Jump to content

Military Size


Super Squirrel

Recommended Posts

I'm posting this in other genres as it isn't really a fantasy question persay.

 

What should be a good percentage of military to civilian ratio for a country that consists of a single, isolated city? The military would mostly be for law enforcement but would have occasional outside aggressors that would be little more than large raiding parties. In case it helps, the weapons provided to the military consists of mostly swords, spears, axes, and crossbows. Crossbows are restricted to special forces due to limited resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Military Size

 

It really depends a lot on your setting/culture, but a total number of 5% for a full turn out is probably not too high, and 1-2% is probably closer to every day numbers.

 

To put those numbers in perspective, in the 1300s Siena had a population of nearly 100,000 and could field an army of 6000, which was mostly town militia supplemente by local nobles, their retinue and mercenaries. Milan, which was about 50% bigger, could field an army of 15,000, but that included a lot of mercenaries. Since these were both very wealthy cities, which had control over a fair deal of surrounding countryside, with extensive trade and banking networks and had been at war with most of the neighbours for some time, this is probably pretty close to maximum.

 

At the other extreme, early republican Rome, which was on a more or less permanent war footing, required every able-bodied male to serve when needed and they were able to draft up to 30% of their citizenry to fight in an emergency (which is why the Romans could keep losing thousands in battles and still keep fighting). Of course, they only got away with this, because about 20% of the population were slaves (not citizens), who could be used to keep things running, but even so, that approach nearly bankrupted the state due to losses in their labour force and the need to feed all the soldiery.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Military Size

 

Or you could model the culture after the Spartans.... where every male was required to be a soldier, those that did not server we not considered Spartan. Those born with deformities were either killed at birth or left to die. Most women did not serve, but there was a female force that the idea/legend of the Amazon Warrior is based on. For them I would put the total at close to 50% of Adult population (almost all of the males).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Military Size

 

I've read arguments that suggest that no society can maintain over 10% of their population under arms for any extended period (and I think "extended period" means "longer than the soldiers can go eating food they carried in themselves"). That's the full population, including all ages, both sexes, and all social stations. Both Rome and Sparta had substantial slave populations, with slaves not being permitted to bear arms, but I don't know what the citizen:slave population ratios were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Military Size

 

With a caste system like you mention, I'd guess Markdoc's 1-2% number for your Praetorians then is an upper limit for your sustained military in arms. (The caste would be larger, of course, since only a fraction of the caste is military age at any one time.) In a war you'd have that number again of levy rabble, but they aren't trained soldiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Military Size

 

I've read arguments that suggest that no society can maintain over 10% of their population under arms for any extended period (and I think "extended period" means "longer than the soldiers can go eating food they carried in themselves"). That's the full population' date=' including all ages, both sexes, and all social stations. Both Rome and Sparta had substantial slave populations, with slaves not being permitted to bear arms, but I don't know what the citizen:slave population ratios were.[/quote']This would be true for those on active duty, but you could have reserves or auxiliaries that make up a significant larger percentage than what you can sustain on duty at all times.

 

TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Military Size

 

This would be true for those on active duty' date=' but you could have reserves or auxiliaries that make up a significant larger percentage than what you can sustain on duty at all times.[/quote']

In the modern era, after the invention of the reserve system in the 1800's, you're probably right. Before that, though, societies lacked the cohesion to trust that large a segment of the population with weapons skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Military Size

 

In the modern era' date=' after the invention of the reserve system in the 1800's, you're probably right. Before that, though, societies lacked the cohesion to trust that large a segment of the population with weapons skills.[/quote']Wasn't the Greek City State system different.

 

I remember one of my teachers saying that to be a citizen of Athens you had to be in or have been in the Army (as well as being Greek, Athenian, etc...). Which goes along with why you could have things like idle philosophers and things. They were the guys with the weapons, they had the ability to destroy anyone else in the city (foreign merchants, slaves, etc...) so they got the extra priviledges.

 

In that society it was demanded that large segments had weapons and skills. You couldn't exercise your civic priviledges without it.

 

TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Military Size

 

Yes, the Greek City-States theoretically had every able-bodied male available for arms. I say "theoretically" because if you look at the size of the armies they were able to field, they didn't come close to approaching 50% of the adult population. (I don't have my books here at work - I'll try and dig up some actual numbers at home.)

 

In practise, I think Markdoc's numbers look about right. Given that your city is going to be using the military primarily for defense (ie - in the city) you could probably justify going as high as 10%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Military Size

 

With a caste system like you mention' date=' I'd guess Markdoc's 1-2% number for your Praetorians then is an upper limit for your sustained military in arms. (The caste would be larger, of course, since only a fraction of the caste is military age at any one time.) In a war you'd have that number again of levy rabble, but they aren't trained soldiers.[/quote']

Just for reference, the term "Praetorian" is not using its historical definition. I, am, however, going to trim back from 7% to 2% of the population. The next Caste has three subcategories which includes Gladiator entertainers. They can always "enlist" from the Gladiators if they need to improve their Praetorian numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Military Size

 

Or you could model the culture after the Spartans.... where every male was required to be a soldier' date=' those that did not server we not considered Spartan. Those born with deformities were either killed at birth or left to die. Most women did not serve, but there was a female force that the idea/legend of the Amazon Warrior is based on. For them I would put the total at close to 50% of Adult population (almost all of the males).[/quote']

 

In theory, yes. In practice, no. Of your adult population, a fair number are going to be needed for keeping the helot (slave) population in line (Sparta was often plagued by slave rebellions when the main army was away), for making sure that the fairly primitive supply system is functioning, for keeping the temples staffed, for keeping the government going, etc. Add to that the sick, wounded, crippled and aged and you end up where the Romans were: a bit over half your adult males are available for military service - if you push the system to its limit and enlist 12 year-olds and the healthier senior citizens (which is what the Romans were driven to on occasion). History tells us that such a system is not sustainable even in the medium term.

 

If you want a society where you could field a high percentage of warriors, look at the wandering germanic tribes of the volkwundrung. They really could put a lot of their adults into the fight because they had little physical infrastructure to maintain. The downside of course is they were poorly armed, mostly untrained and routinely got whipped by professional armies one tenth their size. Also, the downside to not having much intrastructure was that they often ended up starving in their thousands. That's not a very sustainable model either :(

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Re: Military Size

 

In the modern era' date=' after the invention of the reserve system in the 1800's, you're probably right. Before that, though, societies lacked the cohesion to trust that large a segment of the population with weapons skills.[/quote']

 

 

Tell that to the plains indians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Military Size

 

tribal societies if you where an adult then you fought.

 

The American south in the US civil war holds the record for mobization at 22% of the population the North was about 13%.

 

Most societies if you are a citizen you where a fighter (now exatly what that means changes alot.)

 

Lord Ghee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Re: Military Size

 

Or you could model the culture after the Spartans.... where every male was required to be a soldier' date=' those that did not server we not considered Spartan. Those born with deformities were either killed at birth or left to die. Most women did not serve, but there was a female force that the idea/legend of the Amazon Warrior is based on. For them I would put the total at close to 50% of Adult population (almost all of the males).[/quote']

 

Except that the vast majority of the actual population as opposed to those "considered Spartan" were slaves, meaning that once again we're talking about about 5% of the total population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Military Size

 

Except that the vast majority of the actual population as opposed to those "considered Spartan" were slaves' date=' meaning that once again we're talking about about 5% of the total population.[/quote']

 

And then again of that 5% how many are actual tip of the spear warriors.

 

I totally forget the real ratio's, but actual warrior (hack stab shot blow them up) to support (everything else) is much different than % of military to population. Take the US, we may have a large military but the warrior to support ratio in the military is anywhere from 1:18 to 1:27 depending on your source. The more ancient we go the closer to a 1:1 ration we get, but typically if it is a "civilization" there is no such thing as 1:1. As David Johnson pointed out. The Spartans could claim up to 50% because they could conveniently disregard a large % of the population as mere "slaves". LordGhee’s comment about the ACW’s 22 and 13% quote doesn’t take into account how many of the % mobilized actually were in the line, and how many were cooks and supply.

 

My suggestion is to decide how many actual combat soldiers you want, actual hack stab I kill you’s. Figure out the level of tech/support you need. Are they like the Romans with actual formal logistics and specialized support engineers, or are they along the line where each warrior supplies his own gear? Do they cook /fend for themselves, or does the lord/garrison commander provide? That sort of thing. Add a % to the number of fighters to account for this. Compare this to the population of the town/city/village. A garrison town would have a larger military ratio than a town that has a garrison.

 

And then do the most important thing "Wing it" :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Re: Military Size

 

7 or 8 per 1000 seems to the the rule of thumb for pre industrial unless you are looking at a tribal thing. This is for a proper standing army.

You could call up almost everyone if you don't mind untrained, unarmoured people with knives or pointy sticks ;) but you couldn't keep them on the field for long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Military Size

 

just saw this in an mag,

 

south had 9 million pop, 1/3 slave, 1 million men under arms.

 

1 /6 = 16.667%

 

sufferd (from memeroy,) 250,000 dead. 500,000 wounded (150,000dead due to sickness ) (my great great great grandfathers capture at vickburg released 2years later and died 2 years after that from comsumtion (TB Prob) and is not counted in that number for example.

 

fiield armies hieght prob 1863 with 250,000 soldiers and officer in field at one time.

 

Ceaser in fight the Guals number them at 20 million with only 1 million warrior class who could fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Military Size

 

well, in most pre-feminist societies, you're only looking at half the population as a base(more like 40%, since children also excluded). Of that population base, perhaps a quarter are too old, too sick or too weak to serve, leaving a maximum limit of about 30-33% of the total population. Obviously, far fewer than that percentage would be on active duty, since they'd be needed for all the various civilian duties needed to maintain their society. So, let's say a tenth of that number on "active duty" as an upper bound(3-3.5 percent), and a fifth on reserve duty(either another 3-3.5%, or 6-7%). So in a crisis, about a tenth of the population could be mobilized to fight.

In pre-modern times there might not be much of a distinction between military and paramilitary forces such as police.

Another helpful guide would be looking at estimates of total population in pre-modern eras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Re: Military Size

 

well' date=' in most pre-feminist societies, you're only looking at half the population as a base[/quote']

 

Amazons :D

 

100% of the population is female, and they are all trained in combat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...