Assuming it's about western medieval Europe...what was the biggest army army in one place in medieval times?
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...while medieval armies in Europe, composed of levy, had to be maintained by the ruler.
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).I always thought 1% of the population was a good guess, lower for more feudalistic nations(France) and higher for more unitary states
I was talking more about army to you where able to throw around rather than local militias and garrisons.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.
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".snip
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 ofI was talking more about army to you where able to throw around rather than local militias and garrisons.
Well in unitary states and Empires you had more movable troops. No?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".
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.Well in unitary states and Empires you had more movable troops. No?
Like the Byzantine state, Chinese Dynasties and such. I was speaking more broadly.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 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.Like the Byzantine state, Chinese Dynasties and such. I was speaking more broadly.
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 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.
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).I would say 0.5-2% is a good estimate though?
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.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
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.I was not talking about permanent soldiers, but about what you could expect a European country to deploy in battle for a longer 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 surely you couldn´t deploy more than a certain amount of people if the people had to go back for the harvesting time.
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)I mean yes virtually a bigger share could be drafted but that was not feasible logistically and politically.
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)How would the king or noble pay for troops and basic needs?