Vision: A Resource for Writers
|
Holly Lisle's VisionThe
Numberless Hordes:
|
|
Factor |
Effect |
Resulting Army |
|
Base Population |
[base] |
4,000,000 |
|
"Draft Pool" |
|
|
|
Only 10% of women bear arms |
-47.7% |
|
|
Too young (<15) |
-20.8% |
|
|
Too old (>45) |
-
6.3% |
|
|
Not physically capable |
-10.4% |
|
|
Exempt skills/professions |
-
1.4% |
|
|
Outlaws, criminals, dodgers |
-
1.3% |
485,000 |
|
Non-chronic Disease |
|
|
|
At muster (callup) |
-25
% |
|
|
By campaign start (2 weeks) |
-25
% |
240,000 |
|
Other
requirements (navy, town watch, border guards, customs agents, bodyguards,
garrisons, camp guards) and lack of transport |
-80
% |
48,000 |
One
factor absent from Table 1—and yet a critically important one—is serfdom and
slavery. No European medieval society obligated or even allowed serfs,
slaves, and other "unfree" men to serve in an offensive force. They
might be pressed into service to defend a siege, but even that was unusual. Late
medieval nations varied tremendously in their "unfree" populations,
ranging from less than 5% in England, Scandanavia, and Silesia to 40% or more in
Muscovy and parts of France and Byzantium. This factor would act in the first
stage, when determining the size of the "draft pool."
Another
factor to which Table 1 gives short shrift is the actual callup. Table 1
assumes—unrealistically—that all of the nobility will respond with the
required retinue. The "draft dodgers" noted are simply able-bodied individuals
who choose not to go to war. The political and interpersonal realities of your
world will determine which nobles withhold their retinues. For a Crusade,
virtually all of the nobility will muster; for an unpopular cause, such as the
third resumption of the Hundred Years' War, perhaps 40% will muster. This issue
provides fertile ground for growing subplots.
We
can use these principles in reverse, too. If the plot and prose demand that the
Dark Lord of the Miskatonic's army numbers a million human soldiers, he needs to
have—as a minimum—around (1,000,000 / 48,000) * 4,000,000 = 210,000,000
human beings under his dominion. That's more than four times the population of
Europe during the 13th century, and his opponent probably needs to be as large.
And he hasn't paid his soldiers yet, bought their equipment or food, or found
any leaders.
Speaking
of paying the army, medieval economics made that very difficult. An English
soldier's daily pay was 25–40% greater than he could earn as an unskilled or
semiskilled laborer; other parts of Europe paid soldiers at least on a par with
civilian life. This burden explains why Henry V’s army left for France with
approximately 20,000 soldiers and dwindled to less than 6,000 present at
Agincourt, opposing a French army of about 24,000.
Table 2:
Typical Earnings in England, 1412–1419
|
Job |
Class |
Daily
Wage (pence) |
|
Thresher
(seasonal) |
unskilled |
1 |
|
Mason |
unskilled |
1½ |
|
Carpenter |
semiskilled |
2 |
|
Reaper
(seasonal) |
semiskilled |
3 |
|
Master
Carpenter |
skilled |
3 |
|
Master
Mason |
skilled |
4 |
|
Footsoldier |
semiskilled |
4 |
|
Archer |
skilled |
6 |
|
Man-at-arms |
skilled |
12 |
The
professional army developed when it was economical to maintain it. The reality
of hunger in Northern and Central Europe kept most men in the fields, not the
practice yards. Conversely, the rich and easy food supply of Rome and Byzantium
both increased each city's value to invaders and made possible permanent
professional armies for defense, and eventually for conquest, over 1,000 years
before it was possible to do so in Northern and Central Europe. Keeping a
permanent army requires both that pulling the men from the fields will not cause
immediate agricultural collapse, and that the government that creates the army
can afford to pay it in the long run. And that's not cheap!
Table
2 doesn't look too bad to veterans of Dungeons and Dragons, but a little
context is quite sobering. Paying the English army cost approximately 2.4
million pence in the 57 days of the Agincourt campaign, which is almost 20% of
the royal income for the year of £52,400 (12.6 million pence). Paying a
full-time professional force for a full year would cost the same for about 1,000
soldiers, who aren't producing food by toiling in the fields. Arms, arrows,
armor, food, horses for the baggage train, and other mundane expenses generally
cost 20% of total pay on nonbattle days and 100% of total pay on battle days.
Then
there's the importance of ransoms to feudal warfare. Had Henry's army been
defeated at Agincourt, England would probably have been bankrupted, both by
ransoms of nobles and the loss of tax revenue from its dead soldiers. By winning
the battle, though, England turned a tidy profit of nearly £1 million in
ransoms demanded—about 20 years of royal income! Some of those ransoms were
collected by commoners, too—and, as military historian Jim Dunnigan asserts,
probably began some of the great English landed families. Maybe your hero's (or
heroine's) family came to prominence similarly…
Even
religious wars such as the Crusades fall within these general guidelines,
although paying the army was a much less significant concern (since it wasn't
paid by the Pope). This is one loophole for fantasy armies: just make all the
wars religious wars, and many of the economic barriers to gathering a large
short-term army disappear! Historically, however, no preindustrial culture
managed to put more than 7% of the population under arms for an entire campaign
season (90 days or so) without causing famine at home. Such a large army both
drained food reserves and took too many laborers from the fields.
Generals,
Captains, and Privates
Once
we have an army, just what does one call a common soldier, or a leader of
soldiers? If all things were equal—and, as we'll see below, they're not—we
would just use a table of ranks, rather like the modern armed forces. Even such
a simple system hides some pitfalls for the fantasist, as Table 3 shows.
Table
3: Modern Military Ranks
|
Rank |
Supervises |
First Use and Comments
|
|
Private |
Nobody |
Mercenaries,
15th-16th century; a "private soldier" had more prestige than a
draftee (levy) |
|
Corporal |
6–15 |
Royal
Navy, 16th century; the sailor in charge of small-arms practice on a ship |
|
Sergeant |
0–50 |
Dark
Ages; originally a knight's sidekick, not a military rank |
|
Lieutenant |
25–100 |
France,
10th century; "assistant" |
|
Captain |
50–250 |
Dark
Ages; highest common military rank below Marshal until the 16th century |
|
Major |
200–500 |
England,
15th century; contraction of "sergeant-major," became a supply
officer under Napoleon |
|
Colonel |
400–1,200 |
Spain,
16th century; commander of a column (colonella) |
|
General |
1,200+ |
Holy
Roman Empire, 16th century; contraction of "Captain-General" |
|
Marshal |
Everyone,
in theory |
France/Normandy/England,
11th century; a noble office, not a rank, until Napoleon |
Formal
military ranks above the voice-command level (about 100 soldiers) did not
develop until the late Renaissance. (The Greek phalanx and Roman legion are not
exceptions; they were packed so tightly that voice command extended over a
greater number of soldiers.) The French army at Agincourt demonstrates what
happened instead. Immediately prior to battle, the French nobility argued over
who got to command whom, and the results depended upon the prestige of the
noble's title. For example, the Constable of France—the most experienced
professional soldier at the battle—was somewhere between seventh and tenth in
the "chain of command," and could not even order the French
crossbowmen to fire. None of his "superiors" had any experience
commanding either commoners or more than 40 or 50 men-at-arms.
Agincourt
also demonstrates other advantages of an expensive, small, relatively
professional army. The English system worked because all the arguments were
confined to the few (900 or so) nobles and gentry in the army, while the king
and commons had sorted out a very effective chain of command for the archers
(the remaining 5,000 soldiers). Sir Thomas Erpingham had complete authority over
the archers, which resulted in a clear plan, clear and timely orders, and the
destruction of French chivalry through massed fire by the archers. However, Sir
Thomas was known just as the Captain of the archers, which merely leads us back
to Table 3.
The
End of the Beginning
As
we've seen, you can make your fantasy armies more realistic—absent the effects
of magic—by:
·
Limiting the
army's size to one that won't cause famine (i.e., less than 7% of total
population), unless the plot demands such a result.
·
Remembering that
not everyone called up for service will end up on the battlefield.
·
Ensuring that the
army's owner can pay his soldiers or otherwise coerce their service.
·
Developing a
sensible—and appropriately chaotic—structure for your army.
Of
course, this article can't tell you everything you need to know to create the
mother of all fantasy battles. I recommend the following readable (although not
overly detailed) books as a starting point if your exposure to medieval military
history ends near Camelot or Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
John Keegan, The Face of Battle and A History of
Warfare.
Trevor N. Dupuy, The Evolution of Weapons and Warfare.
Elmer C. May, Ancient and Medieval Warfare.
Beyond
these four books, try reading general histories until you come across a battle
that sounds "right" for your plot, then study the battle with
more-detailed sources. As you'll discover, there are a lot of other interesting
issues in plotting a fantasy war, ranging from mercenaries to command and
control of the armies to disease. And that's before we consider the effects of
magic, ranging from just better intelligence and smokescreens to fireballs on
the battlefield, and nonhumans from hobbits to dragons. Have fun!