Can we talk about army composition of European nations during

Cavalry was upper class guys who could afford their own horses & armor plus the people to take care of them.

>>1935273
I know, not what I'm asking.

>>1935252
I don't think there was a standardised ratio of anything considering that your army composition depended on your ability to muster whoever was available.

Hence you made do with whatever you had. If your new recruits could use a bow, were professional or militia archers or trappers, then good for them. If they could afford a suit of mail or a harness, then woo hoo. If they were nobility, of the professional warrior class or otherwise somehow equipped to be cavalrymen then that they were. You'd take what you could get and only implement a minimum of training.

I don't think military commanders had the time to train archers or riders on campagin considering how time consuming both forms of training are. The best you could do would probably be to regulate the local population in peace time such that certain forms of training were mandatory.

If anyone has hard evidence that proves me wrong, please, by all means.

>>1935300
I suspect most of this mainly because standing armies were not the norm. Lords tended to raise armies for campaigns on an ad hoc basis around a small corp of professional warriors.

>>1935252
>Can we talk about army composition of European nations during the medieval period?
There is no such thing as "national armies" during the medieval period.

You had a feudal overlord who had a bunch of household troops and a bunch of minor feudal lord who also had household troops who in turn had even more minor feudal lords with household troops of their own and so on. These lords were not necessarily all too eager to follow their lord into battle if it didn't suit them - perhaps they even found themselves fighting their lord. During the late middle ages a significant part of the fighting men were mercenaries, from all kinds of nations.

The time of national armies essentially began with Napoleon.

Army composition in the Middle-Ages was probably not standardized and it was likely chosen by whoever was levying the troops. One of the first attempts to explicitly order the number and composition of troops was the creation of the Compagnies d'ordonnances by the King of France in the XV Century.

Interesting bit about the Black Army of Hungary

>"In the beginnings, the core of the army consisted of 6–8,000 mercenaries. In the 1480s, the number was between 15,000 and 20,000, however the figures in the great Viennese military parade reached to 28,000 men (20,000 horsemen, 8,000 infantry) in 1485. The soldiers were mainly Bohemians, Germans, Serbs, Poles and, from 1480, Hungarians. Thus the Black Army was far larger than the army of Louis XI of France, the only other existing permanent professional European army in the era."

>>1935311
Poor wording on my part desu. I meant more than when an army was actually fielded what the compisition would be, or at least what would be aimed for.

Seems like>>1935331
Shows that if you could afford more cav, you brought more cav.

>>1935252
Often soldiers could fight in multiple ways. Archers were used in melee combat in practically every battle they took part in and Men-At-Arms could function both as infantry or cavalry depending on the situation.

>>1935311
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druzhina

File: knightandlady.jpg (510KB, 1182x1600px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1182x1600px

>>1935252
>Can we talk about army composition of European nations during the medieval period?
>medieval nations
>the 'medieval period', a period that ended and started in different points depending on the location and generally covers nearly a thousand years

>>1935415
Considering he posted a picture of an english man at arms from the 1400s, its not hard to figure out what time period he was referring to. Stop being an autist.

>>1935252
Ratio varied a fuck ton, depending on the region and the exact time period. For example, Poland had lots of cavalry in its mustered armies during the time when they had a lot of minor nobles. Meanwhile England relied on trained and drafted commoners during the Hundred Year War who mostly used longbows.

>>1935273
fighting in an army was for upper class guys who could afford and take care of needed gear. peasant levies are just a meme.

>>1935457
That still doesn't account for the fact that he mentioned nations in a medieval context, and it's still useful to educate someone to speak more specifically to prevent misconceptions arising.