@Antarctic Termite You say this, but I learned most of my classical/ancient history from a mix of one unit at public school, TV documentaries I watched as a kid, and Age of Empires I. I may as well be a scholar on the Lord of the Rings universe.
If accepting 2300 B.C.E. as the start of the Bronze Age (which is where we'd realistically be; at the very start) then numbers are actually even lower than towards the end. Memphis and Akkad both had around 35,000 people in 2250 B.C.E. and they were the largest cities in the region.
So setting it at the end of the Bronze Age is still being generous from that perspective, though you are right in that the middle of the Bronze Age had much greater population sizes. I would contend that we are not in the middle of a glorious Bronze Age right now though, seeing as something like a bronze lance is considered extraordinary and is a rare sight.
In any case, there's no need to argue too closely about the numbers given that we seem to be in agreement here. Armies of 50,000 are just too much.
I had imagined the entire kingdom under Akthanos having less than 100,000 people, and the city of Vetros itself having maybe 30,000 or less. I would imagine that they are currently the most populous nation considering that they have been spared from the brunt of the various disasters to impact Galbar, are situated in a fertile river valley, have agriculture, and have been around for a while. If we decide to use Vetros as any metric by which to compare other regions and we also want to have larger populations, I suppose I could make Vetros more comparable to Uruk in size.
I am not overly bothered by the numbers right now. However, it's looking like those kinds of armies are fielded after a huge unification effort. Either via forming an empire or uniting loads of nomads over a long span of time.
For context, this is a feud that started between two clans and then embroiled a few more, and both sides have these massive armies. Even if we assume that these nomadic tribes can afford to have half their population in battle (basically every male that can fight and then some women too) it still implies that their numbers are huge.
Over in Yorum, I'm currently working on city states having no more than several hundred to one or two thousand men in an army at most. That'll get bigger as we go if they unite, but proportional to the population of each one, it wouldn't make sense for it to be higher.
That's almost exactly how I envisioned army sizes in the Vetros area (and Ommok's kingdom, though the relative size of ogres makes this a poor comparison). I think you're doing it right, and therein lies the problem:
Cyclone: It makes the Rukbans have 10x the population of any other region
Kho: then the other regions are not realistic
If we disregard the size of these Rukban armies and maintain small populations for other nations, it makes a noticeable skew that's something like a plot hole.
These army sizes are not one or two clans, they're the combination of 20+ tribes and clans - and that only got them to 40,000 - only when a whole other confederation joined with 10,000 did the number go to 50,000
We need to keep in mind that the Golden Plains are gigantic - it's only natural that there would be huge populations there. Huge plains, lots of herding grounds, bigger herds, they can maintain bigger tribes, and so on. Wars diminish their size from time to time, but they breed like rabbits.
And plus, I believe we have naturally occurring metals that are harder than bronze - the swords and other weapons Rukbans use come via merchants from the tedar and whatnot - and perhaps there is the odd blacksmith who has learned. So we're not actually in the 'bronze' age on that front.
I definitely think that somewhere like Alefpria would have populations north of 100,000
Edit: plus, steppe hordes whether in 2000 BC, 100 AD, or 1200 AD lived in pretty much the same way. If Attila and the Mongols could muster such large forces, any significantly large steppe culture should likewise be able to. It's not like the Mongols had medicine and technology which was far greater than that of the Huns
Yeah, Bronze Age armies weren't all that grand now were they? It tended to be, like @Muttonhawk said, several hundred to maybe a small thousand at most. Not to mention the population density during the Bronze Age was not very dense at all and with Empires there would be some centers scattered around with maybe one large city at most, yeah?
Edit: Kho brings a valid point though, the mongols fielded massive armies and they didn't rely much on agriculture
Anyone who plays CKII would be able to understand that hordes can muster up greater forces than settled people, but are - on the other hand - very unstable and won't create any lasting 'civilisation' unless they settle. It's a classic nomadic trait to just be able to swamp things.
These army sizes are not one or two clans, they're the combination of 20+ tribes and clans - and that only got them to 40,000 - only when a whole other confederation joined with 10,000 did the number go to 50,000
My bad there; I misspoke
And plus, I believe we have naturally occurring metals that are harder than bronze - the swords and other weapons Rukbans use come via merchants from the tedar and whatnot - and perhaps there is the odd blacksmith who has learned. So we're not actually in the 'bronze' age on that front.
I don't think the presence of other metals (if they are even worked and/or widespread) can really be used to justify having technological advancements beyond those of the Bronze Age.
I definitely think that somewhere like Alefpria would have populations north of 100,000
Alefpria is a magical place with too many blessings and benefactors to count, hence why it has the mist to keep out interaction from other cultures and justify it being allowed to have so many things. As such, I don't count it when talking about general population sizes or technology levels and I don't think you should either.
Edit: plus, steppe hordes whether in 2000 BC, 100 AD, or 1200 AD lived in pretty much the same way. If Attila and the Mongols could muster such large forces, any significantly large steppe culture should likewise be able to. It's not like the Mongols had medicine and technology which was far greater than that of the Huns
I reject this thesis. You take for granted small things like the saddle, stirrup, spurs, cattle branding, and the domestication of a variety of livestock. Even those things were all major innovations that didn't just appear overnight. The fact of the matter is that the Mongols and Huns that came well after the ancient Scythians and Sarmatians (which are probably the closest comparison we can make to the Rukbans, and even then the Sarmatians and Scythians both were around in early Roman times which puts them well after the early Bronze Age period we should be looking at) had larger populations.
Now you can argue that this is just a function of time and them being able to have more generations, but I can just as easily claim that their ability to support a greater population comes down to advancements in herding, medicine, and any number of other small technologies that might be like those aforementioned. Or perhaps trade, raiding, and general interaction with larger cities and agrarian sizes enabled the nomadic people to grow in size. Either way I think it's still silly to have the Rukbans field armies so big and so clearly outnumber every other culture.
[@everyone using CK2 as the basis for arguments regarding steppe nomads vs agrarian societies]
Yes, by this logic the people should all worship Vestec and Jvan because in CK2 every priest and his mother is a member of Lucifer's Own/The Fellowship of Hel/The Cold Ones/*insert other copy and paste demon cults here* and they all get OP powers for virtually no penalty. :/
Attila united a horde to dominate the north and plunder the hell out of the world-spanning empires that were western and eastern Rome, full of riches, fertile land, and so on.
Are the hordes of the golden plains uniting for a similar reason?
@Muttonhawk Nop, this is just the ebb and flow of a nomadic region - one tribe rises above the others and subjugates them, maybe they attack a few other cultures or are attacked, great leader dies and everything disintegrates. Another tribes rises up and subjugates the rest, attack a few others maybe, then he dies and everything falls apart.
If Shaqmar succeeds in uniting the Rukbans he would naturally turn on Vetros which is long-term Rukban raiding destination.
Edit: or he might press further north into the Great Steppe
<Snipped quote by Kho> Yes, by this logic the people should all worship Vestec and Jvan because in CK2 every priest and his mother is a member of Lucifer's Own/The Fellowship of Hel/The Cold Ones/*insert other copy and paste demon cults here* and they all get OP powers for virtually no penalty. :/
Point being that CK2 is silly lol
You dismissed a valid point and struck at something entirely different. The game is meant to be based on historical culture and civilisations and seeks to show the various advantages and disadvantages of the various forms of human organisation. I think in the particular context that I am using the game here, it is relevant. Beyond that, gameplay aspects are what players make of it - though I've personally never met any Satan worshippers or whatnot. What the hell kind of mods are you using? xDD
You dismissed a valid point and struck at something entirely different. The game is meant to be based on historical culture and civilisations and seeks to show the various advantages and disadvantages of the various forms of human organisation. I think in the particular context that I am using the game here, it is relevant. Beyond that, gameplay aspects are what players make of it - though I've personally never met any Satan worshippers or whatnot. What the hell kind of mods are you using? xDD
And nononononono Kho, you can't take a game that claims to have historical basis and cite it as your source. The gamey mechanics often cause the developers to...stretch reality.
Case in point:
You know, vikings had "dragon ships" that they sailed around in, but they never were badass enough to shoot Greek fire from the dragonheads on their ships' prows
The numbers of soldiers that nations can field in CK2 and EU4 is balanced around gameplay purposes and in many cases very ahistrocial
If we want to retr-edit, here are the particular numbers:
it could only be massive when all the tribes of the Azad Confederation had gathered in one place.There were some six thousand Azad warriors, ten thousand warriors of the Mu'aykala tribe, eight thousand of the Huntalla tribe, twelve thousand of the Dhul’Dhanab, and some four thousand from the other smaller clans and tribes – which alone came at fifteen tribes and clans, each with their own Qa’id. If one were to count the women and children, the number would have been considerably more. In total, however, the united war party itself came at an earth-shaking, sky-splitting forty thousand warriors.
I think the fact that Cyclone, who wrote the damn thing with me, did not notice that he disagreed with it until now is ridiculous and should count towards leaving it as it is. Had it been my own post, posted on its own, and not in a CyKhollab, I would understand. But the fact that it's in a collab and could have been objected to in the writing process makes me less willing to retro-edit.
Moreover, the fact that no one objected to it, and it is a post now 2 months old, makes me even less willing to edit anything.
Lastly, I don't want to make editing the IC into something that is seen as acceptable - especially not older posts.
For all these reasons, I vote to leave the IC as it is and work on making sure that Galbar's population is growing and not shrinking.
