Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lewpuls" data-source="post: 8816987" data-attributes="member: 30518">For those who prefer "realistic" numbers in RPGs: Inflated numbers of combatants for battles litter history books, derived from wildly inaccurate contemporary histories. We can do much better in figuring out actual numbers.[ATTACH=full]265555[/ATTACH] <a href="https://pixabay.com/photos/fantasy-army-fighter-warrior-men-5291791/" target="_blank">Picture courtesy of Pixabay.</a>Some GMs don't care about practical limitations, and will happily claim an army is hundreds of thousands strong. But that kind of nonsense will put off some players, breaking their immersion in the setting, destroying their suspension of disbelief - because it's nonsense, barring extraordinary magic or combatants who don't need to eat!As player characters progress to greater capabilities, <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/worlds-of-design-stages-of-your-heros-journey.687292/" target="_blank">some may become involved in warfare</a>. I'm discussing this for the benefit of those GMs and game designers who want their world to make sense. Keeping the numbers down may also help when you're trying to fight out a battle on the tabletop in a campaign.<h2>Army Inflation</h2>Many decades ago, I recall being in awe as I read about one of three Battles of Panipat (India) involving 600,000 men according to accounts of the time. The numbers were repeated in a 20th century dictionary of battles, yet sounded immensely inflated. They were, as are the claims from ancient and medieval times for many other battles. Logistics (supply, more or less) limits the size of pre-"modern" armies. In order to feed them and their horses, you can only concentrate so many in one place (not counting cities that have developed long complex supply chains, though few cities exceeded the size of armies in pre-modern times). Modern estimates for any of the three Battles of Panipat are for less than 150,000 total combatants in the 18th century battle, less than 100,000 for each of the older battles, not 600,000.I find that counting, or relying on someone else to count, helps solve many questions; but even the commanders of pre-modern armies didn't know how many troops they had. So we resort to other methods.Let's take some examples of battle sizes.<h2>The Battle of Hastings and Marathon</h2>In the late 19th century, estimates for the size of armies at the Battle of Hastings (Norman conquest of England) were around 25,000 each. Today as we understand circumstances better, estimates are typically 6,000-8,000 per side. Not a big battle, but huge in its results.Numbers cited for the Battle of Marathon (490 BCE) by the ancients are wildly unreliable. A method used by modern historians to try to achieve a reasonable range, was to compare the size of the (excavated) Persian camp to the size of other camps where numbers are fairly well known (as in the past few centuries, or some Roman camps). The Persian camp couldn't possibly accommodate anything like the numbers cited.Another way to estimate number of participants is to know the number of men manning a ship. Greek and Persian triremes were quite standardized, and we know their size from excavating sheds where triremes were stored. If we know that the complement was typically 200 men, we can calculate that 371 ships (reported in detail by Herodotus for the Battle of Salamis) equals 74,200 Greeks. A similar logic can be applied to Viking armies, but here many historians distrust the number of ships reported by contemporaries, so we end up with estimates varying from hundreds to thousands.Yet I still see wildly inflated numbers from works of the time repeated in modern day historical books.<h2>Barbarian Invasions</h2>How about numbers of "barbarians" in ages of invasion? We have almost no reliable numbers. One that is reliable is the number of Vandals (with some Alans) crossing from Iberia to Africa, because the Romans (who transported the Vandals to participate in a civil war in Africa) had to know how many ships they needed. I've seen 80,000 quoted by historians, including women and children. Which likely meant no more than 20,000-25,000 warriors.<h2>The Battle of Towton</h2>What may have been the bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil, the Battle of Towton (1461), involved 50,000-65,000 men counting both sides - about 1-2% of the population of England at that time!<h2>Modern Battles</h2>Even in Napoleonic times, when roads were much improved and the supply system was designed to cope with large armies and rapid movement, the concentration of more than 100,000 on a side was quite rare, and confined to later in the war (Borodino, Leipzig for example)The bloodiest battle of the American Civil War (Gettysburg) involved less than 100,000 on either side. The largest number of one side in any battle was Chancellorsville (133,000 Union). These were three and four days battles, not a single day, in times when railroads made supply immensely easier.Contrast this with notions/claims of many hundreds of thousands in much more primitive circumstances. Such high numbers simply aren't possible, nor was there any way for contemporaries to know actual numbers.<h2>Armies in Your Campaign</h2>When you run an RPG campaign involving warfare, you don’t generally need to get into details of latrines, camp followers, and pay, but you might want to recognize the difficulties involved in moving and maintaining very large numbers of troops. Most warfare in the melee age was “small war” that involved hundreds rather than thousands, and rarely tens of thousands let alone hundreds of thousands.I used to live in “Battle Creek” Michigan. That eponymous “battle” involved all of . . . three men (no deaths). A castle could be held by less than a hundred men, unless the attackers were highly motivated and very numerous.My advice is, forget the vast numbers and focus on interesting interactions.Your Turn: What are the most numerous armies that have ever actually fought out a battle on the tabletop in your campaign?</blockquote>

Verification