Re: Kalamazoo

In article <gv2ecu$j5g$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, gans@xxxxxxxxx (Paul J
Gans) wrote:

I doubt he conscripted Avars, Saxons, or Italians. His orders
applied to the lands that were originally part of the Frankish
kingdom.

How many of the supposed 20 million population of the C Empire was Avar,
Saxon or Italian? What was the number of Free Franks? And by the way I
do consider the comparison between Francia and England valid as the laws
for recruiting troops was much the same and lasted into the Norman
period. The main difference is more reliable numbers for troops raised
by the Arriere Ban <sp>. IIRC Henry I of England (it may have been Henry
III) called a full muster confiscated the supplies the summoned troops
brought with them and sent them home. Thus getting the supplies for
professional troops. As far as I can recall even Oman never took numbers
in Chronicles seriously.

Still as late as WW2 there are still arguments about the numbers of
troops at any specific battle. We know how many divisions were there but
calculating troop numbers means going through every unit return to try
and ascertain actual strength. With the better organisation of France
during the Hundred Years War I have come across arguments (that as it
happens I don't agree with) that French troops were outnumbered by the
English.

C may have summoned troops to a muster but that does not mean they
turned up or had sufficient supplies. Three months of supplies per
individual is bulky. RN rations work out as between 2.5 to 3lbs of food
per day per man and that was ready prepared food, biscuit and cured
meat. Raw grain would be heavier for the same calorific value. So one
man for 90 days works out as 225lbs minimum. For 3000 men that is
67500lbs. Not exactly easy to transport. For meat it also requires a lot
of salt and a lot of barrels.

Now while I due not dispute the conquest Charles made I very much doubt
the number of troops. For example during WW2 most formations were never
at their official strength. It is almost certain that Herodotus' figures
for the Persian Army that invaded Greece was wrong and probably that the
forces Alexander faced were a lot less than Greek chronicles stated. For
that matter Roman Legions were rarely at official strength.

C may have been able to raise 60,000 but I very much doubt that he ever
managed to use that number in a campaign.

By the way the situation changed a lot from when the Merovignians took
over to C. There was a change from infantry as the main force to cavalry
a hundred years plus of Merovignian rule and the abandonment of throwing
axes as a weapon.

Ken Young
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Was Maclellan [sic] a southern sympathizer?
    ... More men means more supplies. ... getting the "stuff" to the troops in the field. ... it was some sort of seige that took every place of importance. ... Seiges also allowed the Union to use their vast ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Politics and the military (Re: The rise in military science fiction)
    ... Paying for supplies as you march means the locals get their own wagons ... and herds and bring the forage to your camp and you exchange hard cash ... Money meant that the best troops could march twenty miles in a day ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Mrs Stupid.
    ... Leander or a Type-21 in order to ensure that all the troops and supplies ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Normandy Spit with Beer Kegs!!!
    ... tolerated the usage of fuel and took great efforts to ship adequate ... supplies to the troops. ... One welcome effect in North Africa was that ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: Male McCain Voters See Testosterone Drop
    ... you already have troops in harm's way. ... Bush let Afghanistan go to hell for eight years, ... few troops to keep the Taliban from returning in strength in 2005 when they ... decrying the way the Bush administration had let the situation deteriorate ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)