when the population was 150 million, almost as high as the Finns. Of course, most of those were not front-line combatants.

Then too, there is a big difference between "standing army" and warfare capacity. Most nations maintained only a small standing army and filled it with conscripts and mercenaries in time of need.

In a D&D world with multiple threats and things like Adventurers running around, it seems that a nation of one million could easily muster an army of 20-50,000 soldiers within a period of several months. This is not unreasonable or even difficult. Just remember that this would not be kept in one block, because that one block can't be everywhere. It would be organized into Legions, Divisions, Battalions, etc and scattered all across the front.

 

[NewJeffCTHome]

The other side is the degree of threat. During WWII, the Finns had 10% of their population under arms to repel the Soviets. At the same time, the military of the USA reached almost 14 million strong at a time when the population was 150 million, almost as high as the Finns. Of course, most of those were not front-line combatants.

Then too, there is a big difference between "standing army" and warfare capacity. Most nations maintained only a small standing army and filled it with conscripts and mercenaries in time of need.

Agreed - and that is my point. I had mentioned a standing army of 5,000 as a permanent full time military like many nations have now. However, I wanted to know what would happen if there was a huge emergency - a la WW2 with the Finns & US having nearly 10% of the population in the military. That was over a limited time - no country, modern or Medieval, could sustain nearly that percentage in the military over the long haul without crippling their economy.

 

[Tonguez]

Agreed - and that is my point. I had mentioned a standing army of 5,000 as a permanent full time military like many nations have now. However, I wanted to know what would happen if there was a huge emergency - a la WW2 with the Finns & US having nearly 10% of the population in the military. That was over a limited time - no country, modern or Medieval, could sustain nearly that percentage in the military over the long haul without crippling their economy.

Of course the other factor that throws off the comparison is the presence of magic in DnD - druids and clerics mean increased crop yeilds and the ability to keep the troops fed without stripping the feilds. As such more trops can probably be feilded without economic impact than in the real world.

That being saidI'll through out a 1:4 ratio of military:civilian population (ie it takes 4 labourers to keep 1 warrior on the feild

 

[JamesDJarvis]

Agreed - and that is my point. I had mentioned a standing army of 5,000 as a permanent full time military like many nations have now. However, I wanted to know what would happen if there was a huge emergency - a la WW2 with the Finns & US having nearly 10% of the population in the military. That was over a limited time - no country, modern or Medieval, could sustain nearly that percentage in the military over the long haul without crippling their economy.

The U.S. had 16 million folks in the armed forces during WW2 but they were not all in service the entire war and they were not all combat troops. The structure of a nation during WW2 and a mediveal society are also profoundly different.

A mediveal society coud probably maintain a satynding army somwehere under 1% of its total population. For a nation of 1,000,000 that is 10,000 standing men at arms. But in times of need and emergency may be capable of mustering 5% (or more) of the population for a number of weeks of troops drawn from private forces, yeomanry and peasantry. Some militanty societies could briefly muster forces as high as 20% of thier population bnut only for very short periods. Any mustering of forces in numbner is goingh to be a major economic issue for a classical medieval setting thaty will strip area of battle and routes armies march through of food. The availabnlity of food was the greatest limiting factor.

 

[Pinotage]

In the 15th century armies of ca 30,000 seem to have been not uncommon, eg Burgundian Swabian or French armies.

The Persian armies that faced Alexander the Great were supposedly in their hundreds of thousands. I would expect that Genghis Khan's Army that he took with him was also massive. The size of armies would largely depend on the culture of the people. Those in medieval England were more 'civilised' and feudal than those in Mongolia at the same time of Genghis Khan where neighbouring tribes were used to a kind of warring lifestyle.

Pinotage

 

[NewJeffCT]

Of course the other factor that throws off the comparison is the presence of magic in DnD - druids and clerics mean increased crop yeilds and the ability to keep the troops fed without stripping the feilds. As such more trops can probably be feilded without economic impact than in the real world.

That being saidI'll through out a 1:4 ratio of military:civilian population (ie it takes 4 labourers to keep 1 warrior on the feild

That assumes that there are enough high level clerics & druids to help out... and that the ones that are high level enough are also willing to help out the crown. And, just as there are the good clerics & druids that may help out the kingdom, there may be evil ones lurking to despoil crops & pollute the water... The Mongols were renowned for their spies & knowing all about their enemy before they fought them - part of the reason they were able to defeat the Europeans so easily those first few battles, despite being outnumbered. Imagine if those spies were really druids & clerics bent on destroying the kingdom's agricultural infrastructure, or at least keep the kingdom-allied clerics & druids busy repairing the damage?

(By the way, this is NewJeffCTHome from work...)

 

[NewJeffCT]

The U.S. had 16 million folks in the armed forces during WW2 but they were not all in service the entire war and they were not all combat troops. The structure of a nation during WW2 and a mediveal society are also profoundly different.

True - the economy was a lot more industrialized by 1941. Women also entered the work force in significant numbers. The US economy was also coming out of the Great Depression as well.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I use 0.5% for standing army and up to 10% conscripts in times of invasion. It's simple and it's historically accurate enough for my purposes.

Another thing to consider in the invasion example is what type of strategy will the invadee be taking. If it's a defensive one, then having 25,000 conscripts could be enough (which would adhere to the typical 2:1 advantage an attacker needs against a defended position). Raising that number might allow for time to draft additional forces so the defender could eventually swing over to the offensive (once the attacker has been whittled down through attrition).

 

[Tonguez]

The size of armies would largely depend on the culture of the people. Those in medieval England were more 'civilised' and feudal than those in Mongolia at the same time of Genghis Khan where neighbouring tribes were used to a kind of warring lifestyle.

um - can you clarify what you mean by civilized?
by the time the Mongols reached Europe most of their forces were tartars/turks, a lot of them where muslims and from various central asian cities - which were at the time amongst the most civilized cultures in the known world.

The truth of the Mongol army wasn't that it had overwhelming numbers (it didn't) but that it was well organised, mobile, survived on mares milk and dried meat, and had a policy of incorporating all 'conquered' peoples into its forces and treating them as equals. European armies of the same period were usually ad hoc, and being feudal (dis)organised around the concept of a War-Lord and his men-at-arms.

 

[Coredump]

I think thats why he put 'civilized' in quotes....