Economics, population and armies

[Erpingham]

Academia.edu served me up an interesting book review from about 20 years ago. It's by Clifford Rogers of a book called The Field and The Forge. Population, Production, and Power in the Pre-industrial West by John Lander.  The whole is rather complicated and mainly falls outside our period, but I thought the following was an interesting angle on macro-factors governing army size.

Military systems had to work within strict trade-offs between quantity and quality of soldiers, since the surpluses generated by organic production* were not sufficient to pay for large investments in the factors of quality (armor, horses, training, and leadership structures) for large numbers of soldiers. Landers further argues that, until the sixteenth century, the balance of quantity vs. quality in military systems was broadly determined by the phases of the demographic cycle. When population was declining—i.e. across most of the period ca. AD 150-1000, from 1347 to around 1400 or possibly 1500, and from around 1600-1650 (pp. 23-4)—the labor scarcity in the civilian economy made it more efficient to rely on fewer, better-equipped soldiers. During phases of demographic expansion (most clearly c. 1000-1300 and 1500-1600), however, the population tended to push past the point where the marginal productivity of labor fell below subsistence costs. This made diversion of manpower into the economically unproductive activity of soldiering cheap, encouraging the use of large armies. However, as already noted, resources were too limited to sustain large armies and high per-man costs, so quality tended to fall in these periods. Army sizes could not grow too much, however, because the necessarily dispersed "areal geography" of organic economies imposed logistical constraints making it very difficult to sustain field armies much in excess of 30,000 men. Furthermore, the technology of command was insufficiently developed to employ larger armies effectively, even if they could be fed.

* an "organic economy" is defined as one in which most of society's labor had to be devoted to agriculture, and most of the available energy came from muscle power or wood fires.

Despite the hint toward the Ancient era, this is pretty much a medieval and early post-medieval argument.  The impact of mass slavery would skew things earlier than this, while the beginnings of industrialisation would change things at the end. Despite this, an interest approach to the macro-factors affecting army size.

For those interested, the full review is here

https://www.academia.edu/144683092/Essay_Review_of_John_Landers_The_Field_and_The_Forge_Population_Production_and_Power_in_the_Pre_industrial_West_Oxford_University_Press_2005_?email_work_card=title

[Cantabrigian]

Mass slavery in the Roman Empire probably made it economically possible to have full-time soldiers, which led to an increase in quality, and the possibility of ever more distant conquests.

Which is another example of how slavery is always a bad idea because it leads to the inefficient allocation of resources. The average Roman soldier would have had a better life living on their own farm.

[DBS]

The other factor I suspect is range/duration of likely campaign.  If one is a Sumerian Big Man going to smite righteously the neighbouring city, you are likely to be gone only a few days, possibly only a few hours, so can take a larger proportion of the work force (assuming you trust them with pointy objects).  If you are travelling further - especially overseas - or anticipating siege work, then you need to leave some people behind.  Ditto all the above from a logistics perspective of feeding your troops.

[aligern]

would living on your own farm be better than being a legionary?  Well, that depends. The security of supplyis better in the army than on the land. Roman forces do not starve, but farmers do. The army has aba logisticsystem that can move food by river over hundreds of miles  I recall Simon Elliot talking about the army having tile production works that used river transport via rivers that had been engineered to take barges or sailboats. Today so much water is abstracted that the rivers run low, but apparently the Romans had deeper riversplus weirs and locks. The facilities were built by and managed by the army. Rural life was always precarious, you might have too much snow hail or rain or too much wind abpnd heat. Farmers might starve, but the army could switch supply routes and take more from less afflicted areas. Plus, if you are a soldier you can always go round the local producers and ask them to give more from stocks.

[Erpingham]

if you are a soldier you can always go round the local producers and ask them to give more from stocks.

Shouldn't that be "ask"?

[Jim Webster]

Mass slavery in the Roman Empire probably made it economically possible to have full-time soldiers, which led to an increase in quality, and the possibility of ever more distant conquests.

Which is another example of how slavery is always a bad idea because it leads to the inefficient allocation of resources. The average Roman soldier would have had a better life living on their own farm.

Only if they had slaves to do the hard work. Otherwise it's subsistence peasant agriculture with wife and family working all hours

[Nick Harbud]

Jim writes from experience....

 

[Jim Webster]

Pretty much 

I remember earlier this year hearing somebody talking on the radio about those people who are working from home and are actually doing two '35hr' a week jobs (often without either employer knowing about the other.)
Obviously some aren't working the 70hrs, but one 'expert' on work etc from a university whose name I've forgotten, saying how working more than 40hrs a week was dangerous to your health, mental health etc.
I was driving at the time and I had to pull over a bit because I was laughing so much at what she was saying