Why Were Medieval Armies so Small?

Military history has been a subject that fascinated historians and laics alike for centuries, and with good reason.

Though undoubtedly very bloody, like it or not, often it was the force of arms, or the lack of it, that shaped the course of human history. In popular culture, in my experience it is the 20th century, especially WWII and the medieval period, that fascinated writers, directors or filmmakers the most.

The fact that these two are so popular is not surprising. WWII is the perfect and probably one of the very few really accurate cases of history where good fought evil( to a certain extent, as the Soviet Union also fought for the Allies), and in the end, the morally superior side emerged as the victors.

The Medieval period, on the other hand, was the age of chivalry, where knights in expensive shining armor fought each other to save the love of their lives, slay dragons and what not. In the popular image of the era anyway, the reality was quite a bit grimmer and looked more like different Maffia gangs competing for territory.

The two eras share a common trait in being popular, but in some other regards, they could not be any more different to be honest. WWII might be considered the period where the power of the state reached its peak, and states were able to mobilize armies which previously or since where unheard of.

To give just a comparison, the Russian invasion force that attacked Ukraine in 2022 numbered some 200,000 men initially. This may sound like an impressive number at first sight, but pales in comparison to the army Hitler deployed for Operation Barbarossa in the summer of 1941, where 3,8 million German soldiers invaded the Soviet Union. The Soviet army facing the Germans was even bigger, numbering some 5 million men. Both sides also had several more million trained reservists, who were later called up to create new armies or bring up depleted units to strength.

While WWII saw military power arguably reaching its peak, the Medieval period in terms of political entities mobilizing for war was a rather unimpressive period.

Take, for example the fateful battle of Agincourt. and the fateful Battle of Mohacs of 1526. At Agincourt, English King Henry V, leading an army that was predominantly made up of longbowmen, famously routed a much larger French force made up of the flower of French knighthood.

Compared to their available populations, however, both forces were rather unimpressive, the English army numbering only around 8,000; while the French ranging between 20,000 to 30,000, depending which source we want to believe. Both countries mobilized probably less than even 1% of their total population.

What were the reasons that made the Medieval political entities so ineficient?

One, probably the most important aspect of it was the class structure. You see, unlike today, where everyone is equal before the law, during the medieval era, society was divided into a rigid class system.

The nobles and clergy where the upper classes, the peasants were the lower class, and social mobility from the bottom up was quite limited. It was the duty of the upper classes to defend the motherland in times of danger, and the thought of arming the peasants often gave quite the fright to the upper classes, in no small part thanks to the fact that they were not sure if those weapons will not be turned against them rather than the invader.

Switching to another example, medieval Hungary in 1514 tried to organize an anti-Ottoman Crusader force that was to be raised from the peasants. However, when the landlords tried to force them to return to their estates, the peasants rebelled and rose in a rebellion that lasted for the better part of six months before it was put down.

The oddities in these period where the free cities and towns, which did not fit into either category and often enjoyed privileges, but the total number of the population living in urban areas during the Middle ages was rather low except a few areas like the Low Countries or northern Italy. The citizens of these settlements were often rich and martial enough to form powerful local militias, or they just hired mercenaries.

Unlike the rich cities, royals were often quite cash stricken, so they had to rely more on feudal levies supplied to them by the people below them on the feudal ladder. These levies were eligible to serve under certain conditions and for a limited ammount of time, rendering the maintainance of large armies for long periods more or less impossible.

The class structure had another setback to it, namely the fact that though the King/Emperor etc, were the official representatives and heads of states, their control over their domain was often indirect, and the landowning elites, secular or clerical, were often exempted from paying regular taxes, if at all, to the royal coffers, but rather paid their taxes in blood( understand military service under certain circumstances).

All in all, the feudal society of the middle ages was highly decentralized and very rigid, which prevented the royals of exploiting the full potential of the resources at hand. This in itself, however, was not necessarily a bad thing, as at the end of the day, it prevented them from taking countless man to the slaughter right?

Well, partially yes, but it did not necessarily meant that the era was more peaceful than what followed it, as rather than major conflicts lasting a few years, it was an era of petty little conflicts fought very frequently by local strongmen.

In the Holy Roman Empire for example, feuding, the resolvation of disputes by force, was legal until the 1490s, when Emperor Maximilian outlawed the practice.

What were the factors that ended the medieval period and led to the inventions of the modern militaries?

One factor was technology. The coming of gunpowder weapons and especially artillery that rendered the medieval castles, the safe havens of the feudal landowing class, obsolete, while the new modern star shaped fortresses were so expansive that only the richest of the elite could dream to afford them, leading on the long term to a concentration of power in the hand of the royals, and thus the state.

Artillery was not the only weapon that made a massive change, as handguns, later muskets, and pikes also became widespread from the late 15th century onward. Both weapons were easier to master than the traditional medieval ones, making the training of new soldiers quicker, especially in the case of the musketeers, which was much easier to master than the traditional bow.

As the balance of power shifted towards royal power and centralization, the ability of the state to exploit its resources through taxation, monopoly of issuing currency and monopoly over violence steadily grew from the 15th to 19th century, leading to a massive growth in military establishments.

Though the population of the continent was growing, it did not grew anywhere near enough to explain the difference between the armies of let’s say Charles VIII and Napoleon. In 1494, Charles invaded Italy with around 30,000 men, a large army for the period. Three centuries later, in 1805, Napoleon was planning to invade Britain with 200,000, while seven years later, he invaded Russia with half a million soldiers.

Even after losing 3/4 of his army in Russia, in 1813 Napoleon was able to raise another 400,000 by next summer to face the Sixth Coalition.

Such a feat that would have been impossible three hundred years earlier, though I imagine the peasants who would have been the cannon fodder probably were not too unhappy about it.

Source:

Parker, Geoffrey (1996). The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500–1800. Cambridge University Press;

If you are interested about Medieval history, I have collected my stories covering other topics from the era in this list.