Comparing troop numbers to historical accuracy

[Merciless_Doge]

Hi all,

First off, I'm just curious as to how you all feel troop numbers in MTW:2 compare to those reported by historical accounts. For example, it was not uncommon for nations to pit 40,000 to 80,000 against each other long, pitted battles. It is obvious that MTW:2 could not handle these sorts of numbers in any real-time battle, unless perhaps you were running an NSA supercomputer with quad-SLI. With "Large" or "Huge" troop size options set, it is more common to see roughly 3,000 - 4,000 troops on the field at a time. How do you all feel these numbers should be scaled if we were to make assumptions on how large a *real* battle would be, based upon our own? Multiply by 10? Just a thought.

For example, as one of the more powerful Christian nations in my current campaign game (I am playing as Spain), I was required by the Pope to send my faction leader into a Crusade to recapture Jerusalem from the Mongols.

My king's (who had 6 command stars) first battle against a large force of Mongols south of Jerusalem was defended by a general of equal command value.

Prior to the battle, the troop estimates were 1,500+ (Spain) vs. 1,300+ (Mongols).

It was a truly glorious battle. After maneuvoring my troops to counteract the Mongol's uphill defensive position, I was able to cut-off their artillery. I then succeeded to send my cavalry to each side of their defensive position (which were ultimately lost due to the Mongols' horde of Heavy Horse Archers), so as to protect my middle attack of Dismounted Chivarlic Knights, Almugarhters, and pikemen. After recapturing the main hill defensive position, the Mongols launched attack after attack, and were repelled each time. My pikemen, and esp. Almugarhters, were of utmost importance. Then I would send in my Dis. Chiv. Knights to finish off the struggling Mongols.

It was an extremely long battle (prob. one hour, 30 minutes ) and I was ultimately able to kill the Mongol general. My own king played a pivotal role in the victory, leaving the battle heavily scarred. I received a new retinue after this battle, that of a "Dread Knight" (+1 command, +2 dread) - which I had never seen before. I licked my wounds, rallied some mercenaries, and moved my king's force a way's south to wait for reinforcements.

Anyways, I hope this was of some interest to you all - I'm sure the troop comparison has been discussed before; just interested in your thoughts.

[King Bob VI]

For example, it was not uncommon for nations to pit 40,000 to 80,000 against each other long, pitted battles.

Um, yes it was uncommon, actually.

[pike master]

i agree most battles were on small scale with only a few hundred or a few thousand . the major ones are the ones we always hear about. generally though it comes in two eras the first began at the beginning of the greek and persian wars and ended at the start of the dark ages. during that period there were many world changing battles involving large numbers of troops.

during much of the early middle ages there were only a few massive battles with most being smaller but as civilization reemerged by the end of the rennaisance you are seeing huge conscript armies of 100k +. so it depends but regardless total war is probably about as close to the experience one can get right now despite its bugs and inaccuracies i cant think of any game that comes as close to depicting medieval warfare.

[Ulstan]

For example, it was not uncommon for nations to pit 40,000 to 80,000 against each other long, pitted battles.

It was very uncommon to have that many soldiers on a side.

I don't think Crecy, Poitiers, or Agincourt came near to that many soldiers. Most battles in medieval times were fairly small - often smaller than 'ancient' battles and smaller than industrialized Europe battles.

[Lorenzo_H]

Its just a representative figure - of course it can't always be as realistic as we can imagine. Just like the time scale. 2 years for a turn is too long for real times - it didn't take 2 and a half years to cross the Atlantic! But who cares? If that kind of thing bothers you, then give me your copy of M2TW and watch a documentary on the Middle Ages instead.

No offense intended to those who whine about realism.

Just to let you know, Agincourt was fought by 5,900 English vs 14,400 French.

[Marquis of Roland]

For MTW2 I usually multiply troop numbers by 5 in my head. For RTW it was by 10.

[Redtroll]

Yes battles were usually bigger in classical era (rome, greece, ...), I think 20 000 - 40 000 men on the Battlefield was the norm, with some (famous) battles being far bigger [expl : Cannae 80 00-130 000 depending on the source, Ipsus 140 000 men, 20 000 horses and 600 elephants !)

The medieval armies of western europe could not field so many troops - 10 000 men on each side was already a very big fight at that time, 5 000 is more frequent. This not however because "civilization" has collapsed or population has dropped.

I think the cause is the feudal system itself - no real centralized states, little money to pay professional soldiers for a long time ... Discipline and troop control was also a repeated source of mishaps. And the larger the army, the more needed a strong command system to use th troop with effectiveness.

The domination of (often noble) cavalry during most of the period is also an argument for small armies, as they are costly to train, and large mass of cavalrymen are hard to keep under control (the mongol managed that ... hence their superiority on most enemies).

All what I said is (I think) true for Western and Northern Europe. In the Holy Lands -or later in spain - The treath of powerful enemies seems to have lead both side to greater unity and bigger armies. Several sources described battles with tens of thousands on each side (Byzantine - before Manzikert- fatimid and bagdad califate troops, moors, mongol and crusaders of course).

All you need is a common enemy after all ...

[Merciless_Doge]

Thanks to all for your insight.

[TevashSzat]

Also dont forget that even if there was a large army, armies would simply walk right past each other due to the relatively little use of spies and espianoge

[todorp]

The Medieval armies were much smaller than the classical age for many reasons, e.g. the government management was far worse than the Romans and the massive depopulation from the black death pandemics.

I am reading Anna Commnena book and her father the Emperor rarely has more than 5,000.

[Derfasciti]

In the Middle ages, armies were typically very small. England, for instance found it hard to keep a standing army at all. During the Hundred Years War the king of France was only able to form a standing army of several hundred(or thousand. It's been a while since I read the book.) And this was considered a great accomplishment.

That being said, there were occasions when genuinely pretty large armies took the field against one another. Contemporaries of the time say that the historic battle of Bannockburn between Scotland and England fielded about 30,000 and 100,000 troops respectively. However, most modern-day historians believe that the numbers were more like 5-10,000 and 20-35,000. Still, a fairly large battle.
I wish the game would allow it. But surely my computer would never run it

[KHPike]

Actually some Classic Era battles were also exaggerated, especially by the historians of those times, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness.

Anyone read up on the Persian Wars? Herodotus wrote at at Thermopylae there were 5.3 MILLION soldiers!!! Other contemporaries estimated it at 800,000, which still doesn't seem realistic. One Persian source says this is so.

However, modern estimates place the actual number around 120,000.

Considering that the world's population wasn't so great at that time, an army of 5.3 million would be crazy. It would also be a logistical nightmare moving so many troops, which can also be a reason why medieval battles were smaller.

That said, constant warfare would severely deplete kingdoms of able-bodied men. By drafting lots of peasants, it would mean lands would go untilled and a lord would lose out on his tribute. (Correct me if wrong here)

And that said, it would certainly be awesome if 5.3 million men made a massive charge on the battlefield!

[Ars Moriendi]

... most modern-day historians believe that the numbers were more like 5-10,000 and 20-35,000. Still, a fairly large battle.
I wish the game would allow it. But surely my computer would never run it

I'm going slightly offtopic here :

I'm not sure I'd like to have 30,000 men battles in this game.
I usually prefer tactical perspective over fancy animations close-ups, but I still like to actually be able to tell there's man and horse down there. Right now, with 3000 critters on the field I'm zoomed out to max height 90% of the time - I can't really see my men as anything but tiny ants. If the field were to accomodate 10 times as many, I'd have to be 3x higher to get the same coverage of the battle. That would be like watching bacteria melee in a petri dish.
I think the current representation ratio of aprox. 10-to-1 offers the best compromise : full assessment of the battle with one quick glance from above, while still being able to see arrows flying and swords swingin, all this without having to constantly zoom in and out.

[Lorenzo_H]

You know it is possible to increase the unit scale to very large which may solve a problem for those who want bigger battles.

[Philbert]

Read the Wikipedia entry about the battle of Agincourt, it is a fascinating read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

[KHPike]

Well, I think that if the game would let you have more units in a stack and larger unit size, you could probably have a more accurate army size based on medieval sizes. Just that it'll hog up more system resources.