>>17741484
>A few thousand would be a sizable army for European medieval times even. It's absolutely massive, and requires pulling manpower from a lot bigger area than a 10km radius around you
I don't think that's necessarily true. While an army of a few thousand would be massive by medieval European standards it was also a completely different type of army. Ancient armies often recruit soldiers from the citizenry during the period of the year when they weren't needed for farming. Their equipment was simpler, cheaper and their pay would most likely just be a combination of food and plunder. A medieval army would rely far more on professional soldiers. Your average man-at-arms or knight would be far, far better equipped and trained than a Sumerian spearman but obviously far more expensive as well. Mass drafting citizens was a bad idea during this period because you would destroy economic activity at home, put a huge logistical strain on your army and it would consist of poorly armored, poorly disciplined people who would break at the first sight of a cavalry charge. It sounds impressive that an ancient ruler raised an army of 10,000 compared to a medieval king who struggled to pay for an army of 2,000-3,000 men, but if they ever met on the field of battle my money would be on the latter any day of the week.
City states were also far more centralized so a ruler could pool more resources towards a war, which also led to bigger armies than a feudal societies where any kingdom would most likely spend most of its time fighting itself, i.e the king trying to tardwrangle his aristocracy. If they united into a hive mind and pooled all their resources and soldiers (instead of the feudal lords just providing the bare minimum they were contractually obligated to) then army sizes would probably have been bigger.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/his/

Thread:

How did complex, state-level societies develop so quickly? It seems like it immediately skips between small-scale, tribal warfare, to rulers of entire…