Kingdom devastated by war - how long to rebuild army?

[NewJeffCTHome]

The formerly mighty army of the Kingdom of NewJeffCT has been devastated by war. In a heroic stand against an Evil Horde of invaders (orcs, hobgoblins, demons, undead, you name it, I have not decided it yet) , the army won what may be a pyrrhic victory. The kingdom has a population of about 1 million humans. Their standing army was about 5,000 men and militia and peasant levys amounted to another 50,000 men. Save for a few small militia garrisons and peasant levys left to guard the other borders (say 3,000 total, or 1,000 for each of the 3 directions away from the invasion.) the entire standing army of 5,000 and the rest of the men of the militia and levied troops (47,000) engaged in an epic battle against the Evil Horde. The Evil Horde was defeated and wiped out. However, the whole army of the kingdom was almost wiped out as well – only a few hundred remain.

My question is, how long would it take for the kingdom to legitimately replenish their military without completely wrecking the economy? The kingdom can hire mercenaries in the short term to ensure none of their neighbors decide to take advantage of them, but mercs are usually more expensive than professionally trained full-time soldiers of the kingdom and are often unreliable. They can bring some retired soldiers out of retirement and would obviously recruit more males than usual when they come “of age”, but if you keep bringing in more males than usual when they come of age, you risk harm to the kingdom’s economy: fields might not get plowed as quickly, fewer cows may be milked and/or slaughtered for meat, the 1 acre cornfield is not quite as fully planted with corn as it was in the past, the normal groups of trade caravans that come into the capital are fewer due to them not being guarded by professional state soldiers, and those that do come into the capital charge more because they often have to hire their own security even when close to the city, less iron is mined, fewer shoes are cobbled, fewer horseshoes and wagon wheels are made, etc.

Given an average male/female split and a population growth rate of 1% per year (2% birth rate less 1% death rate), am I correct in thinking it may take a whole generation to get a fully staffed and trained standing army up and running, if not more. And, when I say fully staffed, I mean back up to the 5,000 standing army that rode into battle against the Evil Horde. I’m sure that they will add more and more every year, but soldiers can die in skirmishes or new wars, retire, become incapacitated, etc (clerics do not grow on trees in the world of NewJeffCT) Or, does the kingdom go all out and bring in every boy that turns 16 years old into the military next year and then suffer the consequences economically over time? Is my birth/death rate realistic, save major wars or plagues?

 

[S'mon]

I use 1/40 of kingdom population per year as the standard replenishment rate of available manpower, so a kingdom of 1 million could put another 25,000 troops in the field within a year. That fits an ancient-world model, thinking of the Roman Republic or Athens. Your figures seem very low. Normally there's plenty of slack in terms of what labour actually needs to be done in an ancient or medieval setting. Normally soldiers can be citizen-soldiers or levies, professional standing armies will always be much smaller. If a kingdom of 1 million lost 5,000 men, probably there are another 95,000 or so men in good condition who could be trained as soldiers right away, so manpower per se is unlikely to be a problem. The biggest problem would be loss of experienced NCOs & officers who could conduct the training.

 

[S'mon]

For population increase where there's plenty of land available I use ca 2%/year, or doubling every 50 years.

 

[S'mon]

fields might not get plowed as quickly, fewer cows may be milked and/or slaughtered for meat, the 1 acre cornfield is not quite as fully planted with corn as it was in the past,

Most of this can be done ok by women, children, old men etc. For demographics I use:

Males in prime condition, suitable for men-at-arms: 10%
Males in fair condition, can fight if necessary: 10%
Adult women: 20%
Children: 40%
Old & sickly: 20%

So in 1 million you'll get around 200,000 healthy adult males, of whom half are in prime condition. The loss of 50,000 such will severely affect the country, but there are still plenty enough left that the army of 5,000 can easily be reformed.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Most of this can be done ok by women, children, old men etc. For demographics I use:

Males in prime condition, suitable for men-at-arms: 10%
Males in fair condition, can fight if necessary: 10%
Adult women: 20%
Children: 40%
Old & sickly: 20%

So in 1 million you'll get around 200,000 healthy adult males, of whom half are in prime condition. The loss of 50,000 such will severely affect the country, but there are still plenty enough left that the army of 5,000 can easily be reformed.

Sure, they can get 5,000 healthy bodies out onto the field, but how long until they are competent soldiers with a strong core of officers and/or knights to lead them?

 

[NewJeffCT]

I use 1/40 of kingdom population per year as the standard replenishment rate of available manpower, so a kingdom of 1 million could put another 25,000 troops in the field within a year. That fits an ancient-world model, thinking of the Roman Republic or Athens. Your figures seem very low. Normally there's plenty of slack in terms of what labour actually needs to be done in an ancient or medieval setting. Normally soldiers can be citizen-soldiers or levies, professional standing armies will always be much smaller. If a kingdom of 1 million lost 5,000 men, probably there are another 95,000 or so men in good condition who could be trained as soldiers right away, so manpower per se is unlikely to be a problem. The biggest problem would be loss of experienced NCOs & officers who could conduct the training.

losing 5,000 is one thing, but close to 50,000 is a 10 fold difference!

 

[The_Universe]

losing 5,000 is one thing, but close to 50,000 is a 10 fold difference!

Well then there's your answer - the kingdom should be able to replenish 5000 men in a few months. They may not be well-trained, but they can get them in the field with spears, shields, and armor.

 

[The_Universe]

Sure, they can get 5,000 healthy bodies out onto the field, but how long until they are competent soldiers with a strong core of officers and/or knights to lead them?

How many knights your kingdom has is unrelated to training, and actually brings up an interesting social problem for the Kingdom of NewJeffCT. If, as in the real world, knights were landholding lordlings who represented the power of the throne to the common citizen, and less than 10% of them remain alive (and are apparently being kept from their manors in order to replenish the army) the Kingdom is probably teetering on the brink of anarchy. There's no one to collect taxes and tribute for the king, etc. which adds economic problems for the throne (if not the common man) into the near lawlessness of the land.

So, the King needs to replenish the nobility - it's time to start offering those mercenaries manors and baronies in exchange for their services, rather than coin.

EDIT: Modern "basic training" in the US is 6-8 weeks, IIRC. Presumably, there's less you need to teach a spearman or shieldbearer, so you could probably train volunteers in some shorter amount of time. I don't know how long it would take to teach a blacksmith or farmhand to be an Non-Commissioned Officer, but as mentioned above, you have a bigger problem in trying to find people to be the commissioned officers...

 

[Atridis]

I once had an idea for a kingdom which had fought a tremendous war against dragons several generations before the PCs' adventures would have begun. Similar to what you describe, the war seriously depleted the population of fighting men. So the kingdom was forced to "think outside the box", and thus, some of the women who were capable of it began to take up arms to fight off the dragons.

I had an ulterior motive for this bit of background - it was my method of forcibly injecting some 21st-century gender equity into my campaign world - but in answering your question about your kingdom, it illustrates that the people & rulers don't necessarily have to choose to precisely reconstruct their old army. In fact, some may even question the inherent value of fielding an army of their finest men (or women) as a viable means of protecting the kingdom. In a sword & sorcery milieu, they might take a greater interest in magic, or the followers of a previously obscure god, one with a different approach to things, might find a lot of people suddenly interested in their message.

 

[Atridis]

In fact, some may even question the inherent value of fielding an army of their finest men (or women) as a viable means of protecting the kingdom.

Alternately, they may be people who feel that the previous army was the right idea, and it simply wasn't strong enough or large enough, and might demand that even more resources be put toward the defense of the kingdom in the future.