RE: The RuneQuest Daily, Thu, 08 Apr 1993

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Mystic Musk Ox (MAB@SAVAX750.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK)
Date: Thu 08 Apr 1993 - 18:36:00 EEST


>Army sizes
>==========

>The likeliest source of reasonable comparisons would probably be from ancient
>history, rather than Napoleonic or the 30 Years War [For all the impact of
>magic as technology, the societies of Glorantha in c1600STdon't seem have the
>social structures (such as nation states with strong central governments)
>necessary for a fair comparison with Europe even c1600AD.] I don't have firm
>figures for Persia, which was probably much of a size with the Lunar Empire
>(but ~100,000 for Xerxes' march upon Greece rings a bell). The Roman Legion
>was 6000 men plus auxilaries, the there were a couple of dozen of these at the
>height of the Empire - though at that time it would have been about twice the
>size of the Lunar Empire c1600ST, maybe more - and an operating detachment
>would be from 1-3 legions.

>The effectiveness of a force goes roughly as the square of the number of men.

Surely the Lunar Empire counts as a strong central government? But, yes point taken. I quoted those numbers partly to give an idea of how big armies COULD be, and also 'cos I know more about that era than earlier ones! I was under the impression though that the Persians were the first to evolve a bureaucracy and civil service - in fact their entire government was very sophisticated.

I'm not so sure about the effectiveness of a force being proportional to the square of the number of troops, after all, there must be a tail off when a force starts to get so large that its command and control becomes ineffective.


Mark Buckley
Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:30:36 EEST