How many soldiers could a kingdom realistically muster?

[SWBaxter]

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.

Sure. That's why the answer to these kinds of questions always starts with "it depends...", there's a huge number of parameters that can affect the answer in a significant way. From your original post - requesting realistic historical answers - it seems that there shouldn't be very many clerics, druids, or other high level characters and critters running around. If there are, then things change.

If you want to apply the question of army size and composition to a game with D&D levels of magic and monsters, then I'd be somewhat surprised to see anybody field an army made up largely of low level human warriors. Undead, constructs, high level mercenaries, etc. are all likely to be at least as capable at a much lower cost. But at that point you have to do a lot more work, since it becomes harder and harder to draw on real world examples.

 

[morbiczer]

1 million people in medieval times is ENORMOUS, demographically speaking.

On the battle field, ten thousand is about the worse the medieval world has ever seen, and it is the LOTR's showdown at Pelennor field.

QUOTE]

Well, the accounts I've read of the Mongol invasion of Europe in the mid 1200s had their army of 20,000 facing off against a combined army of Poles, Germans & French of anywhere between 30,000 and 80,000... and the Mongols still kicked their behinds, despite being the attackers.

The main Mongol force marched south towards Hungary, but was significantly larger than the 20,000 facing off in the north against the primarily Polish & German army. I'm not sure of the size (30,000?), but they faced off against 60,000-70,000 Hungarians, and also kicked their butts.

It would have to be taken into consideration, that the army mustered by the Hungarians against the Mongols was the biggest Hungarian army through out all the Middle Ages, at least until the 14-15th century. I just looked into my university textbook, where it says that one of the Mongol commanders sent out to scout before the battle estimated the Hungarian army to be 60.000 men strong, but the author (a very good professor) thinks that this would be to high. In his opinion the strength of our forces was significantly smaller.

When the Turks invaded Hungary in 1526, the kingdom could put only about 25.000 men into the field, although it was quite clear that this was going to be the final showdown. (Granted, this was partly due to the big internal conflicts and the weak royal power at that time.)

(+ minor nitpick: there were no French fighting against the Mongols)

Something else (someone mentioned this before): since there is magic in the D&D world, real world rules don't have to apply: clerics can feed the masses, paladins can heal the sick, wizards can provide transport (teleport for example), etc.

 

[Pinotage]

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 has it correct. I didn't intend to mean civilised in the strict sense of the word, just that the English system wasn't a mobile, war-like culture at the time. The nomadic tribes of mongolia were not exactly that, but they had been fighting each other for a long time until Genghis Khan united the Mongol people. In England there was a feudal system at the same time, with a 'main army' but a significant portion of the population peaceful farmers under a feudal lord. It a different culture, and I was suggesting that it would be easier to generate an army from the Mongols of the time than the English. Different cultures, different armies.

Pinotage

 

[Tonguez]

Coredump has it correct. I didn't intend to mean civilised in the strict sense of the word, just that the English system wasn't a mobile, war-like culture at the time. The nomadic tribes of mongolia were not exactly that, but they had been fighting each other for a long time until Genghis Khan united the Mongol people. In England there was a feudal system at the same time, with a 'main army' but a significant portion of the population peaceful farmers under a feudal lord. It a different culture, and I was suggesting that it would be easier to generate an army from the Mongols of the time than the English. Different cultures, different armies.

Pinotage

oh I see. in that case Yes I agree

 

[NewJeffCT]

(+ minor nitpick: there were no French fighting against the Mongols)

Hmm, I'll have to re-check my sources on that one, then, as the accounts I read of the Polish/German battle against the Mongols was that their forces included French Knights Templar...

 

[Wilphe]

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.

What an Industrial state can manage bears little resemblance to what a medieval society might be capable of though.

A couple of considerations, and what your final figure will be varies a lot according to what assumptions you make:

- If just about everybody who can carry a weapon (flail, bill, whatever) carries one and can be convinced to use it then you might get a very large force (10-20%, much higher if you are talking a last ditch stand like the sort the Japanese were preparing in the Home Islands). Weather you can concentrate and use it as a mass is another matter. Weather you should even try is yet another.

Factors against that:

- Logistics. At best they will be able to carry a weeks worth of rations and they are travelling on foot. That doesn't give you a lot of time to concentrate, fight your battle and disperse afterwards. Don't think the enemy won't be aware of that.

- Parocalism. You'd need to convince a lot of people to march and fight the invaders rather than stay and protect their own families, farms and towns. This is even more difficult if the enemy is known to launch raids into the rear areas.

- Collaboration. Whether any of your people decide to come to some sort of accomodation with the invaders - this depends a lot on how evil and what sort of evil the aggessors are. Lawful aggressors after a tax base are easier to deal with than chaotics who just want to kill, slay and pillage.

- Self-preservation. Or, "No I am not facing down an entire evil army armed only with a pointed stick". Instead your population decides to take as many moveable goods as possible and become refugees.

Or to put it another way:

Just because x% of the population can fight, doesn't mean that x% will.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

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

Ghenghis Khans army never numbered above a hundred thousand mongolian horsemen during his life time. Mongols beat the larger and better equipped chinese, european and persian armies because of superior tactics, organization, training and leadership.
Most historians also believe the persians never had more than 200000 soldiers at anyone engagement with Alexander, where as Alexanders army numbered around 50000.

 

[Lawrence of Arabica]

Bear in mind that all those medieval castles acted as a defensive force multiplier.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I agree that the culture of war & social structure is going to determine how many can be mobilized & for how long. Wilphe touches on the nature of the fight, an aggressive invasion into a friendly neighbour is going to have a different character to the struggle vs annihilation; this in turn is going to have an effect upon the muster.

The Nazi leadership relied heavily upon modern military institutions to wage their unjust war, without such a system they would have had a hard time convincing any population to march against such dangerous enemies. Then we've got the Holy Roman Empire's successful defence(s) of Vienna vs the Turks with the combined forces of all manner of central european kingdoms & principalities; the predicted threat of a foreign enemy of strange appearance & customs allowed a stout defence & a huge relief force to muster.

Size & geography of kingdom will also play a part, Prussia had at one time something like 1/4 of it's population in the military or directly supporting it. With Russia to the east, Austria-Hungary to the south, Sweden to the north & France to the west; in that day and age this militarism was seen as essential. Smaller kingdoms may have to devote a larger % of the population to get any security compared to a larger kingdom.

The campaign kingdom I dm is only of 4000 people with a feudal structure. I have 10% as fulltime men-at-arms of which 1/2 are knights & 1/2 are squires. Another 10% are trained peasant levees armed with bow or polearm that can fight with the skill of a squire. Another 10% peasant levee can be raised but include semi-skilled tradesmen and their absence for war will cause hardship after victory, they fight poorly & ideally free up better troops. For town and castle defence another 20% can be raised consisting of the very young, very old & brave women; more a liability in battle they can perform labour & soft tasks such as lookout.
Of course this is a 'd&d' kingdom where the wizards form a 3rd branch of nobility, the clergy pack serious powers & other elite orders exist. Invaders do have to deal with a hard crust of powerful figures as part of their plans.

 

[sword-dancer]

um - can you clarify what you mean by civilized?
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.

1 No the Mongolians used them as fodder troops, if they´re killed they cared nothing if they hesitated they were executed on the spot(from one of the monks travelling to the mongols)

2 Not really, they were organiced around the concept of feudalism, and could be highly professional.
The problem is, when your commander fights the damn wrong war and don`t listen to men who had experience with this enemy.

Hmm, I'll have to re-check my sources on that one, then, as the accounts I read of the Polish/German battle against the Mongols was that their forces included French Knights Templar...

Couldn`t that be Knights of the teutonic order or flamish knights, i don`t recall mentioned that Templars fought against the mongolians by Liegnitz.