How much cavalry vs infantry did countries which are predominantly flat (with maybe some mountains on borders) have during 15th century? I am primarily thinking of countries at European Plain - that is, France, Northern Germany, Poland, as well as Hungary (which lies within Pannonian Basin).
It greatly depends on the individual country and their wealth. Military horses cannot sustain themselves fully with grazing, they require 1/2 dry food. This combined with the fact most cavalry required additional horses to drag equipment makes cavalry an expensive game. Thus, only major players fielded standing cavalry formations (eg, individual HRE states usually hired mercenary cavalry, mostly from Poland). From various battles fought during the late 15th century, I would say cavalry never more than 1/6 of the whole army, unless it was a special cavalry corps on its own. Historical data shows that the Black Army of Hungary had more firearms than cavalry (1/4 the troops equipped as such).
For my setting, I assumed military organization akin to Byzantine thematic one. So technically it would be possible to have entire army as cavalry-only. Question is, whether it would be practical? And IIRC, but wasn't Black Army 20 000 cavalry and 6 000 infantry at its height? Maybe I should look at French Compagnie d'Ordonnance, but I don't know French...
I have found the Hungarian source for those numbers; and it seems like that was recorded during a military parade / inspection in Wienerneustadt. It seems very small compared to the recorded 80-90,000 strong force from the Bohemian/Polish wars. At the same time, it is highly likely as a "mercenary core" number. During a similar inspection in Schottwien on the 10th of July, 1487 the army took up a Hussite formation with the whole army, including cavalry and baggage train, surrounded by an infantry shield wall. This once again insinuates that there was a huge number of infantry supporting the shock cavalry. It'd be on the border of practical / infeasible with 15th century technology. 15th century infantry armour, organization and numbers were enough to break a cavalry charge. Related to the Black Army above, there are firm records from the Battle of Varna that a heavy cavalry charge led by the Hungarian king himself was stopped by Janissaries who captured and beheaded the king. However, you should also not forget the other roles cavalry played in war, not solely battles. As Napoleon stated, "Cavalry is useful before, during, and after the battle." This refers to the triple-use of cavalry as scouting/skirmishing troops, shock troops and pursuit troops. Any commander maintaining a mixed-arms army /and/ a smaller & independent cavalry corps would be able to better harass, pursue and scout enemy forces. A prime example for this are the Cossacks in the east (who also had the tradition of turning on the masters they served). Wiki refers to a 1/6 cavalry composition at its peak.
I believe that 80 000 - 90 000 was total military power of Hungarian kingdom, and thus included feudal levies. In 1432., king Sigismund anticipated raising 80 000 cavalry, of which 12 000 from Croatia. Infantry is not mentioned at all. Is there any such information for France, Poland, Wallachia, or Russia? I am not that sure. At Varna, it was only king's own bodyguard which participated in the charge. That means maybe 500 - 1 000 heavy cavalry against 10 000 Janissaries deployed behind ditches and barricades. At Mohacs in 1525., Hungarian heavy cavalry rode straight through Azab light infantry and elite Janissaries; it was only barricade of cannons chained together with heavy chains that halted the charge. David Eltis stated that heavy cavalry can easily defeat 3-4 times more numerous enemy infantry, and indeed I found many examples where heavy cavalry defeated pikemen. What seems to be decisive is the terrain: heavy cavalry will smash infantry on open flat ground; but if infantry is behind trenches, or in uneven terrain (forrest, hills, marshes) then infantry will win. This was true both before and after appearance of pike-and-shot tactics. Second aspect is discipline. Heavy cavalry were predominantly nobility, and thus could not be taught discipline properly; pikemen, being citizens, could and in fact had to be disciplined to perform. But when disciplined heavy cavalry lancers (or even medium cavalry such as Polish Hussars) clashed against disciplined pikemen in open terrain, it was former who often prevailed. You can see an accaunt of cavalry charge against solid infantry here; while it happened in 19th century, it is still relevant. Thing is, however, infantry can adapt terrain in its favour. Ditches, pallisades, wagenburg... they were all used to deny cavalry the open terrain it needs for a charge. And once that happens, you better have infantry of your own to handle such situations. Anyway, Poles used heavy cavalry in the center, with infantry at its wings, medium cavalry at infantry's outside wings, and light cavalry at army's wings. Link here. Agreed.
Mohacs was terrain heavily in favour of infantry, as it was a swamp. There, it was more about shock & surprise. Discipline, yes. That is exactly what matters, hence the usual tale of mercenaries or Janissaries breaking charges. Really like the siege of Vienna in these regards because it shows what a disciplined, well-paid and well-equipped mercenary force is capable of. They pretty much made a city impenetrable; even with a siege a month longer or twice the besiegers it would have been a failure. It was total military power deployed. I press a heavy doubt on raising 80,000 cavalry and maintaining such; that was a logistical nightmare even in Napoleonic times. A warhorse needs at least 20 pounds of food a day; half of which is grain and not grazing. That's 300 tons of grain a day and even that is just an estimation. Likely, they were /mounted soldiers/ and not /cavalry/ per se; the difference is stark because the former rides whatever and dismounts for combat. You'll need good explanation / background for your world if there are gigantic cavalry formations fielded. That is to say, if you've got a large plains in your fantasy world I expect your armies will make great use of draft animals for riding and carting soldiers around. Be careful with this; if you're touching into late 15th century you'll have carabiniers already. The Black Army had them, the French had them. Mounted firearms will leave a fortified position surrounded quick and likely forced into a surrender from a distance if not relieved. Wallachia was suzerain under the Kingdom of Hungary for most of the 15th century, as was Moldavia under Poland. Poland is a curious bit because (most of) it eventually fell under the Kingdom of Hungary too, which is why the Black Army's data is your best bet for eastern / central Europe. The French data is there, but I didn't dig deeper than wiki. They quote a 1/6 cavalry composition which is fair and sounds realistic.
Vetronia is basically massive flatlands bordered by mountains and with some rivers. Kinda like Hungary (except with sea) or atlantic France. Literature I am using mentions it as cavalry only. Also, it is total military power of the kingdom; but even the text itself makes a point that nature of feudal banderial system made it impossible to actually mobilze the entirety of military capacity of the kingdom except for civil wars. Typical field army was rarely more than 10 000. With the exception of Black Army, most ranged troops were equipped with crossbows even in early 16th century I think. At any rate, I am still not certain whether I will use gunpowder weapons at all.
Even into the late 1600s, I'm pretty sure Winged Hussars were so viable that they defeated Russian armies that outnumbered them 3-1 or greater. If I'm not mistaken, they played a key role in protecting all of Europe at the Battle of Vienna, but they were not alone there. I don't know how much this helps you, but in my mind it goes to show that you don't need a massive force entirely consisting of cavalry as you previously mentioned. Just an exceptionally outfitted, well-trained, and well-led cavalry force of whatever an average number might have been considered at that time. But this is not my forte, and I'm not privy to the details of your WIP.
That is wholly untrue. Armies did approximate a hundred thousand; in battle only a portion of these troops were fielded as the rest were used as occupation and garrison force (or requisition / plunder / harassment in some less civil wars). This didn't change the frontline total, merely battle numbers. It's another misconception represented in fantasy; the peasant conscripted into an army and sent to the frontlines to fight a battle straight - in reality, levies and irregulars would most likely bolster garrisons and never see a field battle in their lives. I've often theorized that the stark difference between army numbers mentioned in chronicles is due to one historian mentioning fielded army size, the other the drafted army size. Eg; the former meant a French army of ~120,000 deployed at Borodino, the latter an army of ~600,000 available at Borodino. It's just different because for the Napoleonic wars we have rigorous regimental data. In connection to the above; maintain historical skepticism. Joan of Arc has two biographies for a reason; one drafted for her trial and one drafted for the revision / abolition of her trial. Refer to my note on cavalry maintenance and how unlikely such a force could be. We're talking about an amount of cavalry that ate up the logistics of the French Empire spanning 2/3 of Europe at its greatest extent 400 years later. With the exception of the Black Army, the Spanish Army, the Ottoman Army and the French Army you mean; EG, any army with decent funding of the age. It is truly up to you whether you involve firearms; though in European history the cannon entered the battlefield a century earlier than plate armour. I prefer the Warhammer-like take on high medieval times reflecting bombards; I see little reason to exclude them, they are pretty cool. Shock troops may have had great effect in battles but on their own they weren't sufficient. The same argument could be made about heavy cavalry at Austerlitz, as the Pratzen heights were secured by the Imperial Guard Cavalry. Or at Friedland, where the battle was mostly decided by the cavalry engagement at Friedrichsdorf. Both their tactical and strategic importance remained until motorized/mechanized troops in the world wars. The winged hussar legend is funneled by Sabaton's song; in reality they charged to break the lines of a worn-out Ottoman army hours after the Polish army already engaged them. At that point it could have been any cavalry charging in; they'd have succeeded nonetheless.
Those are good points. Above my paygrade, but I understand what you're talking about. I don't wish to derail the thread, but I am curious if there'd be anything that the OP might glean from how cavalry was used in Japan or China, like in the feudal age or the Three Kingdoms. I don't know how much you'd know about that though, but you seem quite knowledgable about this area at least. The Mongols I thought would be another perspective to look at, or even Native Americans. I feel like the OP should entertain other angles, even though they may not ultimately be used. I wonder what size cavalry the Japanese clans, or the Chinese kingdoms, or the Mongols were able to field, and how that might have differed from Europe (and why). I haven't seen horseback archers mentioned anywhere. I could only imagine how lethal a force might be if they were as proficient marksmen with their bows as they were with sword or spear, especially if no other such force has ever existed in the realm. Wouldn't such a dual-equipped cavalry force be able to afford fielding smaller numbers? (to tie this back to the OP) Theoretically that would mitigate the logistical issue of maintaining warhorses, if you have such an elite and versatile cavalry force that they can effectively operate with fewer numbers. Of course, I don't know the details about the OP's WIP. Maybe this is supposed to be historical fiction, in which case my ideas here aren't very helpful at all.
Read what I wrote again: "Also, it is total military power of the kingdom; but even the text itself makes a point that nature of feudal banderial system made it impossible to actually mobilize the entirety of military capacity of the kingdom except for civil wars. Typical field army was rarely more than 10 000." It was not just that rest were "occupation and garrison force". We are dealing with feudal system in this particular case, which means that most of military capacity of kingdom is under control of magnates. This means that only time when kingdom will be capable of mobilizing its full capacity is for civil wars. When it comes to foreign invasions, there will always be some nobles who do not feel threatened, some who are hoping king will get his ass kicked and thus lose authority, some who are simply too lazy and some who just like to watch their neighbour's house burn... now, I am not using feudal system in my WIP, but there will be other concerns. If we look at actual data: http://warfareeast.co.uk/main/Hungarian_Battles.htm Vasaq 1442: 15 000 "peasants, townspeople and Szekelers" Long Campaign 1443 - 1444: 10 000 - 12 000 mercenaries, 20 000 - 25 000 feudal banderial troops Varna 1444 - 16 000 Hungarian troops, 4 000 Wallachians (presumably all banderial and mercenary) Kosovopolje 1448 - 24 000 - 30 000 troops (14 000 - 20 000 Hungarians, 10 000 Wallachians) As can be seen, actual Hungarian armies never go beyond 20 000 - 25 000 men in Hunyadi's field armies. But this is what Venetian records say about size of Matthias Corvinus' army: Venetian records 3 000 wagons with supplies 36 artillery wagons with 116 cannons 86 artillery pieces 6 000 heavy cavalry (Silesia-Moravia) 10 000 infantry 10 000 heavy cavalry (Hungarian) 4 000 crossbowmen with pavises 16 000 light cavalry (Szekely – lance, shields, bows) 16 000 light infantry (Szekely – lance, shield, bows) 400 riflemen 80 artillery masters 10 000 (army of noblemen and high lords of Transylvania) 2 000 Wallachians of Transylvania 12 000 riders of voivode of Wallachia 20 000 infantrymen and artillery-men 8 000 riders of voivode of Moldavia 30 000 infantrymen TOTAL: 144 480 Hungarian: 106 000 (60 000 infantry, 20 000 artillery, 26 000 cavalry) 10 000 heavy infantry 10 000 heavy cavalry 4 000 crossbowmen 16 000 light cavalry 16 000 light infantry 20 000 infantry and artillerymen 30 000 infantrymen (?) Transylvanian: 10 000 ? Wallachian: 2 000? Moldavian 8 000 cavalry Silesian-Moravian 6 000 heavy cavalry I was thinking about using those as basis, but I am not certain 1) how reliable they are and 2) would it work for what is basically a professional army of Byzantine thematic model? At any rate however it is clear that, even if Hungary under Hunyadi was weaker than under Matthias Corvinus (king Sigismund predicted raising 80 000 cavalry under banderial system), even largest field armies were never more than 25% of kingdom's military potential. Hungary initially managed to assemble 60 000 troops for recapture of Belgrade in 1521., but this dissolved due to logistics issues. You are mixing things up. What I was talking about was military potential of kingdom, which is to say, troops it could *theoretically* raise. Field armies - which is what you are talking about - never went past 25 000. I believe only Ottomans (and, earlier, Byzantines during apex of their medieval empire) regularly fielded armies greater than that number. My reason for excluding them is that I am not sure Middle Byzantine military and political system I want to utilize (see here and here) would work with gunpowder weapons in picture. Though apparently Russians had something similar in 17th century (pomeste system?). I was thinking of an all-mounted (though not necessarily all-cavalry) force because it would improve reaction time in a flat country. But when it comes to actual battles, such a force would face significant disadvantages. EDIT: It is fantasy, but with solid historical basis. I am basing military organization on Middle Byzantine and 15th century Hungarian militaires because that is what I am familiar with, and where my interests mostly lie as well. Byzantines used dual-equipped cavalry force you talk of - specifically Belisarius in Italy; his cataphracts were equipped with bows and melee weapons alike. But Byzantine cataphracts are not 15th century lancers, so
I read that well, and it seems like you are confusing three things yourself: A field army, an invasion force and the military capacity of a kingdom. 90,000 troops for an invasion force were a fly's fart compared to the Kingdom's full capacity. And the large Ottoman numbers often quoted are invasion forces. Mind that the siege of Vienna saw around 125,000 troops in the region, though a lot were also bogged down with the parallel siege of Pressburg. Similarly, the HRE counter-invasion force had to be partitioned into many field armies and the decisive Austrian victory over the Ottomans was achieved with 1/4 of the whole army. Consider these when you look at the numbers you quoted below; the Venetian inspection count refers to the 1464 Balkans campaign, and an invasion force at the beginning of the campaign. That is also the reason for the low amount of artillery/firearms; the Black Army was in its infancy. The battles above refer to no Black Army; and they list fielded troops in specific battles. Also, wrong. The Black Army was a mercenary army made mostly of Bohemians and Germany. Take them as a gradual development and add early firearms. I think it makes for a nice "elite troop" or a "special regiment". Especially if you set a story in your world, the morale effect of firearms on the battlefield is interesting to read/write about. You could easily write about an all-mounted force that fields mounted infantry. EG, the army owns a whole bunch of low quality farm horses that graze about just fine, only mounting infantry on them for travel. That's mostly what I referred to with my cart comment previously. It'd make sense for a plains-focused empire.
90 000 troops were definitely not "fly's fart". Matthias Corvinus' kingdom had population of 4 000 000 - 5 000 000 people (Hungary + Croatia). This means that 90 000 troops would be 2,25% of kingdom's whole population. That is a lot for a feudal system. Byzantine Empire, with much more efficient military system, managed to reach 2,4% (250 000 army + 30 000 - 40 000 navy at population of 12 000 000). Your typical feudal state hovered around 1%, with some pushing it up to 2%. And was 28 000 strong at its greatest. That could work. Agreed.
It's a fly fart to the full manpower of the kingdom. They raised how many armies between 1520 and 1540? Even though the land was torn in three. 2,25% doesn't even reach the "one light cavalry for every 20 serf" rule. You have linked an inspection's notes contradicting that.
Actually, most medieval feudal kingdoms could raise between 0,5 - 2% of people in the army. Also, I found information that it is "one light cavalry for 20 serfs" or "one light cavalry for 20 chimneys". One way or another, typical assumption is that family had 5 members. And seeing how only men would likely be counted, this would mean that both of these state essentially the same thing. Translated, it means that "1 light cavalry for 20 serfs / chimneys" equals "1 light cavalry for 100 inhabitants", which would give 1% of population in the army. 2,25% is lot more than that. That being said, I do believe Matthias increased feudal obligations. From my notes: Council of 1454. called for raising of 35 banderies. Each province had to make a census of village habitats (sessio colonalis) and on each hundred, raise four cavalrymen and two infantry archers. Assuming 5 people per house (not including horses), this would imply 1,2% population in military, and total military strength of 40 000 – 60 000 for Hungarian-Croatian kingdom. By 1463. Matthias Corvinus already had a standing army of 5 000 infantry and 2 000 cavalry. He also requested nobles to raise one cavalryman per 10 houses – previous standard was one per 20 houses – thus giving (assuming family size of 5, as is standard assumption) army size as 2% of population. Prelates and barons had to send him 12 000 cavalry. If kingdom had population of 4 000 000 – 5 000 000, then Matthias' army could have numbered 80 000 – 100 000 troops, similar to what Sigismund thought to raise (compare to 40 000 – 60 000 or 1,2% of population in 1454.). Such a number certainly could be reached if conquered Moravia and Sillesia as well as allied Moldavia and Wallachia were counted. What I would like to know though is whether there is any such legislature available for England, France, Poland, Spain...? Where? At Vienna, Black Army counted 20 000 cavalry and 8 000 infantry: https://books.google.hr/books?id=mzwpq6bLHhMC&pg=RA1-PA306&lpg=RA1-PA306&dq=matthias+corvinus+black+army+parade+Vienna&source=bl&ots=xddZT2V1UA&sig=ACfU3U1pPtAOGZBwBayzk7FlKC4OQIwZwQ&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjwiIutiK_pAhV8w8QBHWAZAIEQ6AEwAnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=matthias corvinus black army parade Vienna&f=false This cites much larger "professional" army of up to 40 000, but gives no sources: https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2020/02/16/soldiers-matthias-corvinus/ If you mean Venetian report I cited before, that is for total military power available to king Matthias. Black Army was merely professional / mercenary force in direct employ of the king; but most of combat power of the kingdom still lay in feudal banderies.
We've covered this before on another thread , but if you already know everything there is to know.. why are you asking ? and if you don't a bit more humility and not arguing with people trying to help you wouldn't go amiss.
