Campaign Season

[unmerged(7518)]

How would you like to see the limited campaign season modelled?
Armies disband? Pay to keep them in the field (pay to play?) Disease and attrition?

Discuss. Be concise, yet complete.

O.

 

[unmerged(5367)]

Seasons would have to be factored in, because the militia (farmers) are needed on the farms, lest all starve. I`m not sure wether there existed centralised granaries (and logistics) that could have provided for longer campaigns. So only when little work is needed (summer?) could there be wars.

Disease and attrition: maybe restricted to holy land, battles at home should be short enough to mostly eliminate that.

Surely there is disease, I`m not denying that, but better simulated in population growth? In holy lands without replacements readily available and longer times, attrition and diesease would be an issue.

Then there is the solution of the times: Mercenaries, only thing they need is pay, and no workforce is lost. Tho they ARE expensive

So: Yes to limited season, extended wars could be possible thru Mercs. Disease and attrition not an issue except in holy lands.

 

[unmerged(1057)]

Originally posted by O. Cromwell
How would you like to see the limited campaign season modelled?
Armies disband? Pay to keep them in the field (pay to play?) Disease and attrition?

Discuss. Be concise, yet complete.

O.

In my mind: I don´t see any large standing armies at all.
All campaigns were shortlived affairs, for the nobility (the knights) they could be "at it" for quite some time but the archers and pikemen usually had to go back to the farms when the fighting was over, sometimes they went before and left the commander standing there.
All the sources from the timeperiod usually exaggerates the figures of men involved, in most cases anyway..

 

[unmerged(547)]

IIRC, a player can mobilize a "Ducal" force so that they could bypass calling on their Counts to contribute a force. Perhaps this smaller Ducal force could be kept in the field without having to return to the manor?

 

[unmerged(485)]

In areas like England there was a responsibility for 40 days of campaigning at your own expense (every so many hides of land was to support one soldier for 40 days). After the 40 days the king was to foot the bill. I imagine campaigning will be a costly affair and one will want to disband the army as soon as is practical.

 

[Jens Z]

Another important point is that campaigning during winter season was definately very uncomfortable. Imagine soldiers sleeping without tents (most do) in snow, rain, mud and low temperatures. So the moral of an amry campaigning off season should have a harsh moral malus. Of course this does not affect town and castle garrisons.

 

[unmerged(8399)]

There are several reasons why campaigns were short. The limited feudal service period of 40 days was usual in all Western Europe AFAIK, but kings and major lords had a permanent retinue. However, horses were very dependant on fresh grass, from May to October for most Western Europe, only the Byzantine Empire had the logistical structure to keep in the field a cavalry force in winter.
As for army figures, there is no doubt historians regularly exagerated a great deal. Whenever we have a payment roll or a knights list, numbers are very low, for instance Jean dÏbelin listed a total of 579 knights for the kingdom of Jerusalem, so that counting on the Military Orders, the total number the Kingdom could field was about a thousand, but we know that vassals many times failed to show when requested, so the real field army would be around 600/700 knights maximum.
In general, armies of the period were in the few thousands, to keep a larger army was a supply nightmare in a time when Paris had less than 100.000 and most big cities were under 10.000.

 

[unmerged(3236)]

yeah i truly hope we wont see any eu sized armies when wurzburg marches around with 50k.

Hmm your example of the kingdom of jerusalem - wasnt they quite small, i quess hungary could gather a much larger army.

 

[unmerged(8399)]

I don´t know for Hungary, but the problem for fielding huge armies was mainly logistics, so that even in the XVII century, when we have acurate numbers reported, armies in battle are quite small. For instance, in November 1632 Gustavus II Adolphus was in command of a combined force of 183.000, but at Lützen he was commanding just 21.000. Armies had to split to ease supply burden.
Other examples, the Latin states of Greece had about 700 knights. There are no reliable figures for most of the 100 years war, but for the last period, at Formigny the english army was about 3.800, while 2 combined french armies were 4.200, at Castillon we don´t know for sure the french strength, but we know that Talbot had 480 knights under his command.
To sum up, I would say western european armies for the period never exceeded 10.000, and they campaigned mainly form May to October.

 

[Jos Theelen]

I would look not at the campaining but at the results, the harvest. Harvest can be good or bad. When too many people are necessary for the army, the harvest will be bad.
When the harvest is bad, other things will be bad, like the manpower of the province, the morale of the people, the attrition of the armies, the growth of the province, etc. When the harvest is good, manpower and others will be better.

A leader of a province can decide to use many people as soldiers, but in that case he will see that the value of his province goes down. If he can keep his people at work and not use them as soldiers, the value of his province will go up. When speaking in EU-terms I would say that the base-tax of that province can go up and down, simulating whether people have enough food or are hungry. And when base-tax goes up and down, things like manpower, growth, attrition in that province, etc should also go up and down.

 

[unmerged(7182)]

This should be especially taken into account in the Baltics and the like, as it really effected things for the Teutonic Order.

 

[unmerged(8608)]

Originally posted by Sonny
In areas like England there was a responsibility for 40 days of campaigning at your own expense (every so many hides of land was to support one soldier for 40 days). After the 40 days the king was to foot the bill. I imagine campaigning will be a costly affair and one will want to disband the army as soon as is practical.

Although this particular process ceased a short while after the conquest, this was used primarily from the time of Alfred the Great to the end of the Saxon period.

I'd probably agree to a certain extent with the idea of a limited campaign season, although the lack of a standing army was drawing to a close near the latter part of the CK period.

 

[unmerged(8399)]

You are right, and that could be a tech level to reach, the logistical support needed to field an army longer, still there should be winter quarters and armies very limited in size.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Timmy


Although this particular process ceased a short while after the conquest, this was used primarily from the time of Alfred the Great to the end of the Saxon period.

I'd probably agree to a certain extent with the idea of a limited campaign season, although the lack of a standing army was drawing to a close near the latter part of the CK period.

While still within 100 years of the Norman Conquest of England, in Stephens reign John fitz Gilbert made a grant to Hugh of Raleigh for the service of a knight "so defined that if there is a war he shall find me an equipped knight for two months and if there is peace for forty days for such service as the knights of the barons of the land reasonably ought to do."

 

[unmerged(8608)]

Originally posted by Sonny


While still within 100 years of the Norman Conquest of England, in Stephens reign John fitz Gilbert made a grant to Hugh of Raleigh for the service of a knight "so defined that if there is a war he shall find me an equipped knight for two months and if there is peace for forty days for such service as the knights of the barons of the land reasonably ought to do."

I'm not arguing with the 40 days service bit, but rather the hide system, which did cease with the Norman conquest...