Why were Medieval battles so small?

[Maq]

Before the end of the Roman Empire it was a globalized world with a market and diversified urban economy with precise laws, widespread infrastructure which you wouldn't see the like of until the modern era, widespread public sanitation, a complex form of government, a highly educated and competent class of bureaucrats to rule, extensive professional and standing armies with standardized equipment and logistics which wouldn't have parallels in the Middle Ages, and a much higher degree of urbanization.

... and yet, population declined, the Empire collapsed, and nobody raised their hands for its defence, while those dirty ('dark') medieval societies evolved into modernity...
I just aim to suggest that what we consider superior is sometimes rotten inside.

 

[Xeorm]

Note i wrote "urbanization" not "size of selected cities". Provincial capitals in Roman times had something like 20,000 people. That would make them major cities in the medieval times. There were many provinces. Most major cities during the middle ages did not come close to 20,000 people - heck that's what Paris amounted to during the 14th century. And some parts of Italy aside, there were tons more cities (capitals as well as other cities) during Roman times than during medieval times. How can one even dispute this.

Sources? The Paris wiki page (aka, quick spot) has Paris with a population of ~300k coming to the 1400's, dropping to 200k following the black death. Lowest point was 20k before the medieval age starts getting into full swing.

This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_European_cities_in_history looks like a decent chart of the population of cities at the time.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Sources? The Paris wiki page (aka, quick spot) has Paris with a population of ~300k coming to the 1400's, dropping to 200k following the black death. Lowest point was 20k before the medieval age starts getting into full swing.

This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_European_cities_in_history looks like a decent chart of the population of cities at the time.

You're right, I got my centuries mixed up. I was thinking of the numbers for the high middle ages, when apart of a handful of mediterrean trade cities there were barely any cities >20,000 people in western Christendom.

Admittedly, when I hear "middle ages" I don't think of the tail end (14th or 15th century) but more of the early and high middle ages - monasteries, knights, crusades, castles, Minnesänger, Ottonians, Hohenstaufers, The Anarchy, Interregnum, investiture conflict. From ca 1300s onward it is a quite different time, it no longer has that stark contrast against classical and late antiquity.

I do think, though, that when people compare "middle ages" with "Roman times" they should look at early and high middle ages, rather than selectively quoting 14th and 15th century figures to claim that "the middle ages" were as urbanized and civilized as "Roman times".

 

[Avernite]

It's not like Roman times have a specific number for anything, by virtue of lasting a few centuries too

 

[victimizer]

Logistics isn't the only factor here. European medieval battles were small because the states fighting them were small or composed of a plurality of subject entities. Even in the middle ages, larger empires could muster massive armies.

 

[JodelDiplom]

It's not like Roman times have a specific number for anything, by virtue of lasting a few centuries too

Blah - with enough nitpicking you can say that about anything.

The mediterranean world was fairly urbanized, technologically advanced, and it's economy was very monetized throughout the "Roman age" i.e. ca 150BC-400AD or so. It presents a much more uniform picture (with regards to those three areas - urbanization, technology and economy) than the period in question as "The middle ages" if that is taken to refer to the full length i.e. 700AD-1492AD or so.

For whatever its worth.