Comparing troop numbers to historical accuracy

[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!