How many armies would a country have on campaign?

[hots_towel]

In my story, each of the countries involved in the war going on at the time have roughly 2 armies each, and each one headed by a general. The reason I went for 2 armies is because I wanted to play up the drama between the generals in differing opinions on tactics or even personal differences. it also helps because part of the story will include an arc where one general is, lets say, on a western front, while the other arc follows a different general and his army's hardships on the eastern front.

I am beginnging to wonder now though. has it really been practical throghout history to have 2 armies? or even just more than one? I know since it's fictional, I can do whatever I feel does the plot justice, but the heavy military focus I really want done right. It's the only thing that i feel really sets apart my story from the countless other fantasies that just have a war in the backdrop to make the world/time feel more intense. or to write a big epic battle once or twice in their stories.

short version: is it impractical to have two or more armies with generals/officers that bicker?

 

[GeekDavid]

Nazi Germany had two fronts going at the same time. Just look how well that turned out for them.

Also, if memory serves, one of the British generals (Montgomery?) disagreed vehemently with Eisenhower about certain things... but I could be mis-remembering or mistaken.

 

[Malik]

Seems totally realistic to me. Our military has five armies -- Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard (though they're part of the Dept of Transportation, usually) -- plus a handful of intelligence agencies, plus DHS, BATF, the FBI, and those spoon-chested clowns who work at the airports. Yeah. Those guys. And we NEVER bicker.

In my fantasy series, I'm writing Book II, and the northern country has its own primary standing army, a riverine navy, and an air corps of mounted pegasi. It also has a couple of dozen mercenary companies who function as professional guilds and handle everything from logistics and blacksmithing to actual swords for hire; a commonwealth levy of untrained "volunteers" headed by a series of marshalls; and over a dozen chivalric orders which function as professional private military guilds outside and superior in command to the mercenary companies. A few of these orders are effectively royal special operations forces: one tasked with guarding royals, one with gathering surreptitious reconnaissance, one with healing and transport of casualties, and one as the king's own special forces detachment -- they're they ones who rescue princesses, kill dragons, undertake suicidal missions guaranteeing them eternal life in song and legend, all that awesome stuff.

In addition, the northern country has a principality that's under attack by a country from the south. The principality (think of it as a state inside a country) has its own "national" army, plus a commonwealth levy, plus military guilds, plus chivalric orders. On top of that, every single yahoo who owns an axe or a horse (read: everybody) and has more than a dozen buddies has taken to calling himself a "warlord" and putting together his own small army and launching guerrilla attacks on the invaders.

The invading nation is ultra-militaristic with a very disciplined, very tough, very well-trained and well-armed military that is absolutely massive and has a strict command and control structure. So I've got probably fifteen to twenty "armies" slugging it out by the middle of the book. This is par for the course throughout most of the history of civilization. It was never one army against another army unless you had a very small and very organized war.

When Darius III, Emperor of Persia, fought at Gaugamela, he had over 50,000 Greek mercenaries fighting against Alexander, in a total army of approximately 250,000. This was, essentially a hundred separate armies drawn from all over the Middle East. The command and control structure the Darius implemented was unbelievable, and rivals that of our military today. Alexander still kicked Darius's ass clear into the Zagros Mountains, which goes to prove that you can't have everything.

I wouldn't believe two bickering armies. In most feudal or pseudo-feudal (say "feudal or pseudo-feudal" five times real fast, I dare you) settings, I'd believe ten armies or more.

 

[Jabrosky]

A few of these orders are effectively royal special operations forces: one tasked with guarding royals, one with gathering surreptitious reconnaissance, one with healing and transport of casualties, and one as the king's own special forces detachment -- they're they ones who rescue princesses, kill dragons, undertake suicidal missions guaranteeing them eternal life in song and legend, all that awesome stuff.

That last detachment sounds like my kind of action heroes!

In addition to what people named earlier, the Egyptians during the New Kingdom divided their military into two corps, one in the north and the other in the south.

 

[Devor]

Seems totally realistic to me. Our military has five armies -- Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard (though they're part of the Dept of Transportation, usually) -- plus a handful of intelligence agencies, plus DHS, BATF, the FBI, and those spoon-chested clowns who work at the airports. Yeah. Those guys. And we NEVER bicker.

Ohhh it's so much more complex than that. Take the Marines, for instance, which are the simplest. They have three forces: One stationed on the east coast, one on the west coast, and one in Japan. But that command structure overlaps with the Pentagon's. In the field, they report to one of several regional command centers, depending on their location. For the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (remember, no politics!), each war had a general who reported to the "Central Command Center" which oversaw all of the military affairs in the Middle East.

This means that a Marine in Afghanistan would report to:

- One of three commanders in the Marine Corps
- The force commander in Afghanistan
- Central Command in the Middle East

So, the answer is yes, dividing an army into multiple groups with arguing generals is not remotely implausible.

 

[Malik]

That last detachment sounds like my kind of action heroes!

My WIP is a portal fantasy. The MC loses his **** when he finds out he's been offered a commission into that order.

Ohhh it's so much more complex than that. Take the Marines, for instance, which are the simplest. They have three forces: One stationed on the east coast, one on the west coast, and one in Japan. But that command structure overlaps with the Pentagon's. In the field, they report to one of several regional command centers, depending on their location. For the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (remember, no politics!), each war had a general who reported to the "Central Command Center" which oversaw all of the military affairs in the Middle East.

This means that a Marine in Afghanistan would report to:

- One of three commanders in the Marine Corps
- The force commander in Afghanistan
- Central Command in the Middle East

So, the answer is yes, dividing an army into multiple groups with arguing generals is not remotely implausible.

A-men, brother. I deployed with a detachment that, by the time it all shook out, reported to the Army Reserve Command (USARC), USASOC, SOCAFRICA in Stuttgart, the Southern European Task Force out of Vicenza, and then got split between JSOTF-TS and SOCCE-HOA once we hit the theater. It took us most of the deployment just to figure out what patch we were supposed to wear. (EDIT: And then there was a separate jacked-up dogleg to this, when a few us went off with the 5e RIAOM, but that's another story.)

I'm just really glad I didn't get captured.

"WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR, AMERICAN DOG!?"

"Dammit, really? Here I was hoping you could tell me."

 

[buyjupiter]

Also, if memory serves, one of the British generals (Montgomery?) disagreed vehemently with Eisenhower about certain things... but I could be mis-remembering or mistaken.

Monty didn't get along with anybody. Apparently the rivalry between Monty and Patton was exaggerated for the film. But what you might be remembering is from Monty's memoirs. He went after Eisenhower, claiming that Eisenhower extended the war for a year due to "poor leadership". If that's what the guy is writing after the fact...it's easy to believe that he probably was like that for real too.

 

[GeekDavid]

Monty didn't get along with anybody. Apparently the rivalry between Monty and Patton was exaggerated for the film. But what you might be remembering is from Monty's memoirs. He went after Eisenhower, claiming that Eisenhower extended the war for a year due to "poor leadership". If that's what the guy is writing after the fact...it's easy to believe that he probably was like that for real too.

Might be where I picked up the idea. However, different flag officers having wildly different ideas is just human nature.

 

[FatCat]

As long as it makes sense within your story, I wouln't worry about it. There's a time to write and a time to think, and I think you've passed the intellectual phase of what you want to do. As long as the two generals are at odds there's tension, and tension is always good. Sounds to me that you have an idea of where you want to take your characters, so go ahead and take them. Armies be damned, reality is odd enough to find a conclusion that represents your fantasitical world.

 

[Graylorne]

Before the time of standing armies (XVIIth century), armies were generally made up of noblemen's private forces. Many noble commanders were touchy characters, so infighting was quite usual, especially in armies with a not over-strong prince or marshal in general command.

Bickering between commanders and their seconds-in-command have always been common as well, so you don't need two armies per se to create tension.

 

[Sam Evren]

Rome had issues with military commanders bickering throughout the Punic Wars. Generals bickering about different strategies, different ranks. As I recall, there was a shared generalship of one of the armies facing Hannibal. The commanders literally took turns every other day, which went really well for them. /sarcasm

If you look far enough - or wide enough - in history, you'll find just about anything you can imagine.

Multiple army groups can and do, however, work well together.

 

[hots_towel]

thanks for the replies everyone. very insightful! and happy thanksgiving

 

[skip.knox]

Define "army".

Seriously, in some historical battles the armies involved were no more than a few hundred on either side. In just about every historical setting I know, there was room for multiple armies with multiple more or less independent and self-reliant commanders. If you want the classical (in every sense) example, think Roman Republic. Those Romans had two commanders, two consuls, each with his own army. Sometimes they were sent on a specific mission and sometimes the commanders themselves set the agenda. Only occasionally and at great need did they combine their armies. The Empire, of course, had commanders scattered all over the place and literally dozens of armies.

So, you've got plenty of room for your two.

 

[wordwalker]

Especially, all nations have different military fronts, to one degree or another. "War on two fronts" is remembered as suicidal when it's a serious struggle on both borders, but it's more likely one might be just nasty neighbors that send raids but don't really want to invade. And another border might be lands your kingdom IS invading, slowly pushing in to a weaker land and taking a bit each year. Any degree of conflict short of the-kingdom's-in-peril war.

Once you have those skirmishes, each front's leading noble/general tries to unify the forces on that front, as his own property as opposed to his rivals on the other fronts. You then have the question of how many other leaders near him are able to hold on their own forces, cooperate with theirs (sometimes), or be absorbed by him and settle for jockeying for glory and influence against his other subordinates. A few generations (or weeks) later, these forces may wind up starting wars between themselves-- or with the "traitorous and illegitimate" forces on the other end of the kingdom.

Danger creates opportunity-- for politicians, by their making more danger out of it.

 

[Zero Angel]

There are armies, and then there are standing armies. Most of the comments have focused on modern conventions, but I find "standing" armies to be rather impractical in most historical or fantastical societies...unless you have a reason why a nation is wealthy enough to maintain the armies.

First, where are the troops coming from? Most common troops are conscripted from peasants. In a feudal society we get a lot of "knights" that bring their own soldiers, and those soldiers are selected from commoners. It depends on the knight that owns the peasants whether they regularly train or not (by regularly, I mean a few days a year), and usually on that knight for their equipment as well.

The leaders may be (and probably are) elite troops with the best armor available. In the middle ages, a well-equipped well-trained knight was nigh unto a god in the battlefield. You can experience this for yourself without having better equipment by becoming a part of the SCA. A well-trained swordsman can dispatch untrained opponent after untrained opponent with little to fear. Add in heavy armor compared to clothing or at best boiled leather, and you have a tank amongst light infantry.

Their lieutenants may also be well-trained and well-equipped if they are able to accept a lesser role in the army, but how long can you expect conscripted peasants to stick around? Desertion is not uncommon in any protracted engagement, and frequently there was a time limit on the conscription already (1-3 months I've heard for middle ages). If you have farmers engaged in battle, then you may be letting a farm go fallow, which leads to starvation of both your troops and your population.

For a standing army at all, you need a "middle class" group of people, unless you have a vast noble population. It needs to be able to be a sustainable job for someone, or else your army will not sustain through peace-time. Even a standing army looks to expand rapidly during war-time (just look at the US after 9/11. We already had one of the largest military's on Earth, but then started lowering requirements to get into the army and aggressively recruiting, including de-privatizing school records to recruiters (although I left secondary teaching shortly after so I don't know if that's still the case)), but if you have a significant standing army, then you have a nice solid core that can more rapidly assimilate new troops.

If you can achieve one standing army, then it is perfectly conceivable to have two or more. Worst case scenario: take your one standing army and divide it in two. This could also lead to tensions if the general of the overall army had his command cut in half and a former subordinate elevated to his equal, especially if he or she felt the subordinate not qualified.

 

[Mr. Steve]

Chiming in with the fact that you can have good bickering within one army. The French army at Agincourt had no fewer than 11 major commanders. Charles D'Albret, as Constable of France appointed by the French king, was theoretically supposed to be the supreme commander of the French army. The reality was that D'Albret was of lesser social station than the dukes and counts in the French army, and the result was that he was forced to share command with men for whom it was likely that their noble title was their sole qualification for command. To say that Agincourt was a crushing disaster for the French is probably a nigh-comical understatement.