Help with size of English Army

tried posting this in help but nobody responds to that

********

Ok, so i'm researching the largest possible size the english army could be in 1650 for a TL. I've done some research and math into the 2 army systems I see as the most efficient (at least for drawing up troops.) That of the Swedish Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia.

During the math, it clearly seemed as though the swedish was more efficient than that of the Prussians (at least from the homeland); Prussia, while having a population of 2.5 million, only had a standing army of 60,000 and during war time that became 90,000 Prussians troops (although they built a mercenary army so the total army size was 150,000.

While sweden built an army of 125,000 from its homeland with a population less that 1.5 million.

So doing those calculations, and with a population of england (although its from 1640) of 4.2 million; i get a total standing army size of 220,000 and a war time army of 336,000.
do these numbers seem to big?
Would the english nobles afford such an army?
Is it possible england could still have naval dominance with such an army?
If i'm completely wrong, what is the largest possible size (during war time.)

This is for a TL where england adopts a standing army policy close to swedens in the early 1600s.
 
I'm pretty sure the Swedes relied heavily on mercenaries as well, but I'm not sure on exact figures.
 
I'm pretty sure the Swedes relied heavily on mercenaries as well, but I'm not sure on exact figures.
i thought they did to, but the 125,000 were from Sweden (that doesn't include their peace time armies in their German and Baltic possessions) and the total number of casualties was 200,000; meaning they drew up 325,000 men during the war just from 1.5 million, equivilent to england drawing up almost 900 thousand at the time and loosing 600,000 of them.

I doubt parliment would allow that many men to die, but is an army of 325,000 possible under 100 years of changes in OTL?
the changes mostly being them having to fight wars on their own through out the 1500s.
 
i thought they did to, but the 125,000 were from Sweden (that doesn't include their peace time armies in their German and Baltic possessions) and the total number of casualties was 200,000; meaning they drew up 325,000 men during the war just from 1.5 million, equivilent to england drawing up almost 900 thousand at the time and loosing 600,000 of them.

I doubt parliment would allow that many men to die, but is an army of 325,000 possible under 100 years of changes in OTL?
the changes mostly being them having to fight wars on their own through out the 1500s.

Not easily. That's equivalent in size to the Spanish army in the 16th century if memory serves, and that was horrifically expensive.

Not sure how much can be supported - I don't have good figures for English finances in general in this period.
 
Not easily. That's equivalent in size to the Spanish army in the 16th century if memory serves, and that was horrifically expensive.
hmm... i wonder how expensive?
Maybe someone will tell me about how expensive, otherwise i'll have to look into that definately.
 
hmm... i wonder how expensive?
Maybe someone will tell me about how expensive, otherwise i'll have to look into that definately.

I seem to recall reading the the Army of Flanders for Spain cost something like a quarter of the entire budget, and that was <100,000 men.
 
Prussia and Europe

Generally, it was considered by the new German Confederation in 1816, that the population of a nation could support 1 in 60 serving the colours in some way. 1 in 300 was considered to be the maximum to recruit in any one year without harming unduly the economy of the nation.
 
Reposted frm the other thread:


I think you're being extremely over-optimistic. IOTL the New Model Army started off with a theoretical establishment of 22,000, and even this involved having to impress men into the infantry. By 1652 maybe about 68,000 troops were fighting for Parliament, but this was completely unsustainable and Parliament had no way of paying them apart from with Irish land.

The Army was reduced to just under 30,000 by the late 1650s, but even this was difficult to bear- the cost of maintaining a professional force was a contributory factor to the collapse of the Protectorate.

Leaving aside the political difficulties of creating a standing army (Parliament will never stand for it if it's a Royal project, the King would veto any Parliamentary proposal, and the difficulties of raising the money would make the Ship Money controversy look like a tiny disagreement), I think the largest possible force would be something on the order of OTL's initial New Model, and even that would be bitterly controversial and possibly prohibited from setting foot on English soil. Even this would require some sort of major crisis to be pushed through- utter defeat in Ireland, for example. So basically divide your figure by ten, and even that is a bit of a stretch I'm afraid.
 
You might get some level (of royal project) accepted if this starts in Tutor times, if I'm not mistaken - but that still leaves the money issue.

England, the polity, is not swimming in cash in this period - as the fact Elizabeth's savings were rapidly depleted from the point there was an English expeditionary force in the Netherlands (and that of only 8,000 if memory serves) shows.
 
You might get some level (of royal project) accepted if this starts in Tutor times, if I'm not mistaken - but that still leaves the money issue.

England, the polity, is not swimming in cash in this period - as the fact Elizabeth's savings were rapidly depleted from the point there was an English expeditionary force in the Netherlands (and that of only 8,000 if memory serves) shows.
This is 100 years after the POD.
 
Reposted frm the other thread:


I think you're being extremely over-optimistic. IOTL the New Model Army started off with a theoretical establishment of 22,000, and even this involved having to impress men into the infantry. By 1652 maybe about 68,000 troops were fighting for Parliament, but this was completely unsustainable and Parliament had no way of paying them apart from with Irish land.

The Army was reduced to just under 30,000 by the late 1650s, but even this was difficult to bear- the cost of maintaining a professional force was a contributory factor to the collapse of the Protectorate.

Leaving aside the political difficulties of creating a standing army (Parliament will never stand for it if it's a Royal project, the King would veto any Parliamentary proposal, and the difficulties of raising the money would make the Ship Money controversy look like a tiny disagreement), I think the largest possible force would be something on the order of OTL's initial New Model, and even that would be bitterly controversial and possibly prohibited from setting foot on English soil. Even this would require some sort of major crisis to be pushed through- utter defeat in Ireland, for example. So basically divide your figure by ten, and even that is a bit of a stretch I'm afraid.
thats just the number of men possible using a sedish style system.
 
Top