How many soldiers could a kingdom realistically muster?

[NojBad]

In his Lejendary Earth sourcebook NOBLE KINGS & DARK LANDS Gary Gygax gives figures for the armed forces of each kingdom. The first % is the total number of armed individuals in the land who, in theory at least, could be called upon to provide military service. This figure ranges from 5-8% for the feudal kingdoms of Varan, most are in the 5-6% range. The next % is the number of regular soldiers and is usually given as 1% of the population. Lastly the number of mounted troops is given, ranging from 5-20% of the total.

In answer to an unexpected threat I would imagine that most rulers would only be able to field their standing force of regular soldiery and whatever levies could be mustered from the immediate area of the invasion. As someone has noted castles and fortified towns will slow up the enemy's rate of advance significantly and hopefully allow a larger force to be mustered so the enemy can be repelled.

Given that borders, etc. must be defended then at the very best I would estimate that 2/3 of a kingdom's armed forces could be brought together for battle but logistic problems, particularly the problem of feeding such a large force, might make doing so impossible. Gathering such a large force would take a long time and it could only be kept in the field briefly, perhaps only long enough to fight one large engagement.

As feudal lords keep an armed retinue I would estimate that c.2.5% of an 'average' fantasy feudal-type nation could muster quite quickly and, depending upon the size of the kingdom and the state of its road/river communications, arrive at a muster point in 2-3 weeks but that is just a guess on my part.

Cheers!
Jon

 

[NewJeffCT]

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.

These are the two places I got info on the Knights Templar being at Liegnitz...

http://historymedren.about.com/library/prm/bl1mongolinvasion.htm
His army of about 30,000 consisted of Polish knights, Teutonic Knights, French Knights Templar and a levy of foot soldiers, including German gold miners from the town of Goldberg. Opposing him was a host of about 20,000 Mongols, fresh from victories over the other Polish armies and commanded by Kaidu, a great-grandson of Genghis Khan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liegnitz
Legnica is famous for the Battle of Legnica that took place at Legnickie Pole near the city on April 9, 1241 between the Mongols of the Golden Horde and the combined army of Duke Henry II the Pious. Henry's army, supported by the feudal nobility, included Poles, Germans, the Teutonic Knights, the Hospitallers, and the Knights Templar.

 

[Bagpuss]

Here's something you might want to read. Gives you a good idea about running a medieval army.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

I heartily recommend the following books:

The Art of War in the Middle Ages, 2 vols. C.W.C. Oman

Numbers in History. Dr. Hans Delbruck

Cheerio,
Gary

 

[Pinotage]

I heartily recommend the following books:

The Art of War in the Middle Ages, 2 vols. C.W.C. Oman

Numbers in History. Dr. Hans Delbruck

Cheerio,
Gary

Thanks, Gary! That certainly looks worth a read!

Pinotage

 

[TerraDave]

Thanks as well Col!

Back to the question: the real, honest, answer: it can vary so widely you can pretty much make anything up. And the least realistic option is to say x% here and y% there.

In terms of the economy: who is to say? A medieval society could have a serious problem of surplus labor and undereployment. Or not. In any case, a much larger fraction then half a percent is possible, or even that may be high. It really depends on the state's ability to mobilize resources (which in turn depends on a whole range of things).

In practice, some societies like ancient rome maintained large standing armies. Others, would call out the levies and militias on a seasonal basis. Various combinations are possible and have been used through time.

I know that is not what you are looking for, but really, whatever floats your boat.

 

[sword-dancer]

These are the two places I got info on the Knights Templar being at Liegnitz....

THX

 

[Tonguez]

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).

yes but totally different to the mongolian account - so who knows for sure.
what we do know is that the mongols offered those they counquered the right to become mongols (or die) once a city did submit a 'native' was often appointed as governor and they were allowed to continue their local culture and lifestyle.

I have no doubt that the low level troops were treated as cannon fodder (like they are in all armies including modern ones) but the Mongols also hired in chinese seige engineers (since they had no experience of seige warfare) and they were well treated.
The Great Khan also adopted a turkish script to establish a written form of the mongol language and welcomed clergy of all religions (Bhuddist, Taoist, Shaman, Muslim and Christian), promoted trade and diplomacy and established law and 'peace' across the empire.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Numbers in History. Dr. Hans Delbruck

Which brain did you bring me now Igor?

 

[morbiczer]

"These are the two places I got info on the Knights Templar being at Liegnitz..."

Both the Knights Templar and the Hospitalers were international organisations, which meant that they had members from all over Europe, and that they had castles and holdings all over Europe. I believe when you say that there were some Knights Templar and Hospitaller fighting at Liegnitz against the Mongols, but to say that the French fought against the Mongols would be an oversimplification.

Most likely there were also some knights of the two orders fighting at Muhi (the main battle between the Hungarians and the Mongols), I still wouldn't say in general that Germans or French fought there.