ASK: How Many Soldiers A Single Commander Could Realistically Command (Pre-Renaissance)

Dolan

Banned
And by 'Command', I meant direct command during active battle, when the said commander is also present during the heat of the battle, reasonably near (within visible range) to the action, a tactical level command if you wish. Not being an overall leader of the Army who stand along a meeting table discussing strategy before the battle.

Let's say that in this scenario, the commander is a Noble of high enough rank and being veteran of several battles, that his commands would be obeyed by his subordinates without any questions. He might either the overall leader of said army, or someone who is tasked to sub-command a part of the army, doesn't really matter, but the key is knowing how many soldiers he could realistically command directly on the field, during a battle situation? The key is the at-hand battle command, be it direct voice command (shouting on top of his lungs), visual signals (hand signs, flag signs, or doing something that involves his subordinates seeing him), or even ordering a soldier/dedicated messenger to run/ride to another parts of battle to give his command to other subordinate.

For time limit, I'll limit these from any kind of pre-renaissance army (before the 1300s), although of course, more ancient armies may count.

There are several variations that I would like to ask about:

A) The Commander is riding a horse, and personally commanding a contingent of cavalry soldiers. He is riding and fighting on the front line (Alexander the Great, Diadochi-era Generals, Famous Warrior Generals in China (Lu Bu, Guan Yu, etc), and also many more martially minded Medieval Kings and Nobles).

B) The Commander is on foot, and personally commanding a contingent of infantry soldiers. He is fighting shoulder to shoulder with his men on the front line (Ancient Greek Generals, especially the Spartans, also Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Aztecs, etc)

C) The Commander is riding a horse, and while having a cadre of mounted bodyguards, he stood at the reserve position behind the line. He gave the command from the relative safety but would ride and fight himself, or he and his bodyguards could dismount to support the infantry line, depending on the situation. (Most of the Ancient Generals doing this)

D) The Commander is viewing the battlefield from raised and fixed platform/palanquin/wagon, he is more a strategist and rather averse to personally fight (as common with many Asian strategists in general). It's not that he can't fight, he is not as heavily armed as his counterparts in scenario A, B, C, and E, and would think that personally fighting is beneath him.

E) The Commander is riding on an elephant, technically mounted, enjoying a higher point of view, but also cannot really move around unless really committed the attack due to sheer inertia (and he isn't about to trample his own men, mind you). (Just like many Indian generals)

Which Command position could command the most soldiers realistically? And how many is the approximate number of soldiers on average?

Thanks
 
A and C give a commander the best options to take direct command of relatively large number of troops, thanks to his mobility, but because he is in the middle of the fight or quite close to it, generally he can command only on tactical level (unless he is Alexander the Great). IMO that would be best solutions for corps-level commander leading a large part of army, like a wing or corps, but not whole force.
D is the best solution for a commander of whole army: he can see more or less whole battlefield and with an aid of messengers or some kind of signals (flags, trumpets, drums) coordinate all his forces.
E is more or less between C and D - less mobility, but better overview.
B makes leading more than soldiers directly around you pretty much impossible. The commander is on the frontline, his sight is extremely limited - he simply doesn't know what is going further than 100 meters (and even that if he's quite lucky). He is also too busy to actually command, since it is extremely hard to analyze situation and swing an axe at the same time: all your thinking is how to get the guy hacking with HIS axe at your shield, not how to make a flanking manouver of enemy wing. It can work for an army if you have a plan and trust your subordinate commanders to do their part and if the enemy acts like you predicted. Or if you the plan is simple: stand and fight, with no manouvers at all (Thermopylae). The a general on the frontline can act as a morale boost for troops in critical position.
 

Dolan

Banned
A and C give a commander the best options to take direct command of relatively large number of troops, thanks to his mobility, but because he is in the middle of the fight or quite close to it, generally he can command only on tactical level (unless he is Alexander the Great). IMO that would be best solutions for corps-level commander leading a large part of army, like a wing or corps, but not whole force.
D is the best solution for a commander of whole army: he can see more or less whole battlefield and with an aid of messengers or some kind of signals (flags, trumpets, drums) coordinate all his forces.
E is more or less between C and D - less mobility, but better overview.
B makes leading more than soldiers directly around you pretty much impossible. The commander is on the frontline, his sight is extremely limited - he simply doesn't know what is going further than 100 meters (and even that if he's quite lucky). He is also too busy to actually command, since it is extremely hard to analyze situation and swing an axe at the same time: all your thinking is how to get the guy hacking with HIS axe at your shield, not how to make a flanking manouver of enemy wing. It can work for an army if you have a plan and trust your subordinate commanders to do their part and if the enemy acts like you predicted. Or if you the plan is simple: stand and fight, with no manouvers at all (Thermopylae). The a general on the frontline can act as a morale boost for troops in critical position.
Do you have any idea on approximate numbers of men that could be commanded in each of the scenarios on the average?

I meant, well, we knew that Alexander could effectively command 50000 soldiers just fine, but he is Alexander The Great. All while Zhuge Liang (which according to you should control the most), actually only directly responsible to 40000 soldiers at most during one day of battle, and on other occasions, he shares the command with other commanders that actually more allies than subordinates.
 
Do you have any idea on approximate numbers of men that could be commanded in each of the scenarios on the average?

I meant, well, we knew that Alexander could effectively command 50000 soldiers just fine, but he is Alexander The Great. All while Zhuge Liang (which according to you should control the most), actually only directly responsible to 40000 soldiers at most during one day of battle, and on other occasions, he shares the command with other commanders that actually more allies than subordinates.

It also is worth to rememeber, that Alexander had very capable subordinates, like Parmenion.
And the fact that Zhuge Liang commandered at most 40 000 soldiers doesn't mean he was not able to command more (BTW, which battle do you mean? My knowledge of Chinese history is woefully limited). If other commanders were his allies, not subordinates, he couldn't just order them around. It was more a question of politics, than of command system.
Or perhaps he simply wasn't able to gather more soldiers or provide supplies for a bigger army. Or perhaps he led only 40 000 soldiers because he didn't need more.
Besides, I never said scenario D can not be used for smaller forces. My opinion is that scenario A and C are not the best solutions for bigger forces.

Anyway IMO scenario A and C can serve a force between 5 000 to 10 000, perhaps a little more. E is more or less similar, perhaps a little better.
Scenario B is good for 1 000 at best.
Scenario D - pretty much unlimited, provided the terrain is good and you have good communication system.

However there are many variables which you need to consider. As I mentioned before, when your army just needs to stand your ground and repell attacks, there is not much to command actually and a general in the front line can be good for morale. In such battle there is no strategy, no tactics, no manouvers. It is not a duel of minds between commanders. Here actually the simple soldiers, their courage, combat skills and discipline are decisive factors. Again, Thermopylae: Leonidas had chosen well the place of battle and after that it was just to stand and fight. So he might command even 100 000 soldiers there, and as long as Leonidas lived. he did his job as a general.
Another factor are your troops: their organization, training, discipline, equipments, morale and of course their commanders. If you can rely on them you do not need to monitor them directly. You do not need to ride to every unit to make sure they do what they should.
Then there is terrain: if you have nice, open field and good position on a hill to see all the battlefield, great. But if you fight in a forest. jungle, mountains, then scenario D might not be feasible, since you can not see whole battle. If you have good communications system (messengers, signals etc.) that might work, if not, you as commander either need to be everywhere or rely on you sub-commanders.

Besides, the fact that scenarios A and C are IMO best for corps commanders, it doesn't mean that an army commander can not use it. Especially if the enemy commander does the same. But, if one commander plays by a scenario A, while his adversary follows scenario D, I would say the the D commander is in better position to effectually lead. Example: battle of Grunwald. Władysław Jagiełło led like a commander D, Ulrich von Jungingen like commander A. Guess, which one lived to see next day.
 

Dolan

Banned
Besides, the fact that scenarios A and C are IMO best for corps commanders, it doesn't mean that an army commander can not use it. Especially if the enemy commander does the same. But, if one commander plays by a scenario A, while his adversary follows scenario D, I would say the the D commander is in better position to effectually lead. Example: battle of Grunwald. Władysław Jagiełło led like a commander D, Ulrich von Jungingen like commander A. Guess, which one lived to see next day.
Yeah, there are facts that Commanders in A, B, and C scenario did gamble his life alongside of his men, more or less. You are also correct that Alexander did have very competent subcommanders like Parmenion, Seleucos, Ptolemy, and such.

So is this approximation correct? Assuming it would be set-piece battle with objective to rout the other side, not a defensive one. And assuming average subcommanders at work:
* A and C could on average command about 10000 soldiers
* B could only work in small enough battle, like you said, with about 1000 soldiers at best
* D and E might work with about 20000 soldiers
 
Yeah, there are facts that Commanders in A, B, and C scenario did gamble his life alongside of his men, more or less. You are also correct that Alexander did have very competent subcommanders like Parmenion, Seleucos, Ptolemy, and such.

So is this approximation correct? Assuming it would be set-piece battle with objective to rout the other side, not a defensive one. And assuming average subcommanders at work:
* A and C could on average command about 10000 soldiers
* B could only work in small enough battle, like you said, with about 1000 soldiers at best
* D and E might work with about 20000 soldiers

Not exactly. If an A leads large army against another A, their ability to command is pretty much equal. However, if an A leads a large army against a D with equal size army, then D is in better position to command. I do not say that A, C, E can not command large armies, only that D would be in better position to lead such an army than them.
Please remember that it is only my opinion. I have no military training and my opinion is based on my knowledge of historical battles and, well, common sense.
 
If the commander only has himself than B would be the best option. Being on horseback would allow one greater mobility but in hand to hand battles morale is just as important as giving orders, which is always difficult in hand to hand fighting regardless. The Anabasis is a good primary source for this
 
Top