Comparing troop numbers to historical accuracy

[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.