Wondering About Population/Army Sizes

[Scorponok]

When you build a kingdom/empire, how many soldiers/town guards should it have? I base this on population, and from what people have told me, usually the percentage of people in an army is roughly 5%, and increases up to a maximum of 10% during wartime. This means in a town of 1000, not currently fighting any wars, there should be approximately 50 guards? If a PC party wants to invade a town, how do you handle this? Do you just send wave after wave of 10 guards each until the PCs wipe them all out (or the PCs get wiped out) or do you do something else to determine the outcome?

[Karl Aegis]

There's a huddled mass of dudes whose only purpose is to buy enough time for the rest of the town to escape. They just stand in a circle hoping to clog the most direct way to the civilians so you can't get to the noncombatants fast enough. These people aren't soldiers, they don't know good tactics, but they do have something to protect. They will die before they let you get to their loved ones.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Here's your reference for modern-day countries. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_parami litary_personnel)

North Korea tops the list at ~30% total military (including reserve) and paramilitary personnel, or 5% active military personnel. Haiti has the fewest, with no active service personnel at all, and 0,02% paramilitary personnel. Do note: "Many of the 174 countries listed here, especially those with the highest number of total soldiers, such as the two Koreas and Vietnam, include a large number of paramilitaries, civilians and policemen in their reserve personnel."

So I don't know what people have been telling you about armies, but 5% seems really high. They were either all North Koreans, or they were talking a different time, or they were including police.

[Flickerdart]

When you build a kingdom/empire, how many soldiers/town guards should it have? I base this on population, and from what people have told me, usually the percentage of people in an army is roughly 5%, and increases up to a maximum of 10% during wartime. This means in a town of 1000, not currently fighting any wars, there should be approximately 50 guards? If a PC party wants to invade a town, how do you handle this? Do you just send wave after wave of 10 guards each until the PCs wipe them all out (or the PCs get wiped out) or do you do something else to determine the outcome?
The statistic is, in a medieval society, you're looking at about 90% of the population being subsistence farmers. 5% of the population being full-time military would mean that every other non-farmer is a guard.

Remember that a town of 1000 people is actually not very big at all, and in an age where taxation is woefully unreliable, the government is fairly small. You'd be lucky to get 5 guards.

[Yukitsu]

This depends a little on the social structure of the kingdom we're talking about as well as the agricultural surplus that they can produce.

In some settings, as much as 30% or maybe even more could potentially fight if the town has mandatory enlistment into a civil militia. (something like all men over 16 must provide and train in arms for the defence of the city). In other kingdoms it could be as low as a few percent if the leadership doesn't trust an armed citizenry and holds all military power in a few extremely well funded guards. If there are a lot of slaves there, the percentage of armed guards has to increase as well.

As agriculture becomes more advanced, more specialists including soldiers will be present and could ramp up the number of permanent guards to something like 10% of a town's population at all times.

[Flickerdart]

As agriculture becomes more advanced, more specialists including soldiers will be present and could ramp up the number of permanent guards to something like 10% of a town's population at all times.
10% is way too much even for an advanced society, outside of total war scenarios. You would have great difficulty feeding, housing, and paying one tenth of the town from the government's coffers, and then keeping those people in a permanent military role instead of letting them do something economically productive.

You don't need anywhere near this much - a single guard or a pair can patrol a huge area with hundreds of people and do a reasonable job of dealing with crime.

[Yukitsu]

10% is way too much even for an advanced society, outside of total war scenarios. You would have great difficulty feeding, housing, and paying one tenth of the town from the government's coffers, and then keeping those people in a permanent military role instead of letting them do something economically productive.

You don't need anywhere near this much - a single guard or a pair can patrol a huge area with hundreds of people and do a reasonable job of dealing with crime.

Soldiers don't just deal with crime in the city. They have to patrol the countryside and farms, keep the roads clear and be battle ready if the lord calls them up. A full time professional soldier isn't reflective of the overall population, most of the populace are in the outlying farms, but the farmers don't live in the village, they aren't part of that 1000 population figure. Soldiers similarly live in the barracks or establishments in the towns or castles, not in the countryside, so of the say thousand village dwellers, you're probably looking at perhaps 10,000 farmers out in the countryside depending on how bad their agriculture is. 100 men to guard 11,000 seems low to me if anything.

Of course if he's talking about a village with like, 10 people and all the rest are in the country, that'd be possible but I don't think such an arrangement really requires consideration of any sort to be honest.

[Seharvepernfan]

When you build a kingdom/empire, how many soldiers/town guards should it have? I base this on population, and from what people have told me, usually the percentage of people in an army is roughly 5%, and increases up to a maximum of 10% during wartime. This means in a town of 1000, not currently fighting any wars, there should be approximately 50 guards? If a PC party wants to invade a town, how do you handle this? Do you just send wave after wave of 10 guards each until the PCs wipe them all out (or the PCs get wiped out) or do you do something else to determine the outcome?

In my experience, thinking about this stuff is largely a waste of time. Just eyeball it and go with your gut, because it just will not matter.

[Flickerdart]

Soldiers don't just deal with crime in the city. They have to patrol the countryside and farms, keep the roads clear and be battle ready if the lord calls them up.
Your average countryside doesn't get all that much patrolling - noblemen have private guards, and peasants aren't important. With a hundred guardsmen around, there won't be anything for adventurers to do. Besides, if these 100 guards are patrolling around the countryside, very few of them will be in the actual city itself, and guards that aren't in the city are not guarding the city for the purposes of fighting unruly adventurers.

As for being battle-ready, that's not a real concern - when you go to war, you arm the peasant levies and hire mercenaries. Standing armies weren't actually a thing in medieval Europe until comparatively recently.

[Yukitsu]

Your average countryside doesn't get all that much patrolling - noblemen have private guards, and peasants aren't important. With a hundred guardsmen around, there won't be anything for adventurers to do. Besides, if these 100 guards are patrolling around the countryside, very few of them will be in the actual city itself, and guards that aren't in the city are not guarding the city for the purposes of fighting unruly adventurers.

As for being battle-ready, that's not a real concern - when you go to war, you arm the peasant levies and hire mercenaries. Standing armies weren't actually a thing in medieval Europe until comparatively recently.

Your typical village would still have a number of men at arms, and it would be important for the village to have enough men to oppose bandits out in the country. It would theoretically be the Lord's duty to send a lance to deal with that sort of thing but if their location is large enough to encompass a village outside of their keep they'd need various qualities of men at arms, guards, gendarmeries and other assorted militant types. Ultimately, 10% of the population of a village is about 1% of the total population. For a rich state that isn't a terribly large commitment, especially if they are one which regularly engages in war.

[Flickerdart]

Ultimately, 10% of the population of a village is about 1% of the total population.
What kind of medieval country did you find where only 10% of all people live in villages?

[Yukitsu]

What kind of medieval country did you find where only 10% of all people live in villages?

It usually depends on how you classify urban vs. rural. If you view a village as rural rather than an urban centre, it gets pretty muddled. In Canada post industrial revolution however, almost 90% of the population lived in farms though. According to the census data there, that village of 1000 would be considered urban.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo62a-eng.htm

And that was after industrialization. There is a lack of firm census data that I could ever find prior to the 1700-1800s, but it's unlikely that they were more urban than they would have been after the industrial revolution.

Of course the density of towns compared to villages etc. is pretty arbitrary as are the limits to these sort of census points which doesn't help any.

[The Evil DM]

If you are really interested in labor division within a society there is a very good model called Clark's Industrial Sector Model. It is a subset of the Three Sector Theory.

Three Sector Theory Intro (Wiki) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-sector_theory)

Long story short it divides all labor into three categories. Primary, Secondary and Tertiary. Primary Labor Activities are resource harvesting and production. Herding, Hunting, Mining, Farming and Logging. Secondary Labor Activities are processing resources into processed materials (refining), transforming raw and processed materials into goods (manufacturing). Secondary Labor activities can also include brewing, sausage making, and many other production activities relating to goods. Tertiary Labor activity is everything else. Ruling class, priesthood professional soldiers.

If you look at a regional population as a whole. In the middle ages the labor would be distributed to about 70% primary, 20% secondary, 10% tertiary. What is important is the 90% of labor expenditure produces a surplus of goods and resources to supply the 10%...

This does not mean that 90% are subsistence farmers and 10% are the ruling class and warriors. Sure the 10% tertiary does provide services to the rest of the population as protectors and organizers but the rest actually have a wide range of jobs, and those jobs can shift through the year.

During planting and harvest, it might actually be 90% of the population working on the farms, but at another time of the year the farmers reduce in number and some of the workers go mine or cut down trees.

I find thinking of the labor division helps me to define how a village functions based on its size.

Even a tiny village with no warriors and very few tertiary labor people exhibits this division of labor. When the farmers need more wood they stop farming and go cut trees. During the winter when farming is at a low, stockpiled materials can be turned into goods.

As the size of a village increases, there is room for a specialist to fill in a piece of that 20% secondary labor and the craftsmen population segment begins to expand.

[Duke of Urrel]

The statistic is, in a medieval society, you're looking at about 90% of the population being subsistence farmers. 5% of the population being full-time military would mean that every other non-farmer is a guard.

Remember that a town of 1000 people is actually not very big at all, and in an age where taxation is woefully unreliable, the government is fairly small. You'd be lucky to get 5 guards.

Magic changes these statistics significantly. The Plant Growth spell increases agricultural production by one third. The Ray of Frost spell preserves food by freezing it. The Purify Food and Drink spell saves food from rotting and makes water safe to drink. Spells like these allow a magical medieval society to be significantly more urban than our own mundane Middle Ages.

[jedipilot24]

Found this in the DMG:


Guards/Soldiers: For every 100 people in the community (round down), the community has one full-time guard or soldier. In addition, for every 20 people in the community, an able-bodied member of the local militia or a conscript soldier can be brought into service within just a few hours.

Also, Heroes of Battle has some sample armies starting on page 137.

[Bullet06320]

also depending on society, ancient Sparta for example all men trained for war first, other professions 2nd
plus others have forced conscription such as Switzerland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Switzerland
in colonial America it was common in many places for all men to be members of the militia and drill in the town square from time to time

so it really depends on what type of society your designing

[Saintheart]

Magic changes these statistics significantly. The Plant Growth spell increases agricultural production by one third. The Ray of Frost spell preserves food by freezing it. The Purify Food and Drink spell saves food from rotting and makes water safe to drink. Spells like these allow a magical medieval society to be significantly more urban than our own mundane Middle Ages.

Warning: you're on the borders of the Tippyverse with thinking like this. Create Food and Water alone means a cleric and his three best friends will never, ever wind up starving.

[Yukitsu]

Warning: you're on the borders of the Tippyverse with thinking like this. Create Food and Water alone means a cleric and his three best friends will never, ever wind up starving.

As a note on that, the meals created by create food and water are kind of disgusting (it specifies that it's deliberately bland) and is actually ludicrously expensive when compared to a normal meal. The market value on a level 5 cleric casting the spell would be 150 total or 30 gp per person. That's pretty bad considering you can get 5 pretty bland meals for about 5 pence, even in a highly magical society you can get more, better food cheaper without resorting to magic unless you believe that you're allowed to make traps of the stuff.

[Sir Chuckles]

As a note on that, the meals created by create food and water are kind of disgusting (it specifies that it's deliberately bland) and is actually ludicrously expensive when compared to a normal meal. The market value on a level 5 cleric casting the spell would be 150 total or 30 gp per person. That's pretty bad considering you can get 5 pretty bland meals for about 5 pence, even in a highly magical society you can get more, better food cheaper without resorting to magic unless you believe that you're allowed to make traps of the stuff.

That's what Prestidigitation is for.
As for cost...we assume the party's Cleric isn't charging his allies.

[SowZ]

Your typical village would still have a number of men at arms, and it would be important for the village to have enough men to oppose bandits out in the country. It would theoretically be the Lord's duty to send a lance to deal with that sort of thing but if their location is large enough to encompass a village outside of their keep they'd need various qualities of men at arms, guards, gendarmeries and other assorted militant types. Ultimately, 10% of the population of a village is about 1% of the total population. For a rich state that isn't a terribly large commitment, especially if they are one which regularly engages in war.

It depends on which medieval time period and region you are looking at. We amalgamize Medieval European, early Rennaissance, and even a bit of Roman tradition into our conception of what medieval warfare and police and armies were like and end up with an indiscernible mess. Consider the difference in warfare and armies in the US alone from 1750 to today. This is less than 400 years in one country, (albeit a country larger than continental Europe,) but we accept that things were radically different from one generation to the next. How much more is a thousand year period with many different nations and cultures going to vary, especially when communication was so hampered compared to today, meaning two neighboring villages might have substantially different customs?

In late medieval periods, there were few full time soldiers but a lot more people who knew how to fight. With the rise of the Burgers and middle class, non-nobles arming oneself and paying an arms master became commonplace. In such a society, standing armies and our equivalent of police officers are rare, with wars being fought mostly by mercenary armies and sometimes armies raised up among the people for a specific war, after which the men would go back to their old jobs. A noble might have some guards and a knight might have his personal retinue. However, if you cause trouble in town, several citizens might draw their blades, (or even pistols if we are looking at early renaissance,) and screw up your day. We have records in the late medieval period of common men getting training from arms masters and then getting into fights in the streets with other men who want to show of their training, too. This sometimes resulted in swords being banned. In contrast, some towns expected men with the means to arm themselves and get training to do so, and pretty much any professional or merchant in a town will wear a sword wherever he goes. So, point being, if you want to be realistic?

Don't have a bunch of town guards Oblivion style in anything but larger cities. Rather, various experts/aristocrats might have a level of warrior and a sword on them if PCs are stirring up trouble in a village.

In earlier medieval periods, a village may not have any real guardsmen at all. The rents brought in aren't enough to justify a full time soldier with expensive weaponry, not to mention the risk of highwaymen gutting the poor bastard for his spear and maille, and the area is too widespread for one of guy to make much of a difference, anyway, except in resolving disputes. A large group of people would have some sort of lord to bring disputes to, but for the most part would self govern and mind their own business. Crimes didn't really have set punishments so much as fines that you were expected to pay to people you wronged, (or else just owe the wronged party a debt. Early medieval economies were notorious for long strings of IOUs.) Similarly, bounties and such were sometimes used as an incentive to catch criminals rather than pay that same money as a standard wage to a guard.

The man-at-arms thing where a community was expected to have X many trained fighting men per X acres, and where a knight would grant land to someone in return for being a man-at-arms did exist, (especially in the more middling years of medieval Europe,) but was more complicated and less formalized than a lot of people make it out to be. It still didn't result in large city watches and professional guardsmen policing the area. You'd be more likely to have a group of outlaws that ask for tribute from a nearby village in exchange for 'protection,' (much like a mafia racket,) than you would to have soldiers policing your villages borders.

A decent sized town will have some watchmen, but they aren't going to be overly concerned with what happens to the plebes. Large standing armies weren't very present in the medieval era, though they were present in the Roman era preceding it and started to form again on a fairly wide scale in the Renaissance following it and especially in the Victorian era. The same goes for organized police forces.

[Flickerdart]

Magic changes these statistics significantly. The Plant Growth spell increases agricultural production by one third. The Ray of Frost spell preserves food by freezing it. The Purify Food and Drink spell saves food from rotting and makes water safe to drink. Spells like these allow a magical medieval society to be significantly more urban than our own mundane Middle Ages.
Plant growth needs a friendly 5th level druid, which is by no means a common thing. Ray of frost won't preserve your food - it will damage it because it is a damage spell. Ever heard of freezer burn? Purify food and drink doesn't really help, given that beer- and wine-making industry would actually help a society urbanize and industrialize rather than prevent it from doing so.

[ExLibrisMortis]

As a note on that, the meals created by create food and water are kind of disgusting (it specifies that it's deliberately bland) and is actually ludicrously expensive when compared to a normal meal. The market value on a level 5 cleric casting the spell would be 150 total or 30 gp per person. That's pretty bad considering you can get 5 pretty bland meals for about 5 pence, even in a highly magical society you can get more, better food cheaper without resorting to magic unless you believe that you're allowed to make traps of the stuff.
A poor meal costs 1 sp per day, an average meal costs 3 sp per day, a good meal cost 5 sp per day - so do trail rations, actually. It seems that D&D people only eat once a day.

Create food and water feeds 3 people per CL for 24 hours. That is about 3 sp per CL you're saving, or 1% of the cost of the spell slot.

An artificer 3 can craft a use-activated item of create food and water. A cleric 5 can craft the same item, but at CL 5.

This item is a giant kettle, metal barrel or other fire-proof container. A fire is lit underneath, keeping it at a permanent simmer. Next to it is duct to a reservoir, target for the 'water' portion of create food and water. The kettle creates a new batch of food every 10 minutes - the casting time of create food and water - and stores the food if it's not immediately consumed. Every 8 hours, the community picks up a meal at the everlasting kettle. After the meal, they add herbs and spices to the kettle, stir, and let it stew for 8 hours. Once a day, before the evening meal, the village priest casts purify food and drink on the food.

There are 1440 minutes in a day, for a total of 144 batches of food per day. The cost of feeding a single person is 3 [spell level] * 2000 [use-activated] / 3 [people per spell level] * 144 [spells per day]. The everlasting kettle costs 2000/144 gp per person, and feeds them forever. Regular food costs 1 sp/person/day. After 139 days, the kettle is cheaper.

In large cities, this is certainly a viable strategy for a ruler. If your people aren't farming wheat and rice, they can do other things, like soldiering, if you're so inclined.

An automatically resetting trap costs only one quarter of a continuous/use-activated item, which makes this strategy even more viable.

[Flickerdart]

The kettle costs CL*spell-level*2000gp, or 30,000gp. That's one hell of a down-payment for a village!

[Duke of Urrel]

Plant growth needs a friendly 5th level druid, which is by no means a common thing. Ray of frost won't preserve your food - it will damage it because it is a damage spell. Ever heard of freezer burn? Purify food and drink doesn't really help, given that beer- and wine-making industry would actually help a society urbanize and industrialize rather than prevent it from doing so.

From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/plantGrowth.htm):

Plant Growth
Transmutation
Level: Drd 3, Plant 3, Rgr 3

From page 140 of the Dungeon Master's Guide:

Tithes are paid to the church by those who are faithful participants in a religion. Tithes often amount to as much as one-tenth of a character’s adventuring earnings, but collection is voluntary except in strict, oppressive religions that have their own tithe collectors. Such onerous religious taxation requires the support of the government.

Fifth-level clerics with the Plant domain can cast the Plant Growth spell. Clerics with an interest in collecting tithes will encourage voluntary contributions from as many people as possible. There's no better way to do that than to help the peasants prosper.

The Ray of Frost spell can't damage food, because food isn't a creature; it's an object. Moreover (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#energyAttacks):

Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 4 before applying the hardness.
The Ray of Frost spell inflicts 1 to 3 Hit-Points of damage. Divide that by four, drop the fraction, and you get zero. Sure, frozen food isn't as fresh as fresh food, but it's better than spoiled food.

This brings us to the third spell that I mentioned: Purify Food and Drink. Given that clerics angling for tithes are eager to please potential donors, I don't understand why they would sabotage the beer and wine industries by magically disrupting the fermentation process.

[Flickerdart]

Fifth-level clerics with the Plant domain can cast the Plant Growth spell. Clerics with an interest in collecting tithes will encourage voluntary contributions from as many people as possible. There's no better way to do that than to help the peasants prosper.
Fifth level clerics with a specific domain are also not exactly common.



The Ray of Frost spell can't damage food, because food isn't a creature; it's an object. Moreover (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#energyAttacks):

The Ray of Frost spell inflicts 1 to 3 Hit-Points of damage. Divide that by four, drop the fraction, and you get zero. Sure, frozen food isn't as fresh as fresh food, but it's better than spoiled food.
Ray of Frost can't deal hit point damage to food. That doesn't mean it can't damage food, especially if you're repeatedly freezing it and then letting it thaw (because the temperature isn't constant). There's a very important distinction.


This brings us to the third spell that I mentioned: Purify Food and Drink. Given that clerics angling for tithes are eager to please potential donors, I don't understand why they would sabotage the beer and wine industries by magically disrupting the fermentation process.
Magically disrupting the whatnow? They're sabotaging demand, not the process itself. People drank wine and beer all the time because the water was unsafe to drink. With a source of pure water, there will be much less demand for alcohol production.

[RolkFlameraven]

Magically disrupting the whatnow? They're sabotaging demand, not the process itself. People drank wine and beer all the time because the water was unsafe to drink. With a source of pure water, there will be much less demand for alcohol production.

This, the water in much of Europe was really, REALLY unsafe to drink and mead/beer and wine was needed as both the alcohol and the boiling process killed most of the bad things in it and was therefor much safer to drink.

Purify water/create water takes the need and destroys it. This would mean that Beer and Wine and such would only exist for 'recreation' as it does today, and with the low pay of commoners it would be something only the rich would tend to drink. And that is only IF they came into existence in the first place, they are after all 'spoiled' and if clerics are running around doing such things all the time they might just 'fix' it before its other properties are discovered.

I mean it should show up as a poison if they used detect poison on it after all.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The kettle costs CL*spell-level*2000gp, or 30,000gp. That's one hell of a down-payment for a village!
Yes, or 18.000 for a smaller one, if you get an artificer to make it at CL 3.

I agree that it's a big down-payment, but it's not too big, considering the large number of people that pool their resources, and considering how long-term an investment this is.

An example:
A labourer costs 1 sp/day to hire, and eats for 1 sp/day. That makes no sense at all*. Let's say they earn 2 sp/day before tax and basic living expenses. The local ruler takes 10% of this gross income as tax, that costs the labourer 2 cp/day. The ruler earns 2 cp for each of the 5 * 3 * 144 = 2160 people who are served by a single kettle. Actually, the ruler probably simply sells meals from the kettle for 5 cp per day^, but let's go with tax-funded free meals for now.

The ruler goes to his local bank, and gets a mortgage on the kettle. He loans 30.000 gp against 100% interest over 10 years - after 10 years, he's paid 60.000 gp. In 10 years, he's also earned 78.840 gp from taxes. Then, he takes his mob of 2000 well-fed peasants and robs the bank. Profit! Okay, it's not what you call stellar profit, but the point is: even a poor village can buy a kettle, given time and an investor.

If you consider the importance of food in maintaining peace, it's inevitable that larger villages and towns start building these kettles. I'd compare it to an aquaduct, a city wall, or a temple. Those can take a long time to build, but they're worth it, so they get done. I'd also like to point out, that in many cases, building a new farm takes a lot of effort as well, especially if it's farmland for 2000 people. The kettle takes up little space, and it's always right there, making it hard to besiege a castle with one inside. It's also perfect for LE rulers to subjugate the people - close the gates and let the rabble starve. The advantages are as endless as the food.

tl;dr A major investment, but eminently doable.



*Because the labourer will have non-working family members, and expenses besides food, and they won't work for a loss.
^At 108 gold per day, you earn your kettle back after ten months or so. Not a bad investment at all. Toll bridges have worse returns.

[Flickerdart]

A labourer costs 1 sp/day to hire, and eats for 1 sp/day. That makes no sense at all*.
An untrained labourer - one with no skills - makes 1sp/day. This is basically a drifter doing odd jobs to keep himself fed. He doesn't have a family and sleeps on the street or in haystacks.

[ExLibrisMortis]

An untrained labourer - one with no skills - makes 1sp/day. This is basically a drifter doing odd jobs to keep himself fed. He doesn't have a family and sleeps on the street or in haystacks.
Okay, point. Doesn't change my conclusion, though!

[GreatDane]

When you build a kingdom/empire, how many soldiers/town guards should it have? I base this on population, and from what people have told me, usually the percentage of people in an army is roughly 5%, and increases up to a maximum of 10% during wartime. This means in a town of 1000, not currently fighting any wars, there should be approximately 50 guards? If a PC party wants to invade a town, how do you handle this? Do you just send wave after wave of 10 guards each until the PCs wipe them all out (or the PCs get wiped out) or do you do something else to determine the outcome?

I initially tried basing army/population sizes in D&D on real-world statistics, but eventually just started using the army numbers in Heroes of Battle. It's simpler, and unless the group is into wargaming (which D&D isn't), the exact total numbers aren't usually too important.

In your situation, I would use 50 if you think that would be a good challenge for your PCs. If it's relevant for them to fail - either they didn't do any research and just stormed the place, or they've underestimated their mark - send all 50 at once, or whatever number amounts to ~their CR + 3-4 for a tough fight. If they made an effort to divide the troops or you otherwise find it relevant for them to have several smaller fights, groups of 10 sounds pretty good.

[Flickerdart]

Okay, point. Doesn't change my conclusion, though!
Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion - an infinite food machine is always worth it if you're able to secure a massive loan somehow. That's a fairly big if, though, unless your setting has advanced financial instruments.

I'm also not sure how the demographics will look - smaller villages (which is most of the villages) still need to farm because the pot is unprofitable, and people above "dirty peasant" level would want better food than just gruel, which creates demand for real farming. You also need peasants to do something, and teaching them skills takes effort. Plus, you need a market for any goods they produce. Free food might just result in a population boom of...more farmers.

[Yukitsu]

It's also a custom magic item which by RAW aren't guaranteed. Most economy breaking ones shouldn't be considered that likely in a setting.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion - an infinite food machine is always worth it if you're able to secure a massive loan somehow. That's a fairly big if, though, unless your setting has advanced financial instruments.

I'm also not sure how the demographics will look - smaller villages (which is most of the villages) still need to farm because the pot is unprofitable, and people above "dirty peasant" level would want better food than just gruel, which creates demand for real farming. You also need peasants to do something, and teaching them skills takes effort. Plus, you need a market for any goods they produce. Free food might just result in a population boom of...more farmers.
Loans like that have been around since Roman times. An interesting quote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy): "[...] a credit crisis in 33 AD that put a number of senators at risk; the central government rescued the market through a loan of 100 million HS made by the emperor Tiberius to the banks" (100m silver pieces? a legionary would earn 900 HS/year at that time, with half deducted for costs). It still depends on your setting, but the GP limit for a metropolis is 100.000 gp (25k+ population), and for a large city it's 40.000 gp (12k+ population). I think that most settings will have this available. Making the gruel taste nice is a simple matter of adding common herbs, which won't cost very much. There will still be people farming, but for expensive crops, like coffee and tea, cotton, fruits, spices and so on.


The demographics are more interesting. If food becomes nigh-worthless, some other activity must be the just-about-profitable thing that "dirty peasants" can do to get by. In our current economy (in western countries), it mostly involves things that are hard or expensive to automate, work in factories and (seasonal) work on farms, cleaning and so on. Screwing caps on toothpaste tubes, á la Charlie Bucket's father. However, in pre-industrial times, it might have been spinning (for clothes), carrying heavy stuff, and building. Mining is a good option, as you need to get the gold for magic item creation from somewhere.


Edit: In fact, I should think that most of the economy would be focused on magic item creation, as that wholesale replaces the entire modern manufacturing industry, from cars to canned food.

[Flickerdart]

Loans like that have been around since Roman times. An interesting quote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy): "[...] a credit crisis in 33 AD that put a number of senators at risk; the central government rescued the market through a loan of 100 million HS made by the emperor Tiberius to the banks" (100m silver pieces? a legionary would earn 900 HS/year at that time, with half deducted for costs). It still depends on your setting, but the GP limit for a metropolis is 100.000 gp (25k+ population), and for a large city it's 40.000 gp (12k+ population). I think that most settings will have this available. Making the gruel taste nice is a simple matter of adding common herbs, which won't cost very much. There will still be people farming, but for expensive crops, like coffee and tea, cotton, fruits, spices and so on.
The Romans had a lot of things that were lost in medieval times.

Besides, just because the government of the Roman empire can take a loan to save the economy doesn't mean that some podunk mayor can do so for a pot that makes gruel.

As for the GP limit, just because the city might have the item for sale doesn't mean that it has an easy way of getting loans for it. There will also be remarkably few cities of that size in a setting that looks anything like medieval Europe.


The demographics are more interesting. If food becomes nigh-worthless,
Except it doesn't - basic nutrition becomes easy, but that doesn't stop anyone from wanting a steak or a pie.


some other activity must be the just-about-profitable thing that "dirty peasants" can do to get by. In our current economy (in western countries), it mostly involves things that are hard or expensive to automate, work in factories and (seasonal) work on farms, cleaning and so on. Screwing caps on toothpaste tubes, á la Charlie Bucket's father. However, in pre-industrial times, it might have been spinning (for clothes), carrying heavy stuff, and building. Mining is a good option, as you need to get the gold for magic item creation from somewhere.

Edit: In fact, I should think that most of the economy would be focused on magic item creation, as that wholesale replaces the entire modern manufacturing industry, from cars to canned food.
You can't really make an economy out of magic item creation, since it's basically a one-man job with a very small market (very wealthy nobles and traders, governments, and adventurers).

[Faily]

This, the water in much of Europe was really, REALLY unsafe to drink and mead/beer and wine was needed as both the alcohol and the boiling process killed most of the bad things in it and was therefor much safer to drink.

Purify water/create water takes the need and destroys it. This would mean that Beer and Wine and such would only exist for 'recreation' as it does today, and with the low pay of commoners it would be something only the rich would tend to drink. And that is only IF they came into existence in the first place, they are after all 'spoiled' and if clerics are running around doing such things all the time they might just 'fix' it before its other properties are discovered.

I mean it should show up as a poison if they used detect poison on it after all.

That people didn't drink water in the Middle Ages is pretty much a myth. It's a myth that I wish could GDIAF already. :smalltongue:

While water-sources in urban areas had a higher chance of pollution, water was still widely consumed across Europe in the Middle Ages. But just like today, people liked to drink something else than just plain tasteless water and just like today people rarely talked about "this great water".

Most cities and large towns invested greatly in securing good sources of water. The cleanest water was used for consumption, cooking and making other beverages (such as ale or wine), the dirtier water was used for other purposes, like being stored up to put out fires.

EDIT: So basically, a caster using Purify Food and Drink ensures that more of the water can be consumed and used for food and drink, AND is a huge life-saver in case of a siege when a water-supply would likely be sabotaged with simple poisoning (like dumping feces or bodies in the water-source). As it is a 0-level spell, it could also be a worthwhile investement for a settlement in a magical society to make some magic item that continously purifies a water-source.

Sources:
Squatriti, Paolo, Water and Society in Early Medieval Italy, AD 400-1000 (Cambridge, 1998)
Hagen, Ann, A handbook of Anglo-Saxon food : processing and consumption (Pinner, 1992)
Kucher, Michael, ‘The Use of Water and its Regulation in Medieval Siena’, Journal of Urban History, Vol.31:4 (2005)
McNeill, John T. and Gamer, Helena M., Medieval handbooks of penance : a translation of the principal “libri poenitentiales” and selections from related documents (New York, 1965)

[ExLibrisMortis]

The Romans had a lot of things that were lost in medieval times.

Besides, just because the government of the Roman empire can take a loan to save the economy doesn't mean that some podunk mayor can do so for a pot that makes gruel.

As for the GP limit, just because the city might have the item for sale doesn't mean that it has an easy way of getting loans for it. There will also be remarkably few cities of that size in a setting that looks anything like medieval Europe.

Except it doesn't - basic nutrition becomes easy, but that doesn't stop anyone from wanting a steak or a pie.

You can't really make an economy out of magic item creation, since it's basically a one-man job with a very small market (very wealthy nobles and traders, governments, and adventurers).
Banking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking) - rather, lending money, not neccessarily modern banking - is not one of the things lost after the fall of the Roman Empire. The Code of Hammurabi (http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm) has laws on interest, start reading at law 100 (I know that's pre-Roman, before you ask :smalltongue:). The Quran prohibits the lending of money against interest - that's not because it didn't happen at the time. The Knights Templar acted as banking service across Europe and in the Holy Land. Plenty of examples.

As for city size, first an atypical example: "From the 9th through the end of the 12th century, the city of Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire, was the largest and wealthiest city in Europe, with a population approaching 1 million" (note that that should be 20-40% of that, according to the next list, but okay). This list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_urban_community_sizes) may be interesting as well - it tells us that cities of 12000 people and up have existed since 3000 BC, if not earlier. By 2000 BC, cities with 25.000 people exist. By 1000 BC, a few cities hit 100.000 - Babylon, Memphis, Thebes, some that I don't recognize (bad Eurocentrism, bad!). By 0 AD, Rome apparently had 800.000 to 1.000.000 inhabitants. Around 1000 AD, the table lists dozens of cities with more than 50.000 people - likely, a lot of the smaller ones are omitted for space reasons.

Now, I'm not suggesting that you're dropping these cities all over the place. But I am suggesting that most settings have these places, and I am suggesting that the rules don't tell you about cities and metropolises for no reason, and that NPCs will visit the magic mart in those places. If you're looking to purchase a 30.000 gp item, you're willing to cart it a few weeks back to your town to get it. Compare it to a church bell. You buy one every couple of centuries, and not a lot of people make them, but a lot of places have them. If you can't get a loan, you can always save up. People will manage.

As for magic item creation being a one-person job: yes and no. Somebody still needs to forge all those enchantable ten-cubic-metre kettles, gather and prepare material components, research and copy those spells and whatnot. Most of the people in the magic item business won't be artificers, but rather the people supplying and taking care of artificers (who can't do anything but light activity for 16 hours a day). Lots of people will be in the diamond mining business, the gold mining business, the 'incense, inks and oils' business. Expeditions to the Elemental Plane of Earth to gather diamonds - the plane shift item only works once a week, so be in time or wait for the next run (and hope your supplies don't run out). Expeditions to slay dangerous animals to pick up power components. That sort of thing.

The market for magic items isn't small if you look at it that way, either. It's not like the demand for 'mechanical things' or 'fighting things' was small in medieval times. Why should the demand for 'magical things' be any different? You can be sure that a huge city with half a million people has an item of control weather to keep hurricanes out of the harbour - something your medieval mechanic would be hard-pressed to provide, proving the worth of magic. Any emperor worth his salt sets up a mail system using ring gates - expensive as hell, but the coffers will cover it, and it sure beats walking/riding all that distance (though imps are cheaper, if you're LE). Only a couple of artificers in the world can build high-end items like that (adventurers seem to get them just fine, though), and those craftsmen are respected like an Archimedes or a Michelangelo.

And finally, I believe I adressed the gruel/flavour issue. Yes, people will still farm for luxury products, and things to spice up the base food. Most of the calories will still come from the kettle - just like modern-day food has large parts of bread, potatoes, rice, pasta and so on. This kettle isn't producing horrible muck, it's producing "simple fare of your choice - highly nourishing, if rather bland". Boiled rice and spinach, with a side of tofu*, that kind of thing (assuming 'highly nourishing' means 'balanced diet'). Nothing you can't fix up with minimal effort (and since you decide what it is, you know exactly what it needs to be tasty, too!). Soy sauce production would soar.

Of course, a kettle can be used to feed livestock - one horse (presumably a cow qualifies too, or any large creature) replaces three humans. Not great for grazing stock, but if you've got these kettles in numbers, why not. Bio-industry made easy.

If you don't want to play in a setting like this, fine. But the game rules do support it - your objects notwithstanding - even if you consider the huge price difference between first-level commoners' meals and high-level magic items.


*Which I prefer over a steak, thank you very much. Steaks - talk about bland food.

[Faily]

Read ExLibrisMortis' post...

WHY IS THERE NO LIKE BUTTON?!

*ahem*

Just very glad to see someone actually know their medieval history and society. :smallredface:

(Also, since I'm running a Kingdom in Pathfinder... totally investing in magic kettles to feed the population! :smallbiggrin: )

[ExLibrisMortis]

Read ExLibrisMortis' post...

WHY IS THERE NO LIKE BUTTON?!

*ahem*

Just very glad to see someone actually know their medieval history and society. :smallredface:

(Also, since I'm running a Kingdom in Pathfinder... totally investing in magic kettles to feed the population! :smallbiggrin: )
Thank you very much. May I put that in my signature?

I don't know much about history, but my father is a historian - he doesn't like the 'dark ages' stereotype - and wikipedia is a thing (I like).

[Flickerdart]

Now, I'm not suggesting that you're dropping these cities all over the place. But I am suggesting that most settings have these places, and I am suggesting that the rules don't tell you about cities and metropolises for no reason, and that NPCs will visit the magic mart in those places. If you're looking to purchase a 30.000 gp item, you're willing to cart it a few weeks back to your town to get it. Compare it to a church bell. You buy one every couple of centuries, and not a lot of people make them, but a lot of places have them. If you can't get a loan, you can always save up. People will manage.
A church bell is of little use to, say, bandits, but a 30kgp kettle is awesome. Overland travel is dangerous and slow. A few weeks? Try months.


As for magic item creation being a one-person job: yes and no. Somebody still needs to forge all those enchantable ten-cubic-metre kettles, gather and prepare material components, research and copy those spells and whatnot.

Actually, by the rules, crafting a magic pot does not require that one first possess a non-magic pot. Curiously, there is no way to craft a material components bag (Craft: Alchemy, maybe?).

[Faily]

Thank you very much. May I put that in my signature?

I don't know much about history, but my father is a historian - he doesn't like the 'dark ages' stereotype - and wikipedia is a thing (I like).

Be my guest. :smallsmile:

I studied art and culture history at school, but am more of a hobby-historian and one who also greatly enjoys Wikipedia and other websites dedicated to accumulating knowledge on these topics.

[Karl Aegis]

If your food needs are taken care of you more onto cash crops for farming. Sugar, cinnamon, hops, tobacco, cotton, etc. You move your "dirty peasants" into the "plantation slave" profession. Hope you can still afford salt. Salt makes travel better.

[Nibbens]

I don't know about 5 percent, but I've heard of a 1% standing army and 1% police force. During a wartime scenario, the police can be pulled into the army quickly. With more time to conscript during a full-time fight or death scenario approximately 25% of the citizens would be of fighting material.

A town of 1000 would have 10 in their "army" and 10 in their police force. This might translate into 10 in a police hierarchy, and 10 deputies on the lowest rung. Or 1 sheriff, 9 guards, and 10 deputies. Heck you could even do 10 guards, and 10 mercenaries that the guards can hire on the spot. It all depends on how you want to spin it.

Regardless, in a town of 1000, you may be looking at NPCs level 1-3 with a few outliers in the 4 to 5 range. So the fight should be as someone said earlier. The guards are giving the townspeople a few extra seconds to escape the PCs murderous rampage.

[5ColouredWalker]

A church bell is of little use to, say, bandits, but a 30kgp kettle is awesome. Overland travel is dangerous and slow. A few weeks? Try months.


Actually, by the rules, crafting a magic pot does not require that one first possess a non-magic pot. Curiously, there is no way to craft a material components bag (Craft: Alchemy, maybe?).

-1 Sure, the kettle might be awesome... For a bandit army, or someone who can hold it ransom in the middle of the town. However it's really damn big, do you as a bandit want to try carting off something that you'll need a wagon to move, and will have everone trying to hunt you down and kill you so they can get the kettle back so they don't starve?
Might want to rethink your bandit idea.

-2 No, they just need thousands in undefined materials... Oh look, the DM just defined them and there's a massive industry supporting them. Well how about that.


Tales of Mu [NSFW] has a great explanation at one point for why the tippyverse/rational can not happen to it despite being modern and with magic items everywhere. First it shows a thought experiment, the standard guess the rule using numbers, and it turns out without cheating or lying, random could be done because the rule was 'Any three numbers I agree meets the rule.'
Then, it's brought up that that's the way their world works.

For example, there's a dome that's infanantly large around the world that is their sky... But outsiders can fall from it to the ground safety, and in times of great need, the world has let someone climb on top of the dome. However if you start asking the world to do it regularly, the world pimp slaps you and suddenly there's a rather blighted area where some 'scientist wizard' used to be, and now all the remaining scientists either aren't very serious, or look at all the scorch marks and guess while trying not to join them.

This way, you can have a modern world in the DnD verse using magic that isn't the tippyverse.

Sure, the kettle idea could work and is indeed genius, but your GM/World could be one that likes medieval stasis, and as such your plane might just up and kill you if you try to industrialize it. Or it might change the rules slightly so the magic doesn't work the way you intended. Perhaps your ketle instead just turns into a item of everlasting rations + everful mug that feeds a number of people by taking your gold, deducting 350+[250*1.5], and then dividing the rest by [350*1.5+250*1.5].

[Jay R]

In a peaceful town of 1,000 adults, there's probably 10-20 guards. But if the town is under attack, there are 500+ people fighting back.

[atemu1234]

That's what Prestidigitation is for.
As for cost...we assume the party's Cleric isn't charging his allies.

Hey, a Cleric's gotta make a living...

[SowZ]

In a peaceful town of 1,000 adults, there's probably 10-20 guards. But if the town is under attack, there are 500+ people fighting back.

Maybe 10-20 people who are armed and know how to fight, but certainly not 10-20 professional soldiers/lawmen.

[ekarney]

What about in settings that do not only allow for, but actually contain standing armies. Such as the Purple Dragons of Cormyr in 3.5, it states that Nobles are expected to join.
There's also a 2 and a half year service program they've made, where the recruit spend their first 6 months patrolling and training.
How many people could be in that army? (Including a standing/professional army, militia and guardsman)

[SowZ]

What about in settings that do not only allow for, but actually contain standing armies. Such as the Purple Dragons of Cormyr in 3.5, it states that Nobles are expected to join.
There's also a 2 and a half year service program they've made, where the recruit spend their first 6 months patrolling and training.
How many people could be in that army? (Including a standing/professional army, militia and guardsman)

The Medieval Period saw very little in the way of standing armies, so let's go back and look at Rome. At the height of the Roman Empire? When the standing army was gargantuan and the Empire the most vast? We're looking at a population likely close to 100,000,000. Maybe more. And we are talking about a professional military of less than half a million. This army compromised anywhere from 0.3% to 0.7% of the population. Likely less than half of one percent. This number can double if we are talking about their equivalent of reserve troops, or troops rallied for specific campaigns. But we are talking standing armies, yes? And we are talking about an economy that was heavily structured around keeping the military going. Nothing about the Roman economy wasn't somehow connected back to the army. So if we assume Cormyr is equally military focused and we assume that with magic and such they might be able to afford more troops than Rome, I would still be very surprised if the percentage of the populace in the military was more than 2%.

But many of those will be in training at any given time or in the field fighting battles. Or else focused in metropolitan population centers. Or being used to do something useful, (assuming there is no one to fight,) and are building roads and buildings and such. There aren't going to be a score men spared to patrol a small hamlet. Not unless there is some reason to believe said village is in danger of being raided by an impending enemy force.

[ekarney]

The Medieval Period saw very little in the way of standing armies, so let's go back and look at Rome. At the height of the Roman Empire? When the standing army was gargantuan and the Empire the most vast? We're looking at a population likely close to 100,000,000. Maybe more. And we are talking about a professional military of less than half a million. This army compromised anywhere from 0.3% to 0.7% of the population. Likely less than half of one percent. This number can double if we are talking about their equivalent of reserve troops, or troops rallied for specific campaigns. But we are talking standing armies, yes? And we are talking about an economy that was heavily structured around keeping the military going. Nothing about the Roman economy wasn't somehow connected back to the army. So if we assume Cormyr is equally military focused and we assume that with magic and such they might be able to afford more troops than Rome, I would still be very surprised if the percentage of the populace in the military was more than 2%.

But many of those will be in training at any given time or in the field fighting battles. Or else focused in metropolitan population centres. Or being used to do something useful, (assuming there is no one to fight,) and are building roads and buildings and such. There aren't going to be a score men spared to patrol a small hamlet. Not unless there is some reason to believe said village is in danger of being raided by an impending enemy force.


So in the interest of not dealing with fractions a flat 2% of 1,000,000 (Cormyr's estimated population) we'd be looking at a total size of ~20,000, I guess if we included the household guards of nobles as exterior entities and the inclusion of out of kingdom mercenaries we could probably jump that to ~25,000

Damn, this puts a spanner in my campaign works, if a town with 15,000 people in it is threatened by war by a nation with a 20,000 army you'd think they'd surrender right away.
Damn, I need to figure some things out then.

[Flickerdart]

Towns typically don't fight wars. That town should have backup from its sovereign lord - and if it doesn't have one, it will soon, because of the aforementioned 25,000 soldiers.

But it's hardly a big deal - towns were occupied all the time. If you don't have city walls and you don't have an army ready for a pitched battle, you're going to be taken over. Whether or not the invaders can keep the town by the time the defending army comes around is another story.

[SowZ]

Towns typically don't fight wars. That town should have backup from its sovereign lord - and if it doesn't have one, it will soon, because of the aforementioned 25,000 soldiers.

But it's hardly a big deal - towns were occupied all the time. If you don't have city walls and you don't have an army ready for a pitched battle, you're going to be taken over. Whether or not the invaders can keep the town by the time the defending army comes around is another story.

Shoot, a band of twenty armed bandits could take over a village, demanding tribute and food, and it is unlikely they'd get much resistance as long as they weren't going crazy and killing people and such, (which why would they?)

[Yukitsu]

The Medieval Period saw very little in the way of standing armies, so let's go back and look at Rome. At the height of the Roman Empire? When the standing army was gargantuan and the Empire the most vast? We're looking at a population likely close to 100,000,000. Maybe more. And we are talking about a professional military of less than half a million. This army compromised anywhere from 0.3% to 0.7% of the population. Likely less than half of one percent. This number can double if we are talking about their equivalent of reserve troops, or troops rallied for specific campaigns. But we are talking standing armies, yes? And we are talking about an economy that was heavily structured around keeping the military going. Nothing about the Roman economy wasn't somehow connected back to the army. So if we assume Cormyr is equally military focused and we assume that with magic and such they might be able to afford more troops than Rome, I would still be very surprised if the percentage of the populace in the military was more than 2%.

But many of those will be in training at any given time or in the field fighting battles. Or else focused in metropolitan population centers. Or being used to do something useful, (assuming there is no one to fight,) and are building roads and buildings and such. There aren't going to be a score men spared to patrol a small hamlet. Not unless there is some reason to believe said village is in danger of being raided by an impending enemy force.

The highest I've ever seen for Rome was 60 million people living within their borders, only about 10 million of them living in Italy. Officially, the Roman Empire seems to have had about 450,000 troops. Given this was at a period of relative peace though, it seems likely that if an adversary arose at that time, the Romans could have raised more.

I'm also trying to figure what the percentage of that population was slaves or conquered peoples that could not qualify for the army. I'm not exactly certain whether or not they could have raised more if those slaves were free or if having slaves required more military presence by such a huge margin that it levels out or favours the army. Given how many slaves were in the city of Rome itself which wasn't defended by the legions directly it seems likely that full time military were not used to counter slave populations.

Those numbers may also fail to include the Vigiles which were the professional police of Rome.

By percent though, the Roman Empire had fewer men in the legions than they had during the height of the Republic. At the height of Roman military power in the Republic they managed over 700,000 legionaries with a population less than half that of the Empire. That was after the Marian reforms where a legionary was a professional soldier as compared to the Hastati civil soldier.

[Jay R]

In a peaceful town of 1,000 adults, there's probably 10-20 guards. But if the town is under attack, there are 500+ people fighting back.
Maybe 10-20 people who are armed and know how to fight, but certainly not 10-20 professional soldiers/lawmen.

10-20 people who are armed and know how to fight, and another several hundred people with bows or boarspears who know how to hunt.

If it's an internal town, with only fields around in all directions, maybe not. But people who live in a frontier village know how to live on a frontier.

[SowZ]

The highest I've ever seen for Rome was 60 million people living within their borders, only about 10 million of them living in Italy. Officially, the Roman Empire seems to have had about 450,000 troops. Given this was at a period of relative peace though, it seems likely that if an adversary arose at that time, the Romans could have raised more.

I'm also trying to figure what the percentage of that population was slaves or conquered peoples that could not qualify for the army. I'm not exactly certain whether or not they could have raised more if those slaves were free or if having slaves required more military presence by such a huge margin that it levels out or favours the army. Given how many slaves were in the city of Rome itself which wasn't defended by the legions directly it seems likely that full time military were not used to counter slave populations.

Those numbers may also fail to include the Vigiles which were the professional police of Rome.

By percent though, the Roman Empire had fewer men in the legions than they had during the height of the Republic. At the height of Roman military power in the Republic they managed over 700,000 legionaries with a population less than half that of the Empire. That was after the Marian reforms where a legionary was a professional soldier as compared to the Hastati civil soldier.

I've seen estimates that indicate Rome never had more than fifty million and estimates that at its height it had over a hundred. I'm not sure which is true. The Roman army could grow in size for specific campaigns, to be sure, so at any given time there may have been a greater percentage in military service. An army raised up by a politician for a specific war pre-Marian is by no means a standing army, and as far as I'm aware, even post Marian the army was typically a small percentage of the population. Also, the Marian Reforms ended up killing the Republic. I'm familiar with the 700,000 figure, but that was a brief period. A candle that flashes bright and burns out. It wasn't practical and ended up, (along with a few other factors,) resulting in the death of the Republic.

[Mendicant]

The highest I've ever seen for Rome was 60 million people living within their borders, only about 10 million of them living in Italy. Officially, the Roman Empire seems to have had about 450,000 troops. Given this was at a period of relative peace though, it seems likely that if an adversary arose at that time, the Romans could have raised more.

I'm also trying to figure what the percentage of that population was slaves or conquered peoples that could not qualify for the army. I'm not exactly certain whether or not they could have raised more if those slaves were free or if having slaves required more military presence by such a huge margin that it levels out or favours the army. Given how many slaves were in the city of Rome itself which wasn't defended by the legions directly it seems likely that full time military were not used to counter slave populations.

By percent though, the Roman Empire had fewer men in the legions than they had during the height of the Republic. At the height of Roman military power in the Republic they managed over 700,000 legionaries with a population less than half that of the Empire. That was after the Marian reforms where a legionary was a professional soldier as compared to the Hastati civil soldier.

450,000 legionaries was actually about peak strength for post-republican armies--the empire was always at war somewhere. That's maybe .7% of the population.

The Ming army, at its height was ~1 million, but 70 to 80% of its soldiers spent the vast majority of their time farming. If we put the active Ming army at 250,000, that gives us around .33% of the population. If their entire reserve army was pulled up, you'd crack 1 percent of the total population.

When the Mongol-founded Yuan dynasty wanted to invade Japan a second time, the Japanese mustered about 40,000 troops to oppose them, out of around 6.2 million people. That's around .65% of the population, which is in keeping with the trend we're seeing in the estimates of Roman and Ming troop strengths.

I'm sure there were reserves, private armed guards or retainers, and local militias, but 1% of the population under arms is just extremely uncommon prior to industrial-era warfare, but even in that context only immense wars like WWII actuall produce different numbers. If you look at the size of the US armed forces right now, active, guard and reserve, you're still looking at about .7% of the population.


Damn, this puts a spanner in my campaign works, if a town with 15,000 people in it is threatened by war by a nation with a 20,000 army you'd think they'd surrender right away.
Damn, I need to figure some things out then.

Mmm, not necessarily. There are a lot of other considerations. Remember, just because you have a total troop strength of 20,000, that doesn't mean you can actually employ them all in one place. If that state has opportunistic, powerful neighbors, or a noble class that isn't very reliable, it'd probably be pretty stupid to pull up every active soldier in order to conquer one city state. Moreover, they might not even be able to if they wanted to--mustering a feudal army was not an easy process, and you could generally only keep it under arms for a limited campaign.

A city-state is also unlikely to exist purely as a city--it'd also include a decent swathe of surrounding territory to draw defenders from. An independent city would also be a mercantile center of some kind, with more ready cash than its more agrarian opponent, making it much better at calling up mercenaries.

Historically, city states often produced higher-quality citizen militias than the imperial/royal levies they faced down, and combined with mercenaries, temporary alliances with similar city states, and the logistical advantage of fighting on your own turf regularly fended off opponents who were quite a bit more powerful on paper.

[Yukitsu]

450,000 legionaries was actually about peak strength for post-republican armies--the empire was always at war somewhere. That's maybe .7% of the population.

The Ming army, at its height was ~1 million, but 70 to 80% of its soldiers spent the vast majority of their time farming. If we put the active Ming army at 250,000, that gives us around .33% of the population. If their entire reserve army was pulled up, you'd crack 1 percent of the total population.

When the Mongol-founded Yuan dynasty wanted to invade Japan a second time, the Japanese mustered about 40,000 troops to oppose them, out of around 6.2 million people. That's around .65% of the population, which is in keeping with the trend we're seeing in the estimates of Roman and Ming troop strengths.

I'm sure there were reserves, private armed guards or retainers, and local militias, but 1% of the population under arms is just extremely uncommon prior to industrial-era warfare, but even in that context only immense wars like WWII actuall produce different numbers. If you look at the size of the US armed forces right now, active, guard and reserve, you're still looking at about .7% of the population.

Rome didn't fight major campaigns until they were divided though, at which point their percentage of soldiers in both East and West actually rose significantly. Pre-empire they were able to bring in huge numbers of troops to fight their major wars.

For the Ming it is almost certain that they had over a million men who were capable of fighting without additional training. It's harder to categorize these troops since they're more or less strategic reserve troops. In the event some hooligans or bandits ran into town however, it should be safe to assume that they are available as soldiers. In context, the OP isn't really asking about people who are actively under arms, but who could defend their village with some level of proficiency.


I've seen estimates that indicate Rome never had more than fifty million and estimates that at its height it had over a hundred. I'm not sure which is true. The Roman army could grow in size for specific campaigns, to be sure, so at any given time there may have been a greater percentage in military service. An army raised up by a politician for a specific war pre-Marian is by no means a standing army, and as far as I'm aware, even post Marian the army was typically a small percentage of the population. Also, the Marian Reforms ended up killing the Republic. I'm familiar with the 700,000 figure, but that was a brief period. A candle that flashes bright and burns out. It wasn't practical and ended up, (along with a few other factors,) resulting in the death of the Republic.

It's pretty hard to peg down any singular cause as the death of the Roman Republic or even if they were better off as a Republic rather than as an Empire. I would certainly see the constant use of the army under the later republic as something that allowed people like Caesar to ascend to the title of Emperor but at the same time I don't think that huge numbers of troops actually directly caused that, smaller armies could still have conquered Rome under a talented general who was willing to take that army across the Rubicon. The professional army rather than a citizen militia likely contributed more than the 700,000 professional soldiers did.

[Urpriest]

10-20 people who are armed and know how to fight, and another several hundred people with bows or boarspears who know how to hunt.

If it's an internal town, with only fields around in all directions, maybe not. But people who live in a frontier village know how to live on a frontier.

See, that's the thing. We probably should count people who regularly engage in paramilitary activities, like livestock rustling and poaching, in the settlement's military.