Why were armies so much larger in antiquity than in the middle ages?

.>duuuur dis people can field tens of thousands of sojars while the other one can't
>dis mus be impossible!
>differences in military organizashun don't existed!

Logistics. A huge empire like the Roman one, with free and easy trade inside its borders, could arm and supply an army much easier than the medieval states.

The medieval knight is equivalent to a Roman equite, not the average legionary.

Medieval footmen just didnt mass like that, the armies didnt perform massive campaigns nor travelled very far, and they werent as relevant due to how much of warfare was skirmishes and sieging. But they still had average to good gear, paid by themselves or their lord/general, and drilled routinely, just like legions.

>The medieval knight is equivalent to a Roman equite

Nope.jpg.

The Equites initially did military roles as cavalry during the time of the Kingdom and the very early days of the republic. but eventually just became a social class. The cavalry ended up as jobs performed by regular ass wage-paid soldiers.

Heck the lions share of the Roman Cavalry was made up of Auxilia- unprivileged, non-citizens- since Romans were dumbfucks as horsemen and relied on people within the Expanded Republic/Empire that had good cavalry traditions like Iberi, Celts, Thracians, or Pannonians.

>Why were armies so much larger in antiquity than in the middle ages?
Because the numbers are very likely to be bullshit and no one feels like calling them out.

For instance, observe the modern consensus on the Greco-Persian Wars. Just 20 years ago it was still accepted that both sides threw around hundreds of thousands of men. We now know that the entire Persian invasion force of Greece, including non-combatants, couldn't possibly have numbered more than 200-300k in total (not all of whom would actually engage), maybe half of them would be combatants, and that the Greeks had a fraction of those numbers.

Because antiquity is bullshit. As said, En-men-lu-ana didn't actually reign for 43,200 years. Everything is misreported and inaccurately recorded and should absolutely not be believed in any way. There's too much national pride wankery for anyone to actually step back and consider that maybe there weren't 40,000 combatants at a battle in 1500BC.

>The Equites initially did military roles as cavalry during the time of the Kingdom and the very early days of the republic. but eventually just became a social class. The cavalry ended up as jobs performed by regular ass wage-paid soldiers.

So... Just like knights.

>including non-combatants, couldn't possibly have numbered more than 200-300k in total
That is still more compared to Medieval European Kingdoms who struggle to make even 10,000.

>medieval european kingdoms, with several thousand years of technological advancement over ancient greece, are forced to rely on armies of 10,000 because that's at the absolute limit of their logistical capability despite the fact the war is in their own country
>all of this is easily verified by multiple historical sources and a plethora of artifacts from the time period and location in question

vs

>one guy who died three thousand years ago said persia invaded greece with 500,000 soldiers
>absolutely no way for this to ever be tested, let alone verified, so everyone just rolls with it

GEE I WONDER IF ONE OF THESE STATISTICS IS FABRICATED HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

No.
1) Knights are social elites. The Mass of Roman cavalrymen weren't even part of the society of the entity he's serving until he completes his term and becomes a citizen. Legion Cavalry were basically from the same social class as their infantry comrades were.

2) Knights are paid in land and are self sustaining. They own their own horses and equipment. A Roman cavalryman's equipment is all paid for by the state. None of that shit comes out of a soldier's pocket.

contd.

contd.

The Medieval Knight originated from the Frankish "Miles" of the Frankish Kingdom. A Miles was literally a "Soldier." A professional one. Who stood in stark contrast to the part timers that formed the mass of the Frankish army.

Now for the cunts to remain professional, and since the Realm couldn't afford to pay for everyone's fucking weapons and equipment, Frankish lords alloted Miles plots of land in order to liberate the Soldier from anything other than professional military service, in addition to giving him a means to sustain himself and buy weapons. During this time there was no social difference between the Miles who were stuck in infantry roles and the Miles who served as cavalry. They were equals. The horsemen were merely the ones who became rich enough to afford a horse. Hell tactically there wasnt even any difference: the mounted Miles were less cavalry and more mounted infantry.

However when the combined threat of Magyar, Muslim, and Norse raids threatened Frankish Hegemony, the ones with horses rose in prominence as they were able to ride out quickly and interdict multiple threats. In addition to being able to stand toe to toe vs. Magyars and Muslims who had good cavalry.

And so the Knightly class was born and their importance rose socially, eclipsing their infantry fellows entirely until they swallowed them completely, with the infantry miles being pretty much tenants/employees of a cavalry miles who became Knights.

contd. contd,

You want to look for people who resembled Knights in antiquity? Don't look at Europe, look at Persia. The Parthian and Sassanid Empires ran a feudal society dominated by a landed heavy cavalry warrior aristocracy who like knights paid for their own equipment

>Tiny ass-states with a decentralized as fuck military systems could not field as much soldiers as the likes of Rome or Persia.
>HURRR DA ANCIUNTS R LYIENG.

The middle ages were a post-apocalytpic wasteland following the fall of rome

>believing patently impossible figures because you have a hard on for THE ANCIENTS who can DO NO WRONG and recorded INFALLIABLE AND CORRECT FACTUAL FACTS because they're THE ANCIENTS

Go suck on a lead pipe and develop dementia before you're thirty.

>Implying I'm putting the ancients on a pedestal.
Look, you fucking idiot. Rome presided over a state entity that was larger than what fucking Medievalshits could pull. In addition to the way they organized their military (WHICH DIDN'T REQUIRE HANDING OUT HUGE SWATHES OF LAND TO SOLDIERS SO THEY HAVE A MEANS TO EQUIP THEMSELVES FOR WAR. ), this means that while the numbers may be exagerrated, they were still fielding shit larger than what Medievalshits and their shoddy military system (that they barely even control as Duke X may not like the King and make up some bullshit excuse not to show up in muster) could fucking do.

>ITT: Everyone had the same military systems in the medieval ages.
Not really desu.

Sure, there's giving knights land to support themselves.

But there's also.
>Mercenaries.
>Urban Militias.
>Men at Arms who are basically employees of knights/lords

The real limiter of the numbers of Medieval soldiers is the expense to outfit one and the inability of many Medieval states to completely pay for everything. So with the exception of Knights & Men at Arms, a lot of soldiers were part timers like Militiamen going home to their civilian lives or firing Mercenaries once the war is over.

As for you: giving soldiers land to outfit themselves doesn't lead to a small army automatically.

Macedon and Imperial China did the same thing. Albeit its kinda unfair to drag China into this since they did have a very large realm.

But we're still talking about Equites, NOT Alae, NOT auxiliary riders, NOT cataphractarii. And the comparison for them still fits. At first just citizens who had to own their own horse in the least and equip themselves thus being of wealthy standing, turning into a pseudo-class with political pull.

Also post-Marian Romans were rewarded with citizenship and a plot of land for their service.

larger population and stuff,urbanization and shit
also Roman and Chinese has better roads thus better access
Uruk had 50k population in 2500 BC,Girsu had 100k population by 2100,Memphis reached 60k in 2000 and Thebes followed suit
China reached 100k by 1200 BC
Alexandria and Rome both reached 1 million by the turn of the century
the west didn't reach those numbers again until the 1800's

>But we're still talking about Equites, NOT Alae, NOT auxiliary riders, NOT cataphractarii

As that user has already pointed out: the Equites didn't serve militarily anymore after the early republic.

All of Rome's Cavalry were pretty much wage-earning soldiers from lower classes.

>As that user has already pointed out: the Equites didn't serve militarily anymore after the early republic

Middle Republic actually, they were still a thing going into the Macedonian wars. They never truly went away from the battlefield either, they just became the officer class and the officers' bodyguards and so on.

it doesn't matter where they draft from, it matters where they get the resources to support said army from
The late roman republic still had massive territories filled with farms capable of sustaining immense armies

romans exaggerated every single thing they wrote...

>comparing ancient myths to well established and documented Roman practises

like carthage

one has a rich economy and collects taxes like a pro.
the other is a poor mix of counts and dukes and collecting taxes isnt very modern.

hell look at roman mines in spain.

Your retarde ass doesn’t understand iron age kingdoms and empires were largely urnbwnized, in this particular case Not only was the persian empire largely urbanized, but babylon and persepolis had hubdreds of thousands of inhabitants, while most medieval European kingdoms were rural and their biggest cities didn’t exceed 25-30,000 inhabitants

The Romans had a giant fucking empire and controlled the entire Mediterranean. There not only was no medieval equivalent but probably not even anything close until the turn of the century.

actually 30 Years war battles were on smaller scale because around 80-90% of all forces (mostly militia and peasants) participated in sieges, when the field armies were mostly professional paid forces, and cost/maintance of this forces were very costly. Also war economy was very different in Imperial Rome times and early modern times. Cost of artillery was very big around 50-60% of kings budget.

What often gets ignored is how Medieval armies were smaller on purpose at first, which eventually became institutionalized as society changed to accommodate the new norm. The various Germanic hordes that settled in Western Europe had tribal levies that could muster several tens of thousands of warriors, but when they settled and formed their new kingdoms they formed a military elite ruling over the Roman masses. This meant that their tribesmen had their own laws which were privileged, so local Romans started intermarrying with the settlers and eventually started claiming the rights of these tribesmen for themselves - including the right to bear arms and be counted as soldiers in the tribal army. As these mixed-marriage descendants didn't have the same customs and loyalties of the original tribes the kings began to restrict their rights, and so restricted their recruitment and mobilization in favor of household troops. These house guards morphed into the early feudal lords, who in turn mobilized their own private forces as the common tribesmen were demilitarized.

>documented Roman practises
Largest Roman army ever fielded was at Cannae and it was 85k men with supply lines and in their home country. Why would I believe that Darius could support a million man army or Xerxes two million? If you ever saw what it takes to support a platoon of Marines you'd know better than to make such a ridiculous statement.

>Largest Roman army ever fielded was at Cannae and it was 85k men with supply lines and in their home country
That's wrong you retard. Cape Ecnomus was enormously larger, and from further away.

>Cape Ecnomus
You are completely retarded if you believe this.

Wew

Well there was this huge plague killing a shit ton of people before the dark age and medieval period and collapse of large centralized states. Then another plague killed a ton of people again.

Just economics.
An average individual in the middle ages was more productive than an individual in the empires of antiquity, and thus more valuable working than fighting.

>I don't actually have a rebuttal.

Come on, tell me why exactly you find the numbers Polybius gives for Cannae credible but not the ones he gives for Cape Ecnomus credible. You really don't think the ability to move and concentrate supplies on the water, or the fact that rowers need no property to row effectively and thus a pyramidal wealth structure in the Roman Republic means that you have a huge pool of men who are eligible as rowers but not eligible to fight on land.

Because antiquity is way cooler

>. The Mass of Roman cavalrymen weren't even part of the society of the entity he's serving until he completes his term and becomes a citizen.

Depends a whole Hell of a lot on when in Roman history your are talking about.

actually Philippe was bigger than that

When the first post is the best post.

Its not right to just cite roman size because the iberians and gauls did mass large hosts even if they were not as organized as the romans

and populations

that is the best bit of medieval European art ive ever seen

Beg pardon? I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm not aware of any battle called "Philippe" in any of the punic wars.

David Hume actually wrote an essay on this issue.

econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Hume/hmMPL34.html

noone was talking about the punic wars
philippi has as many as 400,000 Romans and auxiliaries, and almost certainly had over 200,000.

I was certainly talking about the punic wars. I entered the thread in response to this post, where he claimed that the largest Roman army ever fielded was at Cannae, and I pointed to another punic wars battle, Cape Ecnomus, which was bigger.

The fact that there were cities bigger than armies really has no bearing on things, and is a rather poor point of comparison.

wow how completely irrelevant.
pretty much all of his essay has been made mute by archaeology

you said it yourself....the original poster said "ever fielded"...not "ever fielded in the Punic wars."
Not only that but you never made any statements yourself about the exclusivity of the Punic war....in other words, you're a retard

also, this is only my 2nd post in the thread

Roman armies before Marius were moving cities.

Infant mortality was far higher before modern medicine. Logistics was far inferior to the systems of the past century. Population was simply way lower in ancient time frames.

The first city to reach a million people was Rome in the 1st century AD. Rome wouldn't have that many people again until the late 1800s-early 1900s.

>infant mortality
irrelevant. Population is population, and Hellenic and Roman era populations were higher (at least at population centers). infant mortality was higher during most of the middle ages from lower quality living conditions regardless.
>Logistics
Hellenic and ancient logistics were generally better than Medieval armies. Comparing to more recent logistics is irrelevant. We're having a medical vs ancient debate.
>The first city to reach a million people was Rome in the 1st century AD.
Thus proving that ancient armies were larger.
In fact in ancient times there were dozens of cities larger than even the largest medieval European cities.

>medical vs ancient
*modern vs anceint
Freudian slip

more Romans died in Arausio, counting 125k.

people just completely forget that battle happened and it involved that many people.

It's exaggerated in two respects: first, because inflating the numbers (especially the number of enemies) makes your army look all the mightier (my army of 10k beat an army of 12k vs my army of 50k beat an army of 90k) and secondly because some numbers might be used for symbolic significance (like 153,000 in the context of Christians persecuted by Khosrow II)

fpbp