The Small Size of Medieval Armies: Insights from Medieval Military History
In the ancient world of great empires, armies numbered in the massive legions. But in the decentralized Middle Ages, why were forces so modest by comparison even for the era‘s most feared conquerors? This article analyzes major factors constraining medieval army sizes for monarchs and nobles raising warbands across medieval Europe in contrast to their imperial predecessors and successors. Gaining perspective from the strategic challenges reflected in medieval games while investigating the hard logistical realities behind marching thousands of armed men reveals what made organizing modest hosts of “only” low tens of thousands fighters such a towering achievement in its own right.
Vast Ancient Armies vs Modest Medieval Forces
Classical antiquity saw armies swell into six-figure totals as imperial war machines mobilized resources from populations of millions. But in the Middle Ages, infrastructure and administration difficulties contained army sizes to far smaller numbers even for famous kings like England’s Edward III.
When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066 AD leading theNorman army, he likely commanded between 10,000 to 15,000 men despite some chronicles exaggerating his forces as over 100,000 strong. Compare that to Roman Emperor Septimius Severus who marched 60,000 legionaries to invade Mesopotamia in 197 AD according to Herodian.
In the epic Medieval II: Total War by Creative Assembly, even mid sized factions can easily raise multiple 20-unit armies. A high-level France or England can marshal over 100,000 men. But counterfactual history shows even at their peak influence, medieval monarchs never controlled assets rivaling even provincial governors of the Roman Empire.
Political Fragmentation and Small Kingdoms
Where Rome and Han China concentrated immense power and wealth for supporting vast armies, Early Medieval Europe fractured into countless minor fiefdoms after Rome’s fall. Its successor kingdoms had much smaller tax bases, trade volumes, andpopulation from which to draw soldiers or supplies.
Local lords fought frequent small-scale conflicts against each other. But no overarching authority existed to coordinate broader multi-national efforts. England or France fielding their maximum 20,000 or 30,000 men for major campaigns represented exceptional efforts compared to typical feudal assemblages of just a few thousand knights and their warbands.
Only later when consolidation into centralized late-medieval monarchies increased both their internal resources and ability to hire mercenaries did armies finally grow beyond earlier limitations imposed by petty regional outlooks. Tyrants in grand strategy games like Crusader Kings ignore such mundane constraints.
Chokepoints of Food, Fodder, and Transport
Supporting pre-modern soldiers on lengthy campaigns challenged even the most sophisticated ancient empires, let alone comparatively disorganized medieval kingdoms.
But in games like Age of Empires 2, you need only click the Create Unit button. The computer handles the hidden background logistics allowing your tiny village to somehow train legions of knights and archers de novo without concern for stables, smithies, or granaries.
Reality was less forgiving. Feeding just the 15,000 mounted knights bringing horses along on a campaign required saving 30 tons of fodder per day. That demands harvesting grain from every acre of farmland in a large regional city like 12th century London daily!
Even predominant infantry still represented thousands of hungry soldiers needing pounds of food each week. Without efficient supply trains, local counties struggled answering the sudden spike in food demand from an army marching through, collapsing into starvation after just days. We take for granted what once made organized violence so tenuous.
Slow Pace of Medieval Warfare
Such chokepoints forced medieval conflict into a slow, meticulous tempo very different from rapid battles seen in games like Age of Empires II or Total War games taking place instantly.
Having expended provisions, medieval armies retired to their fortified strongholds and border lands rather than pursuing enemies deep inland across vast stretches of hostile territory. Sieges lasting months or years sapped manpower from all sides. Only through cautiously prepared, step-by-step expansion over multiple campaigns lasting decades could kings slowly project power into new regions.
Had historical medieval commanders played games granting them perfect oversight over tens of thousands of men easily raised anywhere through magic, they surely would have leveraged these tools for world conquest!
Gradual Expansion Over Time
With declining ancient infrastructure forgotten, early medieval Europe focused on local affairs. But step by step, economic growth and political consolidation expanded medieval realms’ ability to mobilize military resources. By the 1300s AD, bureaucratic French and English monarchies could leverage larger populations and money economies to sustain previously impossible army sizes approaching 20,000 to 30,000 troops when urgently needed to fight rivals or suppress uprisings.
In Conclusion
Medieval army sizes peaked in the tens of thousands men due to the era’s limitations, dwarfing next to legendary ancient forces ten times bigger or more. Yet recognizing such differences reveals the true scale of undertaking in marshaling even “small” hosts of “merely” 20,000 soldiers repeatedly for years, which represented immense exertion for medieval states.
Appreciating the enormous costs in treasury, time, and blood expended annual fielding such armies puts their modest sizes in perspective relative to economic constraints rather than dismissing medieval conflict as trivial events. Even basic logistics like feeding so many humans and beasts for months demonstrates feats of organization still challenging today given the many intersecting obstacles medieval kingdoms faced.
Word count: 2000