Why were battles in the Middle Ages so small when it comes down

Because it's small city states and kingdoms fight each other, not empires.

>>3206808
they went into a dark age mate, went from populations of Millions to thousands

mad max shit

File: IMG_4697.jpg (350KB, 1600x2216px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 1600x2216px

>>3206808
>10k

WATCH THIS

>Be Chinese levy
>our spears will thrust into the heavens!
>200,000 men
>cosy clsssical architecture, high walls and qt city chicks

>Steppe niggers come
>mere 100,000
>coated with two layers of steel, silk and fur.
>big fucking machete.jpg

>emperor sends his son for peace talk
>gets captured

"Oh well atleast they are gone now"
>130,000 men stationed elsewhere

>NOHONOR
>Steppenigs come back with 150,000

>it's a siege and we outnumber them, plus they are mostly cavarly

>still wrecks shit.

>Emperor is a drawfag.
>submits to chad overlord.
>all females regardless of class gets cucked to serve big daddy oh.

>>3206808
Large armies require powerful logistics. The feudal state is defined by hardcore decentralization and therefore is weak and poor, unable to support the large armies of a more centralized state.

>>3206808
A combination of decentralization and lower populations. Decentralization has two different effects on the ability to form a large army:
1. You can only call up so many troops due to the political structure (pretty much just your closest bros and their armies)
2. Poor infrastructure and the lack of supply chains that come from a centralized empire mean that you can only have so many men in one place at one time or they'll starve. People primarily "foraged" on campaign which meant stealing from peasants combined with actual foraging. There is only so much food in an area, thus limiting an army's size. Multiple armies that carried food could temporarily converge, but that's the extent of things. This would not be overcome until Napoleon, the Prussian General Staff, and the railroad.
I would give you numbers, but my books are at school. I want to say it was Maurice de Saxe that estimated 30,000-35,000 men tops for a campaign, but that was during the limited wars era of the renaissance.

>>3206808
>few hundred thousand soldiers
Don't take Herodotus seriously

>>3207296
While I agree that no one should take Herodotus seriously at all, Rome's numbers were much larger than medieval Europe's which is what I assume OP was talking about. I don't think anyone actually believes Greek battles were that big.

Because dragging around peasant levies is useless. Better to just have professional mercenaries work for you.

>>3206808
Same amount of people under more political entities

>>3207288
>This would not be overcome until Napoleon, the Prussian General Staff, and the railroa
not him but how did the ancient era civilisations overcome this since they had larger armies?

>>3207404
They didnt mostly. A lot of historical battles are hugely inflated. Plus, many great empires like the Romans created huge amounts of infrastructure to supply armies across Europe.

>>3207404
They often had a way more centralized state and therefore more sophisticated structures. Not only in Europe but elsewhere too. Iraq's hidraulic infraestructure for agriculture did not reach the efficiency of Sasanian times until the modern era.

>>3207404
Ancient centralized empires could afford better logistics trains. Not on the level of Napoleon, but certainly superior to what the Middle Ages could accomplish.

>>3206808
Numbers for battles that took place in Antiquity are notoriously difficult to determine, the writing style of most histories led to very inflated numbers to increase the majesty of the battle in the future, also, the Dark Ages led to feudalism that led to smaller wars.

>>3207404
Their numbers are usually inflated. Rome did have very large armies we know for a fact, but they had an amazing system of roads that spanned Europe and controlled the Mediterranean so shipping supplies whether by land or sea was much easier for them, though still expensive. Really it's just a testament to how much wealth Rome controlled that they were able to keep over a hundred thousand men under arms at their peak and actually deploy them all over Europe in extended campaigns. The cost by modern standards is staggering.

>>3207423
>>3207434
>>3207440
>>3207459
based /his/

>>3206808
Also be skeptical of any numbers you see for battles. Its more of guessing game. But, the numbers decreased because Europe went from having centralized goverments with strong organizational abilities to a highly decentralized fuedal arrangement. Basically they could niether feed nor equip and train large amounts of men.

File: spis.jpg (213KB, 1024x410px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1024x410px

*blocks your path*

Heh. You needed that supply line to support your 50000 troops? Tough luck pal.

>>3207404
Only the largest of ancient empires could overcome the difficulties and even then only in part. They managed this by having what medieval armies lacked.
1. A centralized command structure
A centralized command structure gives you greater force projecting abilities than a decentralized one. It does this by having multiple parts of the empire work towards a common goal. This can happen through things like the Assyrian tribute and grainstore system or the Roman outpost/colony system where you have the resources you need being strategically stored at key points in your empire where your army will march. You still can not project too far into enemy territory though because soldiers simply could not carry enough food. Rome was able to work out some Napoleon-like divide and reconvene shenanigans, but for the most part, offensive actions deep into enemy territory required a smaller force.
2. Roads
Your top tier empires had better roads which improved supply chain efficiency, but, much like food stores, this pretty much only extends to the borders of the empire at best.