Just how big WERE armies?

[Agent Smith]

I recently bought a book about Russian history, and needless to say I've learned quite a bit. For instance, did you know that the Golden Horde was actually very highly tolerant of all religion, probably more so than any other nation/kingdom at the time?

Anywho, that aside, the book would gloss over battles as they occurred, but it never went into detail about them. So, do any of you know of the numbers that were present at some famous medieval battles? I never know how large a realistic medieval army should be...

[TevashSzat]

Medieval armies were very small compared to the size of ancient armies like the Romans or of modern warfare like Napoleon's conquests. The armies were bigger than M2TW size maxes which is around 1500, but I would think they were around anywhere from 10,000 to 50,000.

[Eltharon]

Hastings had about 8000 men on each side, Agincourt had 20-30,000 French (Only about 6000 English). So I'd say about 15,000 was average for a large pitched battle in the high middle ages (Which would be in between those battles). Towards the end of the middle ages, armies began to increase, as countries could support larger numbers of troops (mercenaries, normally)

[Frederick_I_Barbarossa]

Martel took something like 30000 men to Tours in 732.

[Sheogorath]

It would obviously vary greatly between time periods.
The earlier you go the smaller armies get in most cases, the exception being right after the Black Death when (obviously) armies got smaller due to not having any people to put in them.
Armies didnt get REALLY big up until Napoleons time, because up until that point there had been very few cases of people actually trying to go in and DESTROY each other or permenantly conqour a large area (Europe, for instance.)
Plus, medieval armies were EXPENSIVE. Knights and so forth cost a bundle to maintain, even if its not a direct drain on the state coffers. Basically until armour dropped out of favor it was difficult to field especially large armies unless you wanted to see mass casualties, I suppose.
Gunpowder made things easier, since all you had to do was hand a man a gun and give him enough training not to break under the first volley from the enemy.

[Rhedd]

Always keep in mind that battlefield numbers are highly suspect, in pretty much every case.

Contemporary medieval accounts are either highly skewed to make one side or the other look heroic, or are simply inaccurate.

Anything that's not a contemporary account is, on some level, a guess.

Every battle has to be carefully studied, individually, and it's hard to find truly trustworthy sources.

Personally, I'd just completely avoid asking an all-encompassing question like "how big were medieval armies", although that's not going to get you an answer, is it? ^_^

[Ciaran]

Not to mention the difficulties to supply the troops. Medieval armies for most part supplied themselves by plundering the lands they crossed for whatever food they needed, due to the fact that the preservation of food was practically nonexistent.

[Rhedd]

I've thought about it, and my answer is...

Smaller than you might expect, except when they were surprisingly large.

^_^

[sapi]

Smaller than you might expect, except when they were surprisingly large.:laugh4:

[Furious Mental]

Eight thousand is now considered a pretty high estimate for the armies at Hastings.

[Ars Moriendi]

Try this link to get a general idea of the numbers involved :

List_of_battle_601-1400

Click several of the battles listed there, most of them have some estimate of the army strength.
From what I've seen in 5 minutes of random clicking, armies involved in significant battles of the time could be anywhere between 300 and 100.000 men, with the typical/average number around 10.000.

[CeltiberoMordred]

Battle of las Navas de Tolosa (http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-las-navas-de-tolosa), about 50.000 vs 125.000 men. These numbers aren't very common in medieval ages, tough.

[Gorm]

Armies didnt get REALLY big up until Napoleons time, because up until that point there had been very few cases of people actually trying to go in and DESTROY each other or permenantly conqour a large area

One great limiting factor for large armies was food. How does one feed a large army, especially on the move? Foraging was common, where the soldiers would pillage local farms. When Napoleon was amassing his large armies, he knew this was a problem. (An army marches on its stomach) It was at this time that food preservation was developed. First, they preserved food in wine bottles, which allowed the food to be boiled inside the glass. Later, tin cans were used.

So, when one reads of accounts of huge armies, one must consider that they may have been assembled for a short time and not have travelled far.

[gardibolt]

One great limiting factor for large armies was food. How does one feed a large army, especially on the move? Foraging was common, where the soldiers would pillage local farms. When Napoleon was amassing his large armies, he knew this was a problem. (An army marches on its stomach) It was at this time that food preservation was developed. First, they preserved food in wine bottles, which allowed the food to be boiled inside the glass. Later, tin cans were used.

So, when one reads of accounts of huge armies, one must consider that they may have been assembled for a short time and not have travelled far.

That's what makes the Norman Conquest particularly impressive: a large invasion force assembled from disparate duchies, then just sitting on the French coast for a long time, waiting for the winds to shift, then making it to England and goading Harold into fighting right away, instead of recouping and resting a bit from having just fought Harold Hardrada and Tostig at Stamford Bridge. I suspect that if Harold had delayed more, and not accepted the provocation, that William might have had more trouble keeping his forces together, since they were already rather impatient from sitting at the coast so long. Of course, then Harold would face problems from his own nobles, so there's a limit to how far he could go.

[Furious Mental]

Supposedly the earls advised him to wait and he ignored them.

[Ulstan]

I think the medieval period is the time in western history with the smallest army sizes.

The ancients had much bigger armies, in general, and the armies start getting larger again once you get into the renaissance and the napoleonic era, etc, with increasing standards of roads, infrastructure, and logistics. Also, the centralizations of power into various states and standing professional armies helped contribute to the larger army sizes.

[HighLord z0b]

It depends on not just when you're talking about, but also WHERE you're talking about. Mongol armies were clearly bigger than many european armies, however they are comparable in some battles.

[Kraggenmor]

Gunpowder made things easier, since all you had to do was hand a man a gun and give him enough training not to break under the first volley from the enemy.

I think they said pretty much the same thing about the Crossbow too. ;)