How many soldiers could a kingdom realistically muster?

[NewJeffCTHome]

If you are going by historical standards, a nation’s economy will be hurt if their standing military is made up of more than one-half of one percent of the total population. Meaning, in a nation of 1,000,000 persons, a standing army significantly larger than 5,000 will have an adverse effect on the economy if it is maintained for any length of time because the soldiers could be tending farms, working as butchers, bakers & candlestick makers, etc. This is full-time professional soldiers and does not count things like the town watch, any militia, and possible levies of your local peasants.

My question is, let us say that this nation of 1,000,000 humans and a standing army of 5,000 is invaded by a massive horde of Evil that far surpass 5,000 in number. The evil can be anything – orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, demons, undead, a massive Mongolian-like Golden Horde, etc – but, let us just say that it is the equivalent of 50,000.

What is a realistic number of additional troops this kingdom of 1,000,000 could muster for a big showdown? Obviously, you cannot leave your other borders unguarded and cities and towns must maintain some sort of watch/guard. But, I am sure that many towns and cities have their own militias, the king or queen could empty the treasury to hire mercenaries, etc. And, if need be, they could also bolster their numbers through peasant levies.

Let us say that they can realistically get 4,000 of the standing army onto the field of battle and not leave their other borders too weak. The standing army is of good quality.

By historical standards, how many militia soldiers would be realistic if you could get 80% of the nation’s militia to the field as well? Would that be another 4,000? Or, should that be like 8,000 or more? Or, am I off base and it is only another 2,000? Obviously, with rare exceptions, militia soldiers are of lower quality than professional soldiers.

What about hastily levied peasants and serfs? (Obviously even lower quality than militia…)

How many willing adventurers and mercenaries would be about if you stuck to typical DMG guidelines?

 

[Endur]

Realistically, if an army of 50,000 invades, you will want to have at least as many troops to face them. So if you can only find 5k regulars, you will try to round up 40k to 50k of peasants and militia levies.

The thing to remember is that your peasant and militia levies will not come from all parts of the country, assuming this is a defensive battle against an invader. Instead you will have 100% of the militia and peasant levies from areas near where the battle is taking place, because the peasants and militia have to walk.

Your regulars are probably mounted (either cavalry or mounted infantry that rides to the battle and then dismounts), so you should be able to bring all 5k of them to the battle.

You wouldn't want to leave any regulars in reserve, facing an invasion this large. Leave militia and town watch in reserve.

Ideally, the outcome of the battle will depend on your regulars ability to fight. The peasants and militia are just there to make sure your regulars don't get outflanked or surrounded on the battlefield.

 

[Odhanan]

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.

Now, if you mobilize the nation, there are important factors to consider:
- first, the total population of the kingdom
- second, the proportion of people that can be mobilized (in medieval times, this means as young as 14 years old and male).
- third the margins of land security and stuff you were talking about.
- fourth, the time necessary for mobilization

A basic family in the middle ages involves 5 children or more. Counting the parents, let's say eight people on average in a family. There are on average 2 or 3 male children. Plus the dad, say 4. In terms of age, the mortality is high and children generally young as a result. So perhaps 2 or 3 out of these males could fit the profile. Let us assume 2 for simplicity's sake.

2 on 8 family members.

Standard families like this one form something like 80% of the population of the kingdom, with wanderers, lonely people, beggars and stuff being outsiders to it (and thus probably not counted for mobilization). So 200,000 men could be mobilized.

Let 100,000 men take care of the security of the land. You could have in the best conditions 100,000 men on the battle field. But we still didn't count the main problem: time. If the mobilization is rushed (two/three weeks), perhaps you'll end up with 20 or 25,000 men, if your army is very well organized. Even more rushed with an average army, I'd say 15,000 people in the end.

But keep in mind: I am making here a lot of shortcuts and approximations of approximations.

 

[S'mon]

It depends on a huge number of variables; IMC a kingdom of 1 million might muster an offensive army as large as 30,000 and up to 90,000 defensive, but half that might be more typical. I use EGG's guideline that "10% of the population are males in prime condition and suitable for man-at-arms status", while 20% are "males capable of wielding a weapon". But you'll generally only see armies of 20% the population in barbarian hordes where the whole tribe is migrating, as in the fall of the Roman Empire.

 

[S'mon]

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.

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

 

[theodinheadbasher]

Also take into account the history of the kingdom. If this massive horde of 50,000 creatures comes out of nowhere you have to ask, is this an unprecidented event. If this is a warlike realm, then a kingdom of 1,000,000 is probably going to have a militia in every town, and probably a not poorly trained one at that. Also, how big is the kingdom? If it is a relatively tightly packed kingdom, even a rushed unorganized mustering of troops would probably yeild somewhere in the number of at least 50,000 troops. And if this same small kingdom is a militaristic, lets say they are a warlike kingdom, that same hurried mustering could probably yield at least 75-150,000 at least somewhat combat trained levies.

 

[Alhazred]

England, in 1086, had a population of 2 million (according to an analysis of the Doomsday Book). Europe's population was approximately 38 million.

The Black Death of the 1330s and 1340s killed an estimated 25 million people - one-third of the European population. By the 1360s, London's population had recovered to 50,000.

Based on these numbers - and numbers alone - fielding an army of 50,000 is not inconceivable. However, as others have mentioned, actually getting 50,000 people together is nothing short of a miracle. Peasant levies and regular combatants (the latter members of the gentry who may or may not possess practical combat experience and who were attached to landholders via feudal obligations) came from the area in which combat was expected. Levies from beyond the theatre of war were rare, although magnates would join on the basis of their feudal obligations and the chance to win favour and prestige (as well as more tangible benefits - ie land).

It is not until the early modern period (1500s to 1650s, or so) that armies of several tens of thousands become the norm. For instance, the Spanish in the Netherlands, the Armada, Prussian armies, etc.

 

[jasamcarl]

Keep in mind that in pre-modern and later societies there wasn't what we would call a labor market outside of a few isolated urban areas. Wage work was intermittant at best and was largly seen as less desirable than slavery if only for the greater risk involved.

What this meant was that a multiple sons would work their father's often small tracks of land until they could arrange some sort of permenant tenancy with the owner of some manor. This in turn meant that there was often wide variability in the proportion of workers to unit of productive land and that hours of work added little in the way of productivity.

Because of this arrangment, it doesn't always hold true that taking a worker off the land causes a proporitional dropoff in output.

 

[NewJeffCTHome]

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.

 

[SWBaxter]

Let us say that they can realistically get 4,000 of the standing army onto the field of battle and not leave their other borders too weak. The standing army is of good quality.

Kinda depends on the type of medieval society you've got. In a feudal society (or a quasi-feudal D&D pastiche) then one of the duties of the local nobility is to guard borders, and the standing royal army (if there is one) would only be in the area if war was likely. Historically, lands on both side of a feudal border often belonged to the same noble family, which actually made it much less likely that border incidents would occur.

If you do go the feudal route, then I think the way to figure out a good army size is:

1) Work out how many feudal manors your country has. This is the basic feudal unit of land, granted to a knight and worked by peasants and freemen. Depending on the historical model you use, this could be anywhere from 600 acres to 3000 or more. For population, A Magical Medieval Society recommends that 75% to 90% of the acres be arable, and there be about 2 adults per acre devoted to staple crops.

2) Come up with the number of warriors each manor is required to provide to the next noble up the chain. Most likely, this is something like: one knight, one squire, and 0-5 footmen, for one to three months a year. Exact values depend on manor size, political strength of nobles vs. kings, and so on.

3) Multiply 1) by 2) to get the total feudal levy. Probably about half of that will be available in campaign season (high summer with time to get home for harvest). The rest will be spread out throughout the rest of the year.

This gives the bulk of the feudal levy, and the main force any feudal king would lead into battle. There might also be a standing royal army, but chances are it's pretty small - maybe 25% or so of the size of the campaign season feudal levy. So if you've got a nation of 1000000 population, with about 90% living on manors, then you could have on the order of 900 manors with about 1000 peasants each. If on average they each supply three soldiers as feudal levy (one knight, one squire, and 0-2 footmen), that's a feudal levy of 2700, around 1350 of which will be available in campaign season. Of course, a full third of those are knights, so it's still a decently tough force.

By historical standards, how many militia soldiers would be realistic if you could get 80% of the nation’s militia to the field as well?

Go for about 1 per peasant household, which is going to work out to around 10% of the peasant population - 90000 in the above example. But very likely, only the militia in the immediate threatened area would be called up, and most of the time they'd be used for garrison duty to free up better trained troops.

What about hastily levied peasants and serfs? (Obviously even lower quality than militia…)

They're actually pretty much the same thing. You can find historical examples of well-trained medieval militia (some English militia armed with longbows, for example), but they're far more the exception than the rule.

How many willing adventurers and mercenaries would be about if you stuck to typical DMG guidelines?

A feudal lord generally wouldn't want to pay for soldiers if he can possibly avoid it. What he'd do is advertise for freelances and sellswords, offering food and the opportunity for loot; the latter could draw in quite a few troops, if the noble had a good reputation. A feudal king (or other high noble) might also tempt powerful figures with offers of nobility or other offices. It'd be quite possible to double the size of the feudal levy this way, possibly even triple or quadruple it depending on how good the noble's reputation is and how rich the plunder looks to be.