How much of OTL can be considered "ASB".

Well, conquest at long range is hard.

Everything is relative. For that period of time an army 70,000 strong is still bloody huge, it might bear noting that the largest European armies of the Early Modern period, the Ottoman and Spanish, were less than half that size. And that's after a long period of military progress and in a much more densely populated world.
 
Everything is relative. For that period of time an army 70,000 strong is still bloody huge, it might bear noting that the largest European armies of the Early Modern period, the Ottoman and Spanish, were less than half that size. And that's after a long period of military progress and in a much more densely populated world.

And considering the Early Modern period was one of small armies, until the levee en masse...
 
And considering the Early Modern period was one of small armies, until the levee en masse...

It might also be worth noting that a state able to summon such a large army in the first place has to be both large and wealthy, a lot of the time the logistics of large armies are too prohibitive to make them worthwhile. This is one reason that armies were smaller originally as large ones tended to be too expensive and/or require social infrastructure that did not exist at the time.

It's also worth reflecting that the Persians won that war on land, it was the loss at Salamis which cost them the war.
 
It might also be worth noting that a state able to summon such a large army in the first place has to be both large and wealthy, a lot of the time the logistics of large armies are too prohibitive to make them worthwhile. This is one reason that armies were smaller originally as large ones tended to be too expensive and/or require social infrastructure that did not exist at the time.

It's also worth reflecting that the Persians won that war on land, it was the loss at Salamis which cost them the war.

The trend from the medieval to the early modern in Europe was one from small, unreliable feudal levies to a small, more professional force.

And when you can whip the common folk into a frenzy about something you end up with a large army.
 
Everything is relative. For that period of time an army 70,000 strong is still bloody huge, it might bear noting that the largest European armies of the Early Modern period, the Ottoman and Spanish, were less than half that size. And that's after a long period of military progress and in a much more densely populated world.

True. The total French army under the Sun King, straining France's reserves of able-bodied manpower to the breaking point, and France's finances almost as badly, might be 400,000.

And that's every soldier he has.

But it does seem like a small force relative to what, theoretically, Persia can put in the field.
 
The trend from the medieval to the early modern in Europe was one from small, unreliable feudal levies to a small, more professional force.

And when you can whip the common folk into a frenzy about something you end up with a large army.

I might note here that the primary reason for a large army in the Spanish and Ottoman Empires of the time was that the two ruled the largest and most powerful total state systems in Europe, so they had the need for such armies and the wherewithal to afford them, raise them, and supply them. most European states as you said did not have that capacity and preferred smaller, more modern armies.
 
True. The total French army under the Sun King, straining France's reserves of able-bodied manpower to the breaking point, and France's finances almost as badly, might be 400,000.

And that's every soldier he has.

But it does seem like a small force relative to what, theoretically, Persia can put in the field.

That would assume France would do conscription. ;)

I might note here that the primary reason for a large army in the Spanish and Ottoman Empires of the time was that the two ruled the largest and most powerful total state systems in Europe, so they had the need for such armies and the wherewithal to afford them, raise them, and supply them. most European states as you said did not have that capacity and preferred smaller, more modern armies.

Correct. And this is why the Quality<->Quantity slider exists in EU, with moving towards Quality preferable for most states.
 
True. The total French army under the Sun King, straining France's reserves of able-bodied manpower to the breaking point, and France's finances almost as badly, might be 400,000.

And that's every soldier he has.

But it does seem like a small force relative to what, theoretically, Persia can put in the field.

Theoretical calculations are useful as I find it more for statistics than as a real reflection of that kind of warfare. Most states do not want to tap the majority of their theoretical capacity as it would throw them all out of whack. Even the Levee en masse allowed for substitution and modern armies can have rather smaller portions of their armies that actually fight than people think about at first hand.
 
Theoretical calculations are useful as I find it more for statistics than as a real reflection of that kind of warfare. Most states do not want to tap the majority of their theoretical capacity as it would throw them all out of whack. Even the Levee en masse allowed for substitution and modern armies can have rather smaller portions of their armies that actually fight than people think about at first hand.

Even the US Army has a lot of folk in support roles.
 
Even the US Army has a lot of folk in support roles.

That's what I mean, yes. The total number of soldiers might be large, but a lot of that is the support/logistics side of warfare, the kind that ensures the combat side functions right. Which matters, but can lead to deceptive statistics of "100,000 Yankees shooting up the place" when the combat total might be a lot smaller than that. This is one reason that numbers for earlier US wars tend to be so confusing. :mad:
 
Instead of the ASB label i would prefer to use improbable.

Maybe we should look at events from OTL that are highly improbable?

The whole anglo-saxon domination of the world for centuries now (first UK then US) is pretty improbable.
 
That would assume France would do conscription. ;)

Right. This is "Louis mobilizing everyone he can get his grubby hands on", most definitely including conscripts.

When even conscription and tapping sub-par soldiers still leave him with under half a million soldiers from ~20 million(?) Frenchmen, the difficulty of raising a significant sized army and not screwing everything else over becomes painfully obvious.

But it doesn't change the gut/pre-education reaction that 50,000 men for a country in the millions isn't very large.
 
Instead of the ASB label i would prefer to use improbable.

Maybe we should look at events from OTL that are highly improbable?

The whole anglo-saxon domination of the world for centuries now (first UK then US) is pretty improbable.

How probable is it that any European group will do it looking at AD 1000 or earlier?

It makes sense by the time it actually happened, and that events would go that way isn't all that surprising.
 
Top