battles and casualties

[Devin]

I'm curious about the scale of warfare in this period. Based on the AAR's, it seems that the size of opposing armies in any single battle ranges from a few thousand to a hundred thousand. The upper end of this range strikes me as a bit high. It makes no difference for gameplay, but is this historically accurate?

What was the largest historical battle (in terms of manpower) fought in Europe at this time?
What was the largest body count from any single battle in this period?

I know there's a military history buff out there who can help me...

 

[unmerged(13)]

OK,

first of all historical army battle sizes and casualties are usually so different from source to source that it's impossible to successfully determine the more or less exact number. Have a look at the Polish-Swedish discussion for example ... The side that lost the battle most probably lowers the figures so that it doesn't look like a great defeat, whilst the winning size pushes enemy casualty figures / and army size to make it seem more of a great victory. It's the same for other conflicts.

I know of several huge battles, though my speciality is more in central / eastern Europe so I'll give you those figures.

1410 - Battle of Grunwald. Poles vs the Order. Figures are wild on casualties and numbers of this battle, though almost everyone agrees it was the largest battle in the medieval ages in the whole of Europe. Figures are from between 45,000 to >100,000 soldiers from both sides.

1610 - Klushino. Poles vs Muscovites (with mercenary support from the west). Poles had 9,000 men, the Muscovites around 30,000.

1651 - Beresteczko. Poles vs Cossack rebels with Tartar support. Apparently the largest cavalry battle of the 17th century. Poles had in excess of 45,000 men whilst many sources claim the Cossack side had over 100,000 men. Whatever is the fact, ppl are still discovering weapons and armour from the earth where the battle was thought even now.

1621 - Chocim1. Poles vs Turks. Poles had about 10-20,000 men. Turks were besieging the fortress .. figures are said to be anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000.

1673 - Chocim2. Poles vs Turks. Poles had between 20,000 and 40,000 men. The Turks apparently had between 80,000 and 120,000 men. This time it was the Poles time to charge into the fortress.

1683 - Relief of Vienna. Combined Polish/German force under Sobieski was about 45-50,000 men. Turks are said to have had a huge around exceeding 100,000 men.

Again, these figures should always been taken with a grain of salt, though they are more trusted if they are represented in several different historical sources. The above battles are some of the largest ones I can recall. Many of the larger ones the Poles fought against were usually hordes of Tartar cavalry, huge Turkish armies of janissaries and Turkish cavalry as well as huge mobs of Muscovite armies.


Sapura



[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 26-07-2000).]

 

[unmerged(164)]

Along the same vein of questioning.

The Netherlands: I was a little concerned to see the Netherlands as a military juggernaut. I realize the need to have a giant Netherlands army at formation otherwise they would never gain independence from Spain. Upkeep on that army however must be staggering (?), maybe. Are the provinces of the Netherlands really that valueable?

Timeline AAR: I have already mentioned the Netherlands, so let's go the the Sapura comment in regard to the Knight and Prussians. 'They are my next target, though I'll need to co-ordinate my attacks very well because they've built up relatively big armies, and of course they are allied together against me.' Curious really how big the armies are and how they can afford to pay for them.

Maintenence cost: Does each type of unit have a different maintenence cost?


Thanks

 

[Doomdark]

Another factor one should remember is that observers tended to include the often huge number of non-combatants in their estimations of enemy forces.

For example, initial Swedish estimations of the Russian force at Narva was 60,000. This was true in a sense, but only half were actual soldiers; the rest were camp followers and support personnel.

Another point I'd like to raise is that many of these reported huge 'armies' mostly consisted of poorly equipped rabble, raw recruits or peasant militia. This was especially often the case with Turkish and Russian forces.

There are natural limits to how huge an army can be before it dissolves of attrition. From what I gather, EU simulates this rather well.

 

[unmerged(13)]

Are the provinces of the Netherlands really that valueable?


They are very valuable, yes. Also, relatively highly populated.


Curious really how big the armies are and how they can afford to pay for them.

a) They have not be involved in an internatinal conflict for over >50 years. That is from the time they gained independence from the Poles during that civil war.

b) They've had no civil wars / revolts probably due to their small geographical size and 0 conflicts

c) Prussian armies are around 45k at the moment. The armies of the Order around 35k. Each province has a maximum 'weight' load that the population can support. For example say the max load supply w/o causing attrition for 'Karelia' maybe '10':

1,000 inf. men = 1 unit 'weight' load
2,000 inf. men = 2 units ..and so on. So you can have 10,000 INFANTRY only in that province w/o causing them any attrition. However 'weight' loads are different for cavalry and artillery. Cavalry I believe is either the same as the infantry i.e. 1,000 cav = 1 unit or slightly higher. Artillery has the most 'weight' load units per 10 artillery pieces.

So for example ... Karelia has 10 max weight load supply. I may have 5,000 infantry in the province .. = 5 'unit' weight load (leaving me 5 free..) ..and perhaps 1,000 cav taking another 2 units of weight load (I don't remember the exact figures..). So that is 7 units in total giving me 3 left. Then I may purchase 10 artillery pieces, which may give me a weight load of 3 ..giving me a total of 10 equalling the total max for the province giving me no atrition. If however the weight load of the army is higher than the max supply of the province then the army will slowly bleed away until it reaches sustainable limits for that particular province.


Maintenence cost: Does each type of unit have a different maintenence cost?

I believe there is one maintenance cost 'slider'. Armies can be fully supported causing min attrition / keeping moral high, whilst you can decrease the maintenance costs and channel the funds into something else.

Another point I'd like to raise is that many of these reported huge 'armies' mostly consisted of poorly equipped rabble, raw recruits or peasant militia. This was especially often the case with Turkish and Russian forces.

It may have been true for the Muscovite forces in general, but Turkish armies were much better organized, usually with decent fire support in the musketry, though usually lacking strong artillery, unless laying siege to strong defensive structures like Chocim.

There are natural limits to how huge an army can be before it dissolves of attrition. From what I gather, EU simulates this rather well.

EU simulates it very well. An army of 100,000 men is seriously reduced within a month if it moves in one large mass due to attrition. RARELY will you see an army of more than 100,000 men of one nationality though. Most often it'll be either the Poles / Muscovites / Turks or French.

Sapura


[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 26-07-2000).]

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Devin on 07-26-2000 01:39 PM
I'm curious about the scale of warfare in this period. Based on the AAR's, it seems that the size of opposing armies in any single battle ranges from a few thousand to a hundred thousand. The upper end of this range strikes me as a bit high. It makes no difference for gameplay, but is this historically accurate?

What was the largest historical battle (in terms of manpower) fought in Europe at this time?
What was the largest body count from any single battle in this period?

I know there's a military history buff out there who can help me...

Battles with 100K on either side would be VERY rare. The biggest problem was both paying these guys (you are talking pre- levee en masse forces so they are pure mercs, save the Sweedes who did a greta job of bleeding the nation white) and even more important feeding them. You can only forage with so large a force for so long. By the 18thc forces actually got smaller as it became accepted practice to actually supply your forces rather than forage.

The AAR's with reports of 85k armies on one side have me a bit curious too since they seem very large. The armies of the 30 Years War hovered around 30k-50K men. For example:

At Breitenfeld the Protestant forces numbered about 40k-45k. Tilly's army was somewhat smaller.
At White Mountain Tilly had 25k and the Protestants had 15k.

By the time of Blenheim you have Marlborough around (comined with the Elctor's army) 55k and the Gallo-French forces about 60k

During the Poltva campaign Charles XII has about 80k men in Russia but at Poltva had only 24k men facing the Russians who had about 80k

Frederick the Great inherted about 80k troops and expanded the army of about 150k but never employed the full of his army in the field- garrisons and forts and the general division of forces at the time prvents that. At Luethen he had 30k to Austria's 60k for example.

 

[unmerged(28)]

Yes, but one must also be a bit pragmatic here. We have one game system and within it the developers have tried to facett the huge armies of the Ottomans, the rather large armies at the end of 18th century and at the other side the small border wars be tween sweden-denmark for example we one side rarely fielded more than 8000 men because of the unsuitability of the terrain and the smaller armies of the early 16th century.

Thus the system is a generalization yes, but a rather good one. Early on you are often low on cash meaning smaller armeis and later on you have more cash and can recruit larger forces. And fielding a 100 000+ army means huge attrition, ie not cost efficient.

/Greven

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Greven on 07-26-2000 10:11 PM
Yes, but one must also be a bit pragmatic here. We have one game system and within it the developers have tried to facett the huge armies of the Ottomans, the rather large armies at the end of 18th century and at the other side the small border wars be tween sweden-denmark for example we one side rarely fielded more than 8000 men because of the unsuitability of the terrain and the smaller armies of the early 16th century.

Thus the system is a generalization yes, but a rather good one. Early on you are often low on cash meaning smaller armeis and later on you have more cash and can recruit larger forces. And fielding a 100 000+ army means huge attrition, ie not cost efficient.

/Greven

How does it handle attrition? Is this just a fixed % of your army or does a larger army attrit at a faster rate. Will climates and areas (i.e. deserts and frozen areas) increase the attrition rates?

Also, do plaugues ever sweep through as a random event?

 

[unmerged(164)]

Thank you very much for the breakdown. The system looks very solid. I must say I am extremely pleased on seeing how troop sizes and armies in general are handled.

 

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by Sidney on 07-27-2000 02:49 AM
How does it handle attrition? Is this just a fixed % of your army or does a larger army attrit at a faster rate. Will climates and areas (i.e. deserts and frozen areas) increase the attrition rates?

Also, do plaugues ever sweep through as a random event?

The larger army you have the higher is the attrition taken toll. Not that it is for each province, that is it is rather the total number of troops in the province than army. One or ten armies doesn't matter absolute numbers does. Supply lines are also important if you have an army in a province which is neither a supply source or can trace a direct overland route to one (that is without tracing it threw enemy territory) then the attrition is increased. Climates and terrain will influence the attrition rate as well as the provincial supply value.

I can't remember that I ever got a plaugues event though...

/Greven

 

[unmerged(13)]

I remember getting a plague event at least 1-2 times during my games so far. Still, it's very rare ...


Sapura

 

[unmerged(41)]

EU 'battles' aren't battles, they're campaigns waged over days, just as provinces aren't battlefields. The scale doesn't allow for such refinement.

In the Age of Reason the most crucial political changes were often caused by a handful of men failing their morale in a very shot space of time - usually between breakfast and midday on a chosen battlefield. By modern standards few people actually died from such wars or battles.