Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Comparing troop numbers to historical accuracy

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Member Member Derfasciti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    632

    Default Re: Comparing troop numbers to historical accuracy

    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
    Last edited by Derfasciti; 02-08-2007 at 23:23.
    First Secretary Rodion Malinovsky of the C.P.S.U.

    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=86316


    12th Century Glory!
    http://z14.invisionfree.com/12th_Cen...d7dc28&act=idx



    "I can do anything I want, I'm eccentric! HAHAHA!"-Rat Race

    Do you think the Golden Rule should apply to masochists as well?

    92% of teens have moved onto rap. If you are part of the 8% that still listen to real music, copy and paste this into your signature. yes that's right i dont listen rap..

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO