[quote=Aristo]
Huh-hoo! Let's bring up the link that was posted earlier in the thread: Now, according to the handy, dandy chart, we have a base population of 4 million. The following takes the numbers used in the link above into account.Assuming that women don't typically fight (only 10% do in this case), we can rule out nearly half our population. We have to subtract percentages of our population that are too old or young to fight, as well as those with professions that disallow them going to war (academia, secular duties, religious affiliation, etc.), also, those who are not physically capable or are otherwise criminals (who are in the dungeons, or don't obey the law at all, and avoid drafts). In all, we have of the base population that is unfit for war. This leaves us with a measly recruiting pool of 484,000 out of 4 million people. Further account must be made for those who fall sick, which is easy to do in camps packed full of men. We'll subtract a further 50% from 484,000, leaving us with 240,000 able bodies. But that's not all! These men are never in a single place, and divided into counties, under the rule of different barons and nobles. They are needed to guard towns, cities, forts, etc. and so we'll subtract 80% to represent them scattered around the land. All this leaves us with a national army of just 48,000 men, readily able to be mustered for war. And that's not taking deserters, rebels and the like into account.
[/quote]

This looks like it depends on the society rather than actual 'unavoidable' restrictions placed on the production of war material and the levying of fighting men. For all we know, some nations push their criminals into military service while their women act as front-line generals. There are some 'hardcaps' you can't dodge--like material cost and the managing of resources--but some deliberating aspects of an army and the creation of that army can be migrated, nullified or even down-right eliminated depending on the mentality of your people and the way their society operates.