largest medival troops

Phew...

The biggest army that ever participated in battle in medieval Europe that I know is Mamai's Blue Horde in the Battle of Kulikovo, with higher-end estimates for their size of up to 125 000 men. Only nomadic nations, especially those descending from the Mongol Empire, could field armies that big due to the nature of their force in general (each soldier in a horde also feeds off the land by his own, while medieval armies in Europe, composed of levy, had to be maintained by the ruler. Infrastructure needed for keeping massive armies also plays a part, since nomads didn't really need any), so I think it's a solid guess.

At least in Europe. I'm sure that China and the Yuan could field bigger armies, but I'm not an expert in their matters.
 
The Ottomans fielded some pretty huge armies, especially for sieges like Rhodes (200,000) and Constantinople (100,000-300,000) though these of course might be exaggerated.
 
I always thought 1% of the population was a good guess, lower for more feudalistic nations(France) and higher for more unitary states, and of course the Mongols could field up to 2 digits percent of the population. Of course it changes depending on how long the war is and if it´s fought at home or far away.
 
what was the biggest army army in one place in medieval times?
Assuming it's about western medieval Europe...

I hesitate between the First Crusade's army at Constantinople, and the Mongol army at the battle of Mohacs.
Both fielded more than 30,000 fighting individuals, especially rare in the classical Middle Ages where logistical and sociological limits of armies prevented more than 10,000 individuals on one side.

The First Crusade involved a litterally freaking huge number of fighters (professionals, knights, nobles, peasants, etc.) that wasn't seen since the Byzantine campaigns in Italy. It was a logistical nightmare for everyone involved.

The Battle of Mohacs involved a large part of Batu Khan troops in the region, and was certainly less rag-tag than First Crusade when it mattered veterans and professionals.

If we include Eastern Europe, then you may consider the Battle of Kulikovo or the Second Siege of Constantinople (altough estimations are really sketchy, you had at least 20,000 men on the Arab side)

while medieval armies in Europe, composed of levy, had to be maintained by the ruler.
That's actually quite the opposite : army service was required of vassals for a given numbers of days (usually 40) and then they had to recieve some compensation. Mentioning quickly that urban militias worked on a compulsatory service, and that feudal armies usually involved levies raised without too much alternative...
Well, generally, a medieval army lives on the land : given, however, that open battles only very rarily mattered in medieval strategy (which was FAR more about siege warfare, which took long, prevented plundering the hell out of the same land, and didn't required nearly as much men for defenders) it didn't really mattered.

Strategically and logistically-wise, european armies had to be relatively limited even if they could technically be quite important (field armies of 20,000 persons aren't unheard of, but relatively rare).

Rulers began to maintain troops because levies became less of a thing : with monetarization of the medieval economy in the XIIth, vassals began to pay an informal tax instead of a service, tax that was used to maintain and raises troops and/or mercenaries. (Of course, even a Late Medieval army have a sizable levy part, it's generally a mix up)

I always thought 1% of the population was a good guess, lower for more feudalistic nations(France) and higher for more unitary states
Frankly, it have little to do with anything : a more "feudal nation" (which is a bit of a moot concept, giving feudali ties maybe concerned 5% of the population in Middle Ages) usually had a mix up of more or less professionally traied elite (milites), urban and peri-urban militias (not just in Italy or Flander, but litteraly everywhere you had a municipal autnomy, which is frankly almost everywhere on the continent).

Even in a same region, it depends too much of the political (not geopolitical, but really political) context to give a credible percentage.
 
Battle of Qatwan (1141) - numbers have been reported to be exaggerated but some reports list up to 700,000 men for the Kara-Khitan Khanate.
Battle of Kressenbrunn (1260) - numbers vary for both sides with the Bohemians and Austrians having 30-100,000 men and the Hungarians between 35-145,000 men.
Battle of Ankara (1402) - according to Wikipedia (I know, I know...), "Peter Fredet claims that Timur and Bayezid's armies consisted of 800,000 and 400,000 men, respectively. Robert Henlopen Labberton argues that Timur's army had 600,000 men, while Bayezid's army was only 120,000 strong. The first-hand observer Johann Schiltberger, who had been taken captive by Bayezid during the Battle of Nicopolis and remained with him until the latter's own captivity whereupon he was transferred to Timur, gives the figures at "sixteen hundred thousand" for Timur and "fourteen hundred thousand" under Bayezid." Unfortunately, specifics on numbers are not known for this battle.

IIRC, areas in the east such as China and India could field larger armies than the Europeans because of larger population density.
 
Frankly, it have little to do with anything : a more "feudal nation" (which is a bit of a moot concept, giving feudali ties maybe concerned 5% of the population in Middle Ages) usually had a mix up of more or less professionally traied elite (milites), urban and peri-urban militias (not just in Italy or Flander, but litteraly everywhere you had a municipal autnomy, which is frankly almost everywhere on the continent).

Even in a same region, it depends too much of the political (not geopolitical, but really political) context to give a credible percentage.
I was talking more about army to you where able to throw around rather than local militias and garrisons.
 
Mmm...These numbers seems really unreachable, from a mere logistical point of view. Wikipedia does have an history of using really, really, really poor guesstimates because "oh, I read it somewhere".

For what matter medieval Europe (or Mediterranean basin as well), you can safely consider any guesstimate that shows more than 40,000 as bogus. Super-complex chiefdoms such as steppe khaganates are a different stories, and could admittedly gather more people, but we're talking ten of thousands, rather than next to a million : that's just grotesque.

I was talking more about army to you where able to throw around rather than local militias and garrisons.
That's pratically the same : a medieval army is largely made of either levies taken from local militias or local garrisons, or from mercenaries which were generally issued themselves from levies originally (such as Genoese crossbowmen being issued from Genoese militia, with a training focused on crossbow due to tactical particularities). The latter generally formed the bulk of
retinues that didn't appeared before the second half of XIVth century (and in a really particular way).

While it's not the same militaro-political context for the Early Middle Ages, you still don't have a clear difference between local levies and armies you "threw around".
 
Maybe I should put "Take it with a grain of salt" when posting some of the numbers in regard to medieval armies. I made an educated guess that most individuals on here are aware of the logistics involved in fielding large numbers of men. I guess I should not assume that everyone has a military mindset...
 
That's pratically the same : a medieval army is largely made of either levies taken from local militias or local garrisons, or from mercenaries which were generally issued themselves from levies originally (such as Genoese crossbowmen being issued from Genoese militia, with a training focused on crossbow due to tactical particularities). The latter generally formed the bulk of
retinues that didn't appeared before the second half of XIVth century (and in a really particular way).

While it's not the same militaro-political context for the Early Middle Ages, you still don't have a clear difference between local levies and armies you "threw around".
Well in unitary states and Empires you had more movable troops. No?
 
Well in unitary states and Empires you had more movable troops. No?
I'm not really sure what you call "unitary state" in medieval Europe, to be honest. Feudalism, as a political concept, really goes against the idea of centralized political and military institution.
 
I'm not really sure what you call "unitary state" in medieval Europe, to be honest. Feudalism, as a political concept, really goes against the idea of centralized political and military institution.
Like the Byzantine state, Chinese Dynasties and such. I was speaking more broadly.
 
Like the Byzantine state, Chinese Dynasties and such. I was speaking more broadly.
I understand, but as you proposed a percentage for "feudal" entities, I answered specifically on this, rather than broadly : point that even within feudality, it was far too diverse to really pull an average on the population.
 
I understand, but as you proposed a percentage for "feudal" entities, I answered specifically on this, rather than broadly : point that even within feudality, it was far too diverse to really pull an average on the population.
I would say 0.5-2% is a good estimate though? I mean yes it´s different depending on the actual time period we are speaking of(500 or 1300?) but at least to me it looks true enough for the High Middle Ages period. Now it also depends on what exact type of army we are speaking of and for how much long but is not like I was saying this number was universally true.
 
I would say 0.5-2% is a good estimate though?
No, I don't think so. Again, medieval european society was built on a military-political mix, and professional army is not a concept that can be used there. Everyone could technically be called to a war (freemen or not*). Milites and associated groups certainly beneficied from a more tourough training, but formed a diverse part of the population (in regions such as Spain, it could reach easily reach 10%). Except that, peasant or urban freeman, you could likely be involved within an army, regardless of your training (while you had admittedly a tentative to create a more widespread training, as in England).

Basically, a medieval army until the Late Middle Ages can be made up of as much as half of irregulars and militias, if not more in some regions as Flanders.

*Even in Early Middle Ages, where bearing arms was part of the freeman definition, you had servile or client levies quite often as for Visigothic armies
 
No, I don't think so. Again, medieval european society was built on a military-political mix, and professional army is not a concept that can be used there. Everyone could technically be called to a war (freemen or not*). Milites and associated groups certainly beneficied from a more tourough training, but formed a diverse part of the population (in regions such as Spain, it could reach easily reach 10%). Except that, peasant or urban freeman, you could likely be involved within an army, regardless of your training (while you had admittedly a tentative to create a more widespread training, as in England).

Basically, a medieval army until the Late Middle Ages can be made up of as much as half of irregulars and militias, if not more in some regions as Flanders.

*Even in Early Middle Ages, where bearing arms was part of the freeman definition, you had servile or client levies quite often as for Visigothic armies
I was not talking about permanent soldiers, but about what you could expect a European country to deploy in battle for a longer time. I mean surely you couldn´t deploy more than a certain amount of people if the people had to go back for the harvesting time.

I mean yes virtually a bigger share could be drafted but that was not feasible logistically and politically.
 
China and India had both the population and the bureaucracy to field large armies. Europe and the Middle East really didn't have one or the other, and its been shown that the size of the Mongol hordes have been greatly exaggerated. If you use the 600 yo 1500 period as the Middle Ages, which is reasonable, the battle involving the greatest number of soldiers was probably one of the battles between the Sung and the Jin, though the Mongols against either the Sung or (more likely) the Jin are better candidates, as are either the Dehlhi Sultanage or Vijayanagara and some of their opponents. Ankara (Timur vs. Bayejid ) is another reasonable candidate.
 
I was not talking about permanent soldiers, but about what you could expect a European country to deploy in battle for a longer time.
And as I said in several posts, the huge part of irregular, militias, levies of diverse sort makes that (even disregarding the important regional disparities), it's really hard to propose a percentage.

An average medieval army is something that doesn't really exist : the ruler of an important kingdom and the vassal he's at war with can usually gather relatively similar (in number) troops.

I mean surely you couldn´t deploy more than a certain amount of people if the people had to go back for the harvesting time.
That's the usual cliché about ancient and medieval armies, and honestly it's not entierly unfounded, but you have too much exemples of armies being gathered in harvesting time to make it a rule. Eventually, the lack of important conflicts in winter is usually more present in classical Middle Ages after the Xth century and tend to disappear with the XIVth.

I mean yes virtually a bigger share could be drafted but that was not feasible logistically and politically.
The limitation was more numerical than percentile : a lord with a lesser territory could gather as much people than a greater lord. The limit is less the share of it, than the logistical/tactical limit (which was nowhere absolute, even if 5,000 to 10,000 is usual)

How would the king or noble pay for troops and basic needs?
From the IXth to the XIIth century, military service was just that : a service that was due for a certain ammount of days and the responsible was supposed to bring enough supplies and equipment with for this length. With that, a medieval army lives on the land (don't forget that the crushing majority of medieval warfare is made of sieges)

With the XIIth and the re-monetarization of the economy, the military service tended to be replaced with an informal tax, which served to pay for part of the expense : but war remain hugely expensive, and most of the supply is made on the land while equipment at the start (weapons, horses, etc.) is more and more precisely asked for and planned.
 
Top