Military strength

[TheokinsJ]

Hi guys, at the moment I am not sure as to how many soldiers should be in my fantasy world and what the size of the armies should be. I guess what I'm saying is I know how many warriors I think should be in the king's army, but I realised it does seem a bit weird for a country of a population of 50,000 people to have an army of 20,000...
I read up on the 5% theory, which basically means that 5% of the population would have been full-time soldiers (With the rest being farmers/traders/craftsmen ect).
I'm asking you guys what you think would be a good amount of full time warriors for my fantasy kingdoms, considering their populations, and the maximum military strength that could be achieved if say, something like what happened in World War 1/2 occurred, where all young men were called up to fight.

So here they are...

Kingdom 1
Population: 105,000

Kingdom 2
Population:140,000

Kingdom 3:
Population:65,000

Kingdom 4:
Population: 45,000

 

[Jessquoi]

It depends a lot on the ruling regime of that country. Some countries (especially small ones where they don't enough volunteering soldiers) have a compulsory military service, where all able men that are able are called to train for a year, but then return to their normal occupations until war arrises. Other countries with a larger population may enough men who join the army voluntarily as in the USA.

In any war, the amount of soldiers can play a big role. But many clever leaders have beaten bigger armies with a good strategy. In WW2 Hitler's army was extremely powerful for a long time, simply because of their strategies. They had a couple of alliances, but in comparison to what they were up against they were a scary foe, despite smaller numbers. They invaded many countries successfully.

In relation to your story, the number of men in the armies of the smaller countries might not make your story unrealistic, it depends on the geography and the politics of the region. Maybe smaller countries will make an alliance with a bigger country and offer a different resource in return. Maybe one leader is more cunning than the next. Etc.

 

[Sea of Stars]

Soldier is an elastic term, ranging from enforced levies to long service professionals.

If the soldiers are professionals who do nothing but fight, they will likely be small in number (such as knights and men-at arms or Imperial Roman legionaries) but very well trained and equipped.

If the soldiers are militia who train occasionally and then muster to defend their homes, they will consist of every able bodied man (and maybe some women too, depending on your culture) with basic training and basic equipment. This is the model of the early Roman Republic, Ancient Greek and Renaissance Italian City-States and the Swiss.

And there are many shades in between.

 

[Saigonnus]

With those numbers, those are very small kingdoms indeed... perhaps a single large city and an assortment of villages. In numbers like that I would think 5% would be sufficient for "keeping the king's peace" and protecting their borders, but maybe have it more like 10% is if you want to keep a small standing army. You can conscript more if needed to fend off a sizable attack or as was suggested above, keep a mandatory "term of service" for all males between 15-50. Maybe they have two months of every year spent in service for every year, that way you can stagger the months between the population and always have a larger standing army than normal, but not affect the civilian population all that much as far as trades, growing etc.

 

[shangrila]

For small kingdoms, you might like to look at Germany during the early to mid 1900s. They were fairly powerful for such a small country, despite having some truly horrible leaders.

 

[wordwalker]

For small kingdoms, you might like to look at Germany during the early to mid 1900s. They were fairly powerful for such a small country, despite having some truly horrible leaders.

Certainly an example of a strong/dangerous country. But you might want to stick with pre-industrial societies for your comparisons. More industrial nations tend to have fewer part-time soldiers, and more of its troops behind the battle managing the equipment, so the statistics may not be as close to your world as earlier eras would.

 

[mbartelsm]

Pushing it a bit, you could have up to 20% of a nations population fighting at one point, any more would insta-kill the economy and logistics. This 20% army would probably be 75% conscript and 25% professional, that only 25% have been properly trained, while the rest has received a basic training and will disband after whatever conflict is happening is over. This only applies for entire wars, if you are fighting a single battle in which you need everyone to help in order to win, then better make sure EVERYONE is helping.

Another tip: logistics win wars, not soldiers. You may have the strongest army in the whole world, but it won't be of ANY use if it can't move and/or feed.

Yet another tip: You may have compulsory military service, which would deal with the whole "basic training" situation, but those soldiers are likely being forced to fight, and there is nothing worse for morale than being forced into a war you do not wish to be a part of.

Post-Yet another tip: You may have heard that logistics win wars, but morale wins battles. The strongest army is useless if it's routing at the sight of the enemy. Order and willingness raise morale, if your army stands as one, it will think as one, one large soldier is much better than many tiny soldiers, and that one large soldier knows it.

 

[Kahle]

You should consider what culture each nation has and what sort of military structure that would provide. For example, when William the Conqueror took over England, he divided all of the territories up into fiefs to support knights. So say the king calls on 10 earls, who each have 20 barons who in turn have 30 knights. There you have 6,000 knights, excluding infantry and archers, which might come out at 15,000 and 5,000 respectively. Thats 26,000 all together. Those 6,000 knights would be of the fighting class, or regular soldiers. England did not rely on mercenary companies until the Hundred Years War, and personal armies emerged during the Wars of the Roses in the 15th century. So that's 3 forms of military.

For actual numbers of population and troop ratios, take a look at medieval armies. A good rule is to take the reported number of troops at a battle and knock off a zero. These records were usually embellished one way or another, however, this does improve over time. In the Wars of the Roses, lords could be expected to show up with anywhere from 400-1,200 troops, including knights (cavalry), infantry, and archers. One rival for the throne brought 8,000 soldiers and 3,000 mercenaries, so his total army was near 11,000-this included his lords.

In a warrior society, such as the Mayans or Aztecs, you might expect more of the population to be able soldiers. Theoretically, you would take about half the population, then take about a 1/2 to 1/3 of that to count out the young and old.

(Possible spoilers ahead)



Tolkien kept a pretty tight reign on his armies: Saruman's Uruk Hai numbered about 10,000, dwarfing the numbers at Helm's Deep. Latter Theoden says that 6000 is less than half of what he wanted, meaning that Rohan's full strength numbered over 12,000. The Orcs that besiege Minas Tirith numbered about 300,000, but that's a multiplying drone culture.

So again, take a look at the current populations of England and France, then find some listings for the Hundred Years war and crusading periods. That should give you an accurate ratio-the European population is still not fully recovered from the Black Death.