|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Jun 25, 2017 11:28:17 GMT
Erich von Ludendorff, an army the size of nearly 300,000?  According to historical sources the largest Almohad army was during the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (about 150,000 - the Castillian King said 100,000 Almohads fell that day). Almohad sources say that they had more soldiers than starts in the sky. Of course, historical sources often exaggerate. Modern sources put it lower, about 20,000-30,000. That seems to be the norm for most battles at this time. I seriously doubt that a 300,000 man army can be raised. Las Navas was decisive enough to break the yoke of Almohad power, so the force there would probably consist of a substantial majority of Almohads. I'd say around 50,000-80,000 would be more acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yi Sun Sin on Jun 25, 2017 11:28:55 GMT
Well IRL the Mongols were being deliberately divided by the chinese government. Perhaps a different Mongol would unite them decades earlier? Still there are more than chronological reasons to not want the Mongols in the game. So...if Hugh can claim most of France's population and Almohad can continually build troops and ships, can I increase my armies unrealistically too? Because 150 ships was the current top strength of Byzanz due to budget concerns, but from the looks of almohad we are running this as a recruit troops from a realistic (if that) starting point. I have IRL one of the largest populations west of India, where's MY army? BTW Hugh III of Burgundy , while I think your total population is WAY out of line, the rest of your turn WAS good. Your army and navy in particular seemed pretty realistic for you northerners as well. So a good show for sure. Venice built 400 transport ships in a year when the fourth crusade started, I have built only 200. They also built 50 war galleys. The only problem in this timeline is the availability of exact information. We're taking about stuff that happened 837 years ago. So we have to make guesses here. If this was 1803 or something I would be spending hours reading about that country and gathering details and numbers. The Venezzians didn't have to feed and recruit hundreds of thousands of soldiers. IMO, 150 warships isn't too bad. Almohad was quite stronk at the time. Depends on what kind of warships they are. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Ludendorff on Jun 25, 2017 11:30:27 GMT
Erich von Ludendorff, an army the size of nearly 300,000? According to historical sources the largest Almohad army was during the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (about 150,000 - the Castillian King said 100,000 Almohads fell that day). Almohad sources say that they had more soldiers than starts in the sky. Of course, historical sources often exaggerate. Modern sources put it lower, about 20,000-30,000. That seems to be the norm for most battles at this time. I seriously doubt that a 300,000 man army can be raised. Las Navas was decisive enough to break the yoke of Almohad power, so the force there would probably consist of a substantial majority of Almohads. I'd say around 50,000-80,000 would be more acceptable. I'll make it 150000 then. |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jun 25, 2017 11:32:32 GMT
Erich von Ludendorff, I thought you built 200 warships for some reason. I have -150 warships, which is apparently enough to threaten Venice and Egypt but....eh. Byzanz is good at keeping records but neighbours less so. I have no clue Seljuk army OR population. I just know that its around equal in fighting ability right now, if not recruitment ability. I know Egyptian population but not army either. Of course 1180 is a big year for Byzanz. My dice rolls might screw the great revival before I begin. BTW I didn't want to say this but France has 13,000,000 people I believe inside its modern borders, compare to 10 Million Byzantines. SO Hugh is claiming the majority of France's population. At least England has a small (but stronk) population. Of course its French lands are a different story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Jun 25, 2017 11:32:48 GMT
Erich von Ludendorff , an army the size of nearly 300,000? According to historical sources the largest Almohad army was during the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (about 150,000 - the Castillian King said 100,000 Almohads fell that day). Almohad sources say that they had more soldiers than starts in the sky. Of course, historical sources often exaggerate. Modern sources put it lower, about 20,000-30,000. That seems to be the norm for most battles at this time. I seriously doubt that a 300,000 man army can be raised. Las Navas was decisive enough to break the yoke of Almohad power, so the force there would probably consist of a substantial majority of Almohads. I'd say around 50,000-80,000 would be more acceptable. I'll make it 150000 then. It would be a tad big IMO. Troops in that number were rarely raised unless they intended to go to war (as the Almohads did during Las Navas), not garrisons. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Ludendorff on Jun 25, 2017 11:35:15 GMT
Venice built 400 transport ships in a year when the fourth crusade started, I have built only 200. They also built 50 war galleys. The only problem in this timeline is the availability of exact information. We're taking about stuff that happened 837 years ago. So we have to make guesses here. If this was 1803 or something I would be spending hours reading about that country and gathering details and numbers. The Venezzians didn't have to feed and recruit hundreds of thousands of soldiers. IMO, 150 warships isn't too bad. Almohad was quite stronk at the time. Depends on what kind of warships they are. I think Venice was just giving the ships to the Crusaders for money. They were responsible only for the transport, the Crusaders had to do the rest on their own. The galleys are the average size that everyone built in this time period. And the transport ships have a capacity of around a hundred men I think. So even with 200 transport ships the total number of men that can be transported would be 20000. St Cyr said that in this time period usually battles were fought with 20000-30000 men. So the number of the transport ships is realistic (if we consider that the average ships can carry a hundred men). |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Ludendorff on Jun 25, 2017 11:37:19 GMT
I'll make it 150000 then. It would be a tad big IMO. Troops in that number were rarely raised unless they intended to go to war (as the Almohads did during Las Navas), not garrisons. is a hundred thousand acceptable? I can't decrease more than that because I have to defend two continents you know. |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jun 25, 2017 11:38:39 GMT
Laurent de Gouvion, I agree. The Roman empire could field a few hundred thousand, with Field armies usually much less than 80,000, HOWEVER nobody outside China has matched Rome in hundreds of years. My population is 10,000,000, slightly bigger than probably everybody in this RP (correct me if wrong) BUT despite my wealth my IRL Field army is only 50,000. That might not include Militia like that defending Western Anatolia Right now, but it still seems like a small amount. Of course I have no stats on the Muslims. I believe their armies are often larger then mine, but are MAYBE unsustainable if lost. Seljuk got decisively Rekt by the Mongols when fielding 60-80,000 men. This was decades from now when they were stronger and had allies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Jun 25, 2017 12:15:10 GMT
Erich von Ludendorff it is my (albeit limited) understanding that in this time period countries did not actually have standing armies (Execpt for maybe a few full time soldiers but only a tiny number) and that their admirers came from levies raised in times of war. Once the wads the levies go home. As for the ships keep in mind Venice is probably one of if not the stronkest naval power which focuses on navy stuff and is very experienced in ship buildings. It's my understanding that the Almohads are not a naval power at all nor are they experienced ship builders. And as Yi Sun Sin said Venice doesn't have an army to feed. Also Venice is filthy rich.
|
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jun 25, 2017 12:37:26 GMT
Erich von Ludendorff it is my (albeit limited) understanding that in this time period countries did not actually have standing armies (Execpt for maybe a few full time soldiers but only a tiny number) and that their admirers came from levies raised in times of war. Once the wads the levies go home. As for the ships keep in mind Venice is probably one of if not the stronkest naval power which focuses on navy stuff and is very experienced in ship buildings. It's my understanding that the Almohads are not a naval power at all nor are they experienced ship builders. And as Yi Sun Sin said Venice doesn't have an army to feed. Also Venice is filthy rich. Umm speak for yourself Feudal catholic. Byzantium is a Standing army. Mostly if not entirely....we have our bad days. We've recovered from the worst of the worst though. But you are correct. I believe this is the case for most countries European or Muslim. NOTE that some troops would be noblemen and elite fighters and often available, I know that Early Muslim nations had guards of presumably no greater ability than most to control their new lands. 1. Venice can raise a few thousand mercenaries on land I believe, though its not much of a much. Plus if any nation gets that close and wins its over. Kinda, could sue for peace. 2. From what I've been reading during the last century or more Byzantium has waxxed and waned from being quite inferior to the Venetian navy to slightly superior. Currently I should be equal, or quite possibly slightly inferior. That would be unsurprising, as this is truly the last several years of Byzantine naval power. IF I allow it to fail. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugh III of Burgundy on Jun 25, 2017 13:24:15 GMT
Well IRL the Mongols were being deliberately divided by the chinese government. Perhaps a different Mongol would unite them decades earlier? Still there are more than chronological reasons to not want the Mongols in the game. So...if Hugh can claim most of France's population and Almohad can continually build troops and ships, can I increase my armies unrealistically too? Because 150 ships was the current top strength of Byzanz due to budget concerns, but from the looks of almohad we are running this as a recruit troops from a realistic (if that) starting point. I have IRL one of the largest populations west of India, where's MY army? BTW Hugh III of Burgundy , while I think your total population is WAY out of line, the rest of your turn WAS good. Your army and navy in particular seemed pretty realistic for you northerners as well. So a good show for sure. Woah! Lol sorry bout that. How does a population of 5 million sound for you? Or perhaps 3 million? |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jun 25, 2017 13:30:27 GMT
Well IRL the Mongols were being deliberately divided by the chinese government. Perhaps a different Mongol would unite them decades earlier? Still there are more than chronological reasons to not want the Mongols in the game. So...if Hugh can claim most of France's population and Almohad can continually build troops and ships, can I increase my armies unrealistically too? Because 150 ships was the current top strength of Byzanz due to budget concerns, but from the looks of almohad we are running this as a recruit troops from a realistic (if that) starting point. I have IRL one of the largest populations west of India, where's MY army? BTW Hugh III of Burgundy , while I think your total population is WAY out of line, the rest of your turn WAS good. Your army and navy in particular seemed pretty realistic for you northerners as well. So a good show for sure. Woah! Lol sorry bout that. How does a population of 5 million sound for you? Or perhaps 3 million? You did a good job. Your apology goes beyond what is necessary....to me. England has more of France right? I'm not trying to hobble you but I think its fair if you have 5+ million. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugh III of Burgundy on Jun 25, 2017 13:35:14 GMT
How long would it take for a force of about 10,000 to be properly trained and armed(weapons & armor)? I suppose 1 year is long enough right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugh III of Burgundy on Jun 25, 2017 13:38:17 GMT
Woah! Lol sorry bout that. How does a population of 5 million sound for you? Or perhaps 3 million? You did a good job. Your apology goes beyond what is necessary....to me. England has more of France right? I'm not trying to hobble you but I think its fair if you have 5+ million. Alrighty, I'll stick with 6 million. But France had a population of 13mil at that time period though. I'm not sure if that meant France with modern day borders or just Capet France. |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jun 25, 2017 13:51:45 GMT
You did a good job. Your apology goes beyond what is necessary....to me. England has more of France right? I'm not trying to hobble you but I think its fair if you have 5+ million. Alrighty, I'll stick with 6 million. But France had a population of 13mil at that time period though. I'm not sure if that meant France with modern day borders or just Capet France. I highly doubt it was Capetian France, I think we should assume like most of these statistics it is focusing only on the Modern sized country. For example one source says in 1226 it was 16 million within 2004 France. If France was historically 25% or more of Europe, then 13 makes sense. (out of -68) Looking at some maps, Capetian France was larger than I realized. Giving you 50% of the population seems fair, particularly considering England doesn't add a whole lot onto that. (but I imagine it punches above its weight, to use a saying) Note: the Kingdom of Burgundy owned some regions, or pieces of them outside France. But for example Switzerland had like 400,000 people, and you own -50%. |
|
