Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Army sizes

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
unmerged(485)

unmerged(485)

Advocatus Sancti Sepulcri
Nov 24, 2000
9.971
0
If this has already been brought up I apologize and please point me to the thread if so.

Will the army sizes be more realistic in CK? Each lord had his own retinue (or would supply a specified number of troops according to his status) and recruited footmen and archers to the extent needed. So will you be able to recruit in numbers less than 1000 men?

This brings up the garrison sizes of cities/castles. Will it work like EU? Hope not but since the EU engine is being used it gives one concern.

:)
 
Since there will be no standing army I guess most of the problems with army sizes will be solved...

I am not sure about how the garrison/castles will be handled. But remember - noone have said how much is changed compared to EU2 (HoI is also "based on the EU engine" - and uses only 20% of the EU code...)
 
Instead of us dropping the last zero in our heads, as so many folks have urged, perhaps you will recruit armies by tens or twenties instead of thousands (wish wish)and not have to put our brains through such torture.:D :)
 
You could still have pretty large armies if you had the ducats/bezants/marks for hiring it in groups of 20 or 50 or 100 (I would prefer groups of 20 or 50 but 100 would be o.k.) - just adjust the monetary system and the number you can recruit from a province toeven things out.

Since 1000 is the smallest recruitable amount of men in EU it should not be too hard to adjust that down to 100 in CK.:)
 
20's or 50's would be nice, but this of course depends on how the military part will work. And, garrisions should definitely not even be close to the huge (and unrealistic) numbers in EU. For example the largest fort of Northern Europe was defended by some 7,000 men around 1800. What is that in EU terms? Level minimum/small...
 
Originally posted by Styrbiorn
20's or 50's would be nice, but this of course depends on how the military part will work. And, garrisions should definitely not even be close to the huge (and unrealistic) numbers in EU. For example the largest fort of Northern Europe was defended by some 7,000 men around 1800. What is that in EU terms? Level minimum/small...
Click to expand...

And garrison troops were taken from a lords retinue to serve in castles (usually cities supplied their own troops from citizens). So unless castles are separate from cities (probably not) then the garrisons might just be as unrealistic as in EU.:(
 
Yes, but I suspect the reason was that it would be too much micromanagement if you should assign garrisons in EU. In CK you will probably not control as many provinces as you did in EU so maybe they'll implement a little more detailed and accurate garrison system in this game.
 
Armies werent necessarily as small as once thought, especially if we're playing on a "royal" level here. Modern scholars are now thinking that Delbruck and others did more damage than good...

Frederick Barbarossa led 6 campaigns into Italy, with approximate army sizes of 4000 (1154), 10,000 (1158), 8000 (1166), and 6000 (1174). The army he led on the Third Crusade, numbered by contemporary sources at 100,000, was likely about 15,000 strong, although some historians think it may have contained as many as 30,000! How you would feed 30,000 men in 1190 is beyond me, in fact Im sure it was impossible.

William the Conqueror's army has recently been said to have consisted of about 7500, including Normans, Bretons, and Flemings. Henry II ferried an army of 10,000 English & Welsh from Wales to Ireland (1172), and the huge host he mustered for the Toulouse campaign (1159) was said to have been the largest an English King had ever led in the field up till then, meaning 10,000+.

As for the Italo-Normans, it was said that when Guiscard came to the Pope's rescue (1184), he had with him about 30,000 men. Now this is surely an exaggeration, but his army was definitely large enough to scare away Henry IV's host, which consisted of Germans, Italians, & Burgundians and so was probably a decent size. And if you know anything about Henry IV, you know he would never have retreated unless his scouts reported a vast number of men. After all, how many times did he face impossible odds in Germany with no thought of retreat?

Even if youre not a King, what were sizes? When Dukes Welf VI and Berthold IV von Zahringen fought Duke Frederick IV of Swabia and his allies, the Swabians captured 2500 men at Tubingen (1164). Duke Henry the Lion of Saxony led 1200 picked knights to Italy (1154), and even more the next time he went (1160). Archbishops Reinald of Cologne and Christian of Mainz, with an army numbering about 3000 Germans plus some elite Brabantine pikemen, defeated a huge Roman army of 30,000 at the Battle of Tusculum (1167). If just the Germans claimed that number, Id be doubtful, but the Romans themselves wailed that they had lost 3000 dead and 9000 captured, and called it their worst defeat since Cannae!
 
Compared to EU size armies these are very small. Only the AI sends 1200 troops into a battle in EU. The sizes you mention are what I would expect for the CK era and not too much bigger (except for Muslim armies perhaps) up until the latter part of the EU time period.:)
 
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i figure most of the northern european armies were smaller because it was much more sparsely populated. Which is why roman armies of the past could have been bigger. Just out of curiousity, how big were the mongol armies?
 
I see your point. I shouldve read the rest of the thread more carefully before posting. Youre right, compared to EU2 armies, we are talking much smaller in general. Although Henry the Lion's 1200 men werent an army of their own, but part of the larger (4000-6000) Imperial army, 6000 is still a tiny force in EU2 terms.

As for garrisons youre correct again; in most cases, the citizens of a town usually filled their military service to the King by garrisoning their own walls in shifts. In fact, most towns would much rather guard themselves then have royal troops resident for obvious reasons. In the case of royal castles, the local castellan, Palatine, and/or the King's Senschal/Steward were responsible for supplying garrisons, feeding them, and organizing defence in the King's absence. So in both cases, "garrisoning" a given fortification, whether town or castle, could just be an automatic thing instead of detracting from the King's field army, which would be even more unrealistic.
 
Originally posted by ewright
........ In the case of royal castles, the local castellan, Palatine, and/or the King's Senschal/Steward were responsible for supplying garrisons, feeding them, and organizing defence in the King's absence. So in both cases, "garrisoning" a given fortification, whether town or castle, could just be an automatic thing instead of detracting from the King's field army, which would be even more unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Garrison duty was what all vassals owed their overlord (thos that had castles of course). They usually still had to supply a number of men to the king when called to war. It was up to the vassal as to how he would work out the rotation of troops so he could supply a garrison and a force for the king.

My point about garrisons is that in EU you get an automatic garrison during war time even if you take a fortress in enemy lands without reducing your army size. What would be nice (and more realistic IMHO) would be to garrison a freshly captured castle/city with troops from your army. In EU terms it could be done by reorganizing your army and have one of the "leaders receiving troops" be the fortress. And have fortresses/castles/cities/etc. be just a multiplier for the defending force in an assault.:)
 
ewright
I think that, at least for ancient times, modern scholars are little concerned with realistic army size, they tend to accept blindly anything ancient sources say. I think Delbruck was too short in his criticism, but again I am a sort of hypercritic.
The numbers you mention, I don´t have your sources, but I imagine they will be medieval historians, people with little concern for acuracy and more worried about writing figures and dramatic effects. Whenever we have document listing forces, they usually are very small, like 106 knights Alphonse of Aragon had in his first expedition to Naples, or the 480 Talbot had at the battle of Castillon, and for garrisons, 12, 20, 25, are the order of their size for many fortresses.
roachclip76, the larger size of roman armies (they were maybe as big as 40.000 sometimes) was mainly because of 2 reasons
1) Logistical proficiency, in which roman organization excelled. Also keep in mind that roman armies were mainly infantry, easier to supply than a medieval mainly cavalry army. They campaigned almost always closed to the coast, where supplies could be provided more readily.
2) Political system, making any citizen available for recruitment. Also the population was very much concentrated in cities, making the recruitment of large units easier.
Sonny
I agree with your system for providing garrisons, maybe for castles (if they are in the map) some sort of automatic garrison could be provided after a payment, meaning the king is granting a fief to one of his chieftains
 
Oh I see; youre talking about castles that have just been taken while on campaign. Yeah, youre right, youd have to garrison them out of the field army until they were officially "annexed". And that certainly did drain many medieval armies...

As far as Delbruck goes, he was wrong about much more than numbers. His whole image of the medieval knight or general as an ignorant moron with no tactical or strategical sense is not entirely accurate. Delbruck's version = Braveheart, where both armies just shout and run at each other as fast as they can. We know armies were organized into "battles", ie, there were separate tactical divisons/wings, even reserves, and in the case of cavalry, even lower into conrois, which trained together to charge, wheel, and charge again AS A UNIT.

And there are numerous examples to show at least a rudimentary grasp of strategy, but I wont list any since it would make this post way too long. Point is that Delbruck's version describes armies of the Dark Ages...not armies of the Age of Chivalry.

My numbers dont come from medieval sources (except the ridiculous 100,000 and Guiscard's 30,000), they come from modern works. Just look on the internet and youll find them. You think 7500 is a ridiculous estimate of William's army? He certainly didnt conquer England with 106 knights! Reply again if you want the bibliography and Ill give it to you.

And youre describing contingents, not armies; just because Alphonse had 106 KNIGHTS doesnt mean that was the total number of his entire host! Most medieval sources that give the number of men as milites, or knights, tend to focus just on the knightly contingents, leaving out all the infantry, archers, sergeants, squires, etc.
 
Last edited:
Ok, for those that are interested in the numbers question, these are the books I referred to; note theyre all relatively recent and reputable, most written by recognized scholars in the field who are certainly not fooled by sensational medieval numbers; and none are actual medieval sources:

Barbarossa and German armies-

1. Germany in the High Middle Ages, 1050-1200 (Horst Fuhrmann, 1986, Cambridge University)
2. Medieval Germany, 1056-1273 (Alfred Haverkamp, 1984, Oxford University)
3. Henry the Lion: A Biography (Karl Jordan, 1986, Oxford University)
4. Frederick Barbarossa: A Study in Medieval Politics (Peter Munz, 1969, Eyre & Spottiswoode)
5. Frederick Barbarossa (Marcel Pacaut, 1970, Scribner)
6. German Medieval Armies, 1000-1300 (Christopher Gravett, 1997, Osprey)

Numbers for 1) Henry II & William the Conqueror were based on their "ship lists" and rolls, gazillions of books & websites on the subject, and the below, as well as 2) Numbers for the rest and/or general crap including criticism on Delbruck came from me, military & medieval history classes in college, and below:

1. Henry II (WL Warren, 1973, University of California)
2. Medieval Warfare (Hans Delbruck, 1923/1982, Bison/Greenwood)
3. The Art of War in the Middle Ages (Sir Charles Oman, 1924/1991, Greenhill)
4. Cambridge Atlas of Warfare: The Middle Ages, 768-1487 (Nicholas Hooper & Matthew Bennet, 1996, Cambridge University)
5. Hastings, 1066: The Fall of Saxon England (Christopher Gravett, 1992, Osprey)
6. The Normans (David Nicolle, 1987, Osprey)
7. Norman Knight, 950-1204 (Christopher Gravett, 1993, Osprey)

For Anglo-Norman numbers and composition, just open Google and start searching; theyre everywhere. For numbers on the German armies, good luck, youll probably need the books unless you can read German...and no, you cant borrow mine...:D
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Styrbiorn
20's or 50's would be nice, but this of course depends on how the military part will work. And, garrisions should definitely not even be close to the huge (and unrealistic) numbers in EU. For example the largest fort of Northern Europe was defended by some 7,000 men around 1800. What is that in EU terms? Level minimum/small...
Click to expand...

What was that fort?
 
ewright
I was refering to Delbruck´s "Ancient Warfare", where his criticism of numbers falls sometimes too short in my opinion, I didn´t read his "Medieval Warfare" but of course I agree with your opinion, medieval armies nothing like Braveheart.
I know the army of Alphonse V was larger than the 106 knights, my point is that it is an exact number, not the fantasy of some medieval historian, and whenever we have a precise number, it is very small. For instance, the garrison of Athens paid by Martin V was 12 archers (And this is the total number of the garrison)
I accept 7.500 is a credible force for the Norman army, I don´t believe armies over 30.000, I think they would be impossible to recruit and more so to supply in medieval times, at least for Western Europe.
 
My mistake; you DID say "ancient". I really need to read the threads before I start yapping.
I havent read Delbruck's "Ancient Warfare"...and dont get me wrong, his medieval stuff is full of rare details and some great commentary. I just hate that conception he helped propagate that all medieval armies were chaotic mobs devoid of organization or strategical/tactical skill. At least when speaking of the knights, these guys trained all their lives individually and as units. Many of the infantry were also proficient with their weapons and tactics suited to them, like the Brabantines, the Lombard pikemen, the Welsh archers, etc. Tournaments & melees werent just for fun...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back