Figures for ancient/medieval armies

....which is common sense but we are often inclined to defer to more romantic accounts and perpetuate the stories of battles fought against extreme odds and of armies the size of locust swarms.

If you haven't read "History of warfare in the framework of political history" by Hans Delbrück I advise you to read it.
I admit that this book is as old as mammoth's shit but Delbrück was a genius and you could see it from the first pages.

----------------------------------------------------------
As for me I know one thing:
in the 17-th century in Europe it was an axiom that the army of 50 000 was the maximum to be gathered in one place under single command.
The bigger size was dangerous for the army itself due to logistics, transportation, supply of provisions, sanitation and the like.

The other copybook maxim is -
- during campaigns the losses in manpower because of deseases (mostly infectious) were much bigger than losses in killed and wounded.
So the larger the army - the bigger risk of these deseases.

So if in the army before the 17-th century I see the figures more than 50 000 men (in one place under single command) - I become very sceptical about it.
I might assume that some ancient empires could be better organized, more efficient to deal with armies larger than the 17-th century Europe. But that would be an extremely rare exception to the rule...
 
Last edited:
Top