Why were Medieval battles so small?

[DelcoreXD]

Hey everyone,

I've recently been doing some research on Medieval battles since I'm quite a fan of warfare and tactics, and I couldn't help but notice how much smaller medieval battles are in comparison to almost all other eras of warfare. One example I've researched is the Hundred Years' War. In this conflict, the first battle which was known as the "Battle of Cadsand" lists England with a strength of 3,500 and the County of Flanders with "Several Thousand" which is reasonably small in comparison to Ancient times where battles with Romans often times contained well around 50,000 - 100,000 soldiers during engagements. I mean, why is this? I'm sure the population of Europe had at least improved somewhat over the ancient times and people were still power hungry enough to build large armies, so why weren't large armies involved?

Lastly, what type of tactics were even used? For most of the research I've done, knight's which were often expensive and sparse in number, often made up cavalry and the rest of the armored infantry. Did medieval lieges just train knight's for their main forces and give the rabble no armor to protect themselves at all? Like, were there actual army systems in place to where soldiers trained and went through forums of boot camp to learn important tactics? Or was this all just "Whoever had the most troops and longest 'stick' won the battle"?

Really would appreciate if someone could clear some of these questions up for me.

Thanks guys!

 

[DoomBunny]

Logistics.

You are wrong to consider that ancient armies could draw on less population and resources than their medieval equivalents.

For a start, the ancient world was in many ways far better organised than the medieval one that followed it. I'm not the most knowledgable on the period, but the population and urbanisation of Roman Italy were far in advance of medieval England or France. Methods for agriculture were also more advanced across many empires, and the climate of Europe and the immediate areas also more hospitable to growing crops IIRC (North Africa was fertile at the time, not a featureless desert). So straight away you have a larger population and more resources to draw on.

This then carries over into logistical support of campaigns. The presence of many good roads and cities to act as supply centers eased logistical concerns. Regular military organisation also helped massively. A professional army like that of the Roman empire could campaign over multiple seasons, and could rely on an efficient military bureaucracy to back it up. Meanwhile a medieval ruler had to consider that his men were also meant to be growing their crops; they were not professional soldiers, but rather seasonal levies.

The greater centralisation of power (as opposed to the decentralisation of feudal rule) meant that rulers could exercise more influence in gathering troops.

You also have the influence of mercenaries, the great trading networks of the Mediterranean generated more wealth and therefore allowed for a strong mercenary trade to develop.

As a final note, I'd say that numbers should be taken with some caution in regards to medieval battles and ancient sources. IIRC Herodotus at some point makes reference to an army of 1,000,000 Persians invading Greece. Suffice to say that 1,000,000 men would be 1,000,000 emaciated corpses rather quickly given the logistical capabilities of the day.

Someone else can probably add more detail to this.

As for who was what, well it depends very much on the era. If you're taking the classic idea of medieval warfare then social roles carried across to the battlefield. A knight was a warrior who would train personally (not necessarily in an organised fashion such as a soldier would) for his entire life and purchase his own equipment. The peasant meanwhile would be told to come along and serve his lord and would bring what best he could to protect himself.

 

[Herbert West]

As Doombunny says, the correct thing to do is to apply the same skepticism one gives medieval troop numbers to ancient ones. Soon, one reaches the conclusion that the ancient numbers are utterly impossible.
One cannot, in good conscience believe that Rome fielded bigger army units than pre-revolutionary France. 50k vs 50k engagements are rare even in Napoleon's long, long list of battles, let alone in a time where you had much worse systems to coordinate troop movements.

Secondly, medieval warfare is at least as characterized by sieges as the ancient world, if not more so. So the total number of people under arms might well outnumber the roman troop numbers, most of those were tied down in garrison duties, and due to feudal obligations and exceptions, and the constant internecine warfare of the early middle ages, could NOT be called on campaign, while Rome did on occasion strip its garrisons bare in order to have a bigger army.

 

[DelcoreXD]

So essentially, Europe went backwards during the medieval times? I'm getting this notion due to the lack of logistics, centralization of power, and agricultural technology available at the time.

 

[Herbert West]

So essentially, Europe went backwards during the medieval times?

Somewhat. Lets also not forget that the ancient world is massively overhyped, with a fraction of the criticism leveled at its numbers compared to those of pre-renessaince europe.

 

[keynes2.0]

I believe that European agriculture technology advanced, not regressed. It was the social organization that regressed. There was a transition from a market economy to ad hoc local arrangements.

 

[Jos de trol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-field_system

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Somewhat. Lets also not forget that the ancient world is massively overhyped, with a fraction of the criticism leveled at its numbers compared to those of pre-renessaince europe.

Yeah - medieval observers being less likely to make up numbers is by far the most likely explanation.

 

[Sabotage13]

I think any official accounts of pre-industrial army sizes should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

 

[Sabotage13]

Yeah - medieval observers being less likely to make up numbers is by far the most likely explanation.

IIRC, didn't a few of them not even count people that weren't milites (i.e. Knights)?

 

[Yakman]

So essentially, Europe went backwards during the medieval times? I'm getting this notion due to the lack of logistics, centralization of power, and agricultural technology available at the time.

yes, far, far, far backwards. It didn't start approaching the glories of Rome until the height of the Renaissance in a number of fields.

 

[Yakman]

I think any official accounts of pre-industrial army sizes should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Heck, look at the supposedly vast armies that ISIL is fielding - in reality it's a couple of dozen yahoos in pickups.

 

[Galaahd]

I'm sure the population of Europe had at least improved somewhat over the ancient times

And that is because?

 

[Arilou]

Yeah - medieval observers being less likely to make up numbers is by far the most likely explanation.

Though not always, and not always in the right direction.

Sometimes observers would try to guess the size of the total army (including camp followers) and end up with huge sizes. Sometimes they'd just count the actual knights, sometimes they'd count the more proffessional troops but leave out levies, etc.

Eg. there's a swedish chronicle that mentions 35 knights attacking a novgorodian fortress. That obviously wasn't the entire army.

yes, far, far, far backwards. It didn't start approaching the glories of Rome until the height of the Renaissance in a number of fields.

This is very much a simplification. Some areas advanced, some didn't. Plenty of developments (new agricultural techniques, new crops, etc.) weren't as "sexy" as the ones the romans had (roads, aqueducts, etc.)

RE: population size, it's hard to say exactly how and when. Roman empire lasted for a long time, and population varied a lot. As did the medieval population. The decline actually started during the 3rd century, IIRC, and by the 10th-11th century population was growing pretty rapidly. (reaching it's largest extent in the 13th century) Then of course came the Black Death and the population decline of the 14th century (again, this takes a while, the nadir was in the 15th century, and it wouldn't rcover until the late 16th/early 17th century)

 

[Arilou]

And that is because?

Well, for starters a lot of europe was significantly more settled during the high middle ages. (other places obviously were less so) It also depends on where you count. 1st. century AD vs. 13th century? 3rd century vs. 8th century? 5th vs. 15th? Etc.

One point of note is that even if population was higher (not neccessarily true) the fact that it was less urbanized would mean it would be harder to get soldiers out of it.

Note that population estimates at this point are very much guesswork (admittedly fairly qualified guesswork) we just don't have the kind of records required to make proper estimates.

 

[JodelDiplom]

So essentially, Europe went backwards during the medieval times? I'm getting this notion due to the lack of logistics, centralization of power, and agricultural technology available at the time.

Of course, yes, technologically and in terms of gross economic output or population numbers, the medieval world was on a lower level than the ancient world. At least in the Mediterranean and western Europe.

Many reasons - different climate, different memes, different religion. The ancient world was crassly materialist, the medieval world somewhat less so. Also, the ancients kind of ran their society into the ground, economically and environmentally. The medievals had to pick up the pieces and work with it. It tooka long time until Europe had proper cities again - urbanization of the Roman empire wasn't reached again until the 18th century.

 

[pithorr]

I don't agree about the technology. The constant development proceeded, also in the art of war. Stirrups, plate armor, the heavy cavalry, gunpowder etc.

 

[Avernite]

One cannot, in good conscience believe that Rome fielded bigger army units than pre-revolutionary France. 50k vs 50k engagements are rare even in Napoleon's long, long list of battles, let alone in a time where you had much worse systems to coordinate troop movements.

It probably helps that we remember a handful of battles from all the battles of the Romans, where each of us can probably get close to as many just from the Napoleonic decades. And the battle of Leipzig IS vastly bigger than any Roman battles (300k vs 200k, give or take - which beats out the entire Dacian conquest, all in a single battle).

 

[The-Doc]

Surely smaller conflicts and numbers of men pressed into arms is a sign of progress?

 

[nerd]

Surely smaller conflicts and numbers of men pressed into arms is a sign of progress?

By that logic, the headhunter conflicts in Polynesia were the epitome of progress, and 20th century Europe truly abysmal.