Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mark Sawyer

How many people live in Westeros? in each kingdom?

163 posts in this topic

I think the numbers being discussed are far too large... insanely large. I think it's impossible Westeros has a total population larger than that of modern day U.K.... In fact, it would be impossible to be even on the same order of magnitude.

Remember, this is pre-Industrial Revolution. It was after the Industrial Revolution populations around the world went exponential.

GRRM's North is basically based on Scotland. Even today, the population of Scotland is only 5 million. To think that it could be 5 million, 1000 years ago is simply crazy.

Around 200 A.D., the population of China was ~ 45 million. Around this time there was an enormous civil war lasting ~100 years. Very similar to the disintegration of Westeros after King Robert's death in that there were many opposing factions and armies. But individual armies in the Chinese Kingdoms were commonly over 100,000 and sometime much more. At the Battle of Red Cliffs, one army (of the many) number over 1,000,000.

The armies of Westeros are only a fraction of these sizes. Not surprising because the total population of Westeros would be nowhere near 45 million. That's just insane.

What you forget is that Westeros is roughly the size of South America (significantly larger than all of Europe), not the UK. Much of the culture and political situation of Westeros is similiar to pre-tudor Britain, definately. But not geographically... at all!

That said I agree that 45 million sounds a bit exaggerated. I hold to my original claim of 20-25 million, which also fits in nicely with the population sizes of the big cities (that is, less than 5% of the total population in total).

What you have to remember about your Chinese example is that

1. The sizes of those armies aren't necessarily correct. That war took place over 2000 years ago which makes it difficult to estimate the truth of sources. Especially since earlier historians had the tendency to vastly exaggerate the sizes of battles and victories. For example I think Herodotus who claimed that the Persian army facing the Spartans at Thermopylae totalled almost 3 million men :bs:

2. China is way better suited for large scale agriculture than Westeros or Europe is, (lack of real winters being a huge plus, together with nice soil) this together with an efficient administration and government means that they couldn't really be compared to the decentralised and reactionary Medieval Europe/Westeros when it comes to how many people it can drag together for war. There is a reason for why historically about every fourth human has been Chinese, you know :P

3. According to the wikipedia article the Chinese almost managed to exterminate themselves during that war, showing that enormous militarization over a long period of time isn't sustainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Manderly forces sound like they are far too large. He only sent a little over a thousand men to Robb when he marched south, if his real strength was over 10 000 men that would basically amount to treason, and we have no evidence of Manderly not being a Stark supporter. As for his ships I suspect that he is going to use most of them for transporting his army and supplies up the white knife, not naval combat (who is he going to fight at sea anyway?) so I don't think they require as much crew as you think. Even in which case they'd likely consist of conscripted sailors from White Harbor, not actual fighters. Him having more than 5-6000 men as of now doesn't make sense, considering that he even then would be about twice as strong as the Starks and Boltons, who are the real main houses of the North.

Stannis has 3500 Northmen, the remaining 1500 are southerners he transported up with his fleet in ASOS.

Bolton likewise would have about 4000 northerners + 1500 Freys. Also many of these northerners would be Bolton troops that marched south with Robb and didn't die in the Red Wedding, meaning that they were a part of the original 20 000 and shouldn't be counted here. So maybe 2000 "new" northerners for Bolton.

Reed we don't know anything about, since he has stayed completely out of politics for the last sixteen years. I doubt a disease and alligator ridden swamp can support many people, however.

Umbers about a thousand, yes. All of them scrapings of the barrell.

Yeah perhaps 3000 lost against the Ironborn. Those "15 odd houses not mentioned" I don't understand what you mean by however, the remaining noble houses in the north would be sworn to one of the larger ones, and thus counted in this list already.

I get it to about 16 000 men left in total then, maybe a few thousand more that have been left home as garrisons. So 20 000 men in the entire North by now, many of them unfit for war or just come of age, meaning that the total strength of the North at a time should be more like 35 000 or so.

Edit: Once again a good piece of evidence against the claim that the North had huge military forces in reserve after Robb marched south is that Rodrick Cassell had a hard time scraping together just 2000 men to march against the Ironborn, with many of the soldiers he got being described as of poor quality and were easily cut to pieces by the Bolton garrison.

Manderley acted on Neds/Robbs orders: "Prepare to defend the eastern coast and the Bite, build a fleet who can go up against the Royal Fleet and send only what you can spare afterwards." The 2000 men he send to Robb at Moat Cailin were his spares. And yes, the 50 ships he has built are actual warships, Davos comments on it in Dance. And yes, Manderley is the biggest power in the North after the Starks themselves. The guy has White Harbour, one of the five biggest Westerosi cities.

Similar for House Reed, only concerning the Neck and he had no spares.

Concerning the remaining fifteen noble houses:

Mormont

Umber

Karstark

Bolton

Manderley

Four branches of Rhyswells

Dustins

Tallharts

Glovers

Reeds

Flints from Flints Finger

Cerwyn

Flint of Widow's Watch

Hornwood

are all houses of roughly equivalent standing sworn directly to Winterfell. Not counting the Mountain Clans, Skagos and a bunch of smaller houses.

And Cassel could only scrape a meager force together because the area is huuuuuuuge and he was acting under a severe time limit. He gathered those close to the bigger castles and roads, which where already scraped clean by Robb before. Sending a courier 500 miles through the Wolfswood to gather 5 soldiers would not be feasible while Theon sits square in Winterfell. Even if 2,000 of these couriers would bring 10,000 additional soldiers.

I think the numbers being discussed are far too large... insanely large. I think it's impossible Westeros has a total population larger than that of modern day U.K.... In fact, it would be impossible to be even on the same order of magnitude.

Remember, this is pre-Industrial Revolution. It was after the Industrial Revolution populations around the world went exponential.

GRRM's North is basically based on Scotland. Even today, the population of Scotland is only 5 million. To think that it could be 5 million, 1000 years ago is simply crazy.

Around 200 A.D., the population of China was ~ 45 million. Around this time there was an enormous civil war lasting ~100 years. Very similar to the disintegration of Westeros after King Robert's death in that there were many opposing factions and armies. But individual armies in the Chinese Kingdoms were commonly over 100,000 and sometime much more. At the Battle of Red Cliffs, one army (of the many) number over 1,000,000.

The armies of Westeros are only a fraction of these sizes. Not surprising because the total population of Westeros would be nowhere near 45 million. That's just insane.

Maybe the North is based on Scotland. But Westeros is 225 (two hundred twenty five) times bigger than Scotland. So, the North is 110 times bigger than Scotland. Do you wish to rephrase your statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manderley is undoubtedly the lord with the greatest population under his control of all Northern Lords - barring the Starks, of course.

Interestingly, he tells Davos in Dance that he commands more heavy horse than any other lord in the North, despite his losses.

The Karstarks brought 300 horsemen to Robb's host, and the Manderlys only 200. And in Dance, Roose has returned with his entire force, which includes 4000 men, of which, if the ratio holds true, around 600 should be horsemen. So Manderly most likely commands more heavy horse than that, AFTER the loss of the 200 horsemen who went with Robb.

In any case, he tells Davos he commands a dozen lords, and a hundred landed knights. If each lord can bring him 300 men, and each landed knight 30 men, that means he has about 7000 warriors available.

It must be remembered that the Freys raised 4000 men on their own, and the Manderlys command a city as well as a massive geographical area, compared to the Freys Twins which is a small town at best. It is highly likely that their full strength is around 10 000 men, of which only 1500 have been lost with Robb. If they add the refugees that according to Davos have been streaming to White Harbor, they could probably still raise 10 000 men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you forget is that Westeros is roughly the size of South America (significantly larger than all of Europe), not the UK. Much of the culture and political situation of Westeros is similiar to pre-tudor Britain, definately. But not geographically... at all!

Yoren says it's 1000 leagues from King's Landing to the Wall. According to the Google calculator 1000 leagues ~ 3500 miles.

Hence the distance from the Wall to the southernmost part of Dorne is approximately 5300 miles. That's basically the distance from Paris to Beijing. Apparently Westeros is the size of the entire Eurasian mega-continent.

I think GRRM is smoking crack, because those distance are complete bullshit! For Victarion to travel from the Iron Isles to Mereen and back would be roughly equivalent to Magellan's circumnativation of the globe which took 3 years. It takes Robert 1 month to travel from King's Landing to Winterfell. That's approximately 100 miles per day. Napoleon had one of the fastest armies in history. His cavalry could only travel 30 miles per day. I doubt fat King Robert could even do a fraction of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GRRM is a history geek, not a math geek. Apparently he sucks at basic math.

When he creates a battle he doesn't pull out his calculator. He pulls out his history books and this is what he sees:

History of Scotland (equivalent to the North of Westeros):

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Battles of William Wallace (a.k.a. Mel Gibson)

The Battle of Stirling Bridge 1297.

Scots: 2300

English: 9000-12,000

Battles of Robert the Bruce (The King of the North)

Battle of Bannockburn

Scots: 5000-10,000

English: 13,700-25,000

Battle of Dupplin Moor

Scots: 10,000 - 15,000

English: 1500-3000

Battle of Myton

Scots: 10,000-15,000

English: 10,000-20,000

History of the War of the Roses (GRRM has said many times ASOIAF is losely based on this war)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Battle of Northampton

Yorkists - 20,000

Lancastrians - 10,000

Battle of Wakefield

Yorkists - 8,000

Lancastrians - 18,000

Battle of St. Albans

Yorkists - 25,000

Lancastrians - 25,000

Medieval Europe didn't really have major Kingdoms... it had hundreds of little kingdoms. It was only in the 19th century that the little kingdoms started consolidating into major nation states. Even in the late 19th century, Prussia only had a population around 20 million. France probably had something similar.

Now, if you look at the Franco-Prussian War you suddenly see armies that are of comparable size to the armies of the Han Dynasty in China when China had a population of 45 million. I don't think this is a coicidence.

During the Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1592, Japan had a population of ~13 million. It had a troop strength of 500,000. It was definitely a feudal society.

During the Vietnam War, both North and South Vietnam were still semi-feudal societies. South Vietnam had a population of 12 million. It's army consisted of 1.5 million South Vietnamese soldiers. North Vietnam had a population of 24 million. Not clear what the size of their army was but over 1.1 million North Vietnamese soldiers died. Hence the army was obviously much larger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yoren says it's 1000 leagues from King's Landing to the Wall. According to the Google calculator 1000 leagues ~ 3500 miles.

Hence the distance from the Wall to the southernmost part of Dorne is approximately 5300 miles. That's basically the distance from Paris to Beijing. Apparently Westeros is the size of the entire Eurasian mega-continent.

I think GRRM is smoking crack, because those distance are complete bullshit! For Victarion to travel from the Iron Isles to Mereen and back would be roughly equivalent to Magellan's circumnativation of the globe which took 3 years. It takes Robert 1 month to travel from King's Landing to Winterfell. That's approximately 100 miles per day. Napoleon had one of the fastest armies in history. His cavalry could only travel 30 miles per day. I doubt fat King Robert could even do a fraction of that.

That's Yoren talking. He has never measured the distance. A thousand leagues is a convenient way of saying "bloody far".

Martin said that we should use the Wall as a rough measuring stick for the continent of Westeros. The Wall is 300 miles long. Using that benchmark, you get about 3000 miles for Westeros, from the Wall to Sunspear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yoren says it's 1000 leagues from King's Landing to the Wall. According to the Google calculator 1000 leagues ~ 3500 miles.

Hence the distance from the Wall to the southernmost part of Dorne is approximately 5300 miles. That's basically the distance from Paris to Beijing. Apparently Westeros is the size of the entire Eurasian mega-continent.

I think GRRM is smoking crack, because those distance are complete bullshit! For Victarion to travel from the Iron Isles to Mereen and back would be roughly equivalent to Magellan's circumnativation of the globe which took 3 years. It takes Robert 1 month to travel from King's Landing to Winterfell. That's approximately 100 miles per day. Napoleon had one of the fastest armies in history. His cavalry could only travel 30 miles per day. I doubt fat King Robert could even do a fraction of that.

I believe it actually took Robert and his whole party 2 months to travel from KL to Winterfell.

It took 2 weeks from Riverrun to Casterly Rock.

It took 2 weeks from Deepwood Motte to Winterfell.

The whole War of the Five Kings has been going on for about 2 years now.

Dunno, I think the sizes and distances seem fine to me. If population / various sizes / traveling time / etc. seem a bit off, then they haven't bewildered me or killed me off my mood to keep on reading. It's a fantasy story based on medieval history, and it's such a good story that I'm willing to make a compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The size of a kingdom/country should have no relationship to its population.

For example:

Java (island, part of Indonesia)

Population: 138,000,000

Size (sq. mi): 50,000

Bangladesh

Population: 142,000,000

Size (sq. mi): 57,000

Japan

Population: 128,000,000

Size (sq. mi): 150,000

Pakistan

Population: 132,000,000

Size (sq. mi): 310,000

Russia

Population: 143,000,000

Size (sq. mi): 6,600,000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with free northman but i remember in the books it says the stormlands have around the same population as the north and 2/5 the population of the reach. I think the riverlands are more populated then the north.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if we go by the army sizes the different kingdoms raise in the War of the Five Kings, and assume that they represent 1-2% of the population (medieval levels of production, administration and infrastructure made it pretty much impossible to keep much larger forces than this for longer periods of time) then we will get figures roughly like these.

The North: 35 000 men (though it should be noted that many of these were raised several years after the first army, meaning that the total strength of the north at a time is probably more like 30 000) The North is poorer, larger and much harsher to live in than the rest of Westeros, so I doubt that they are able to call more than 1% of their population to arms at a time. This gives us a population of about 3 million.

The Riverlands: 25 000 in total perhaps? By the time they join Robb they have already lost many men in the battle of the Golden Tooth, as well as having many more back guarding their castles, so this sounds about right. The Riverlands are probably comparatively wealthier than the North, and the armies they raise don't have to travel very far to get to the war (though I doubt the Riverlords are too happy about this little bonus :dunce: ) , so 2% of their population at arms sounds alright. This gives us a population of about 1,2-1,3 million people. This is pretty small, but the fact that the Riverlands were never a kingdom, as well as the lack of any cities, seems to support the idea that they don't have very many inhabitants.

The Vale: Stated by Littlefinger (or some other guy in the book, I forget who) to field "30 000 swords". Considering that the Vale repeatedly is described as quite lush and wealthy 1,5% of the population at arms sounds reasonable. This gives us a population of about 2,2 million people in The Vale.

The Crownlands we don't really have a figure for, but considering that KL itself probably has about 300 000 inhabitants, and that in addition to keeping 6000 guards just for the city itself they are also the base for the Royal Fleet (which consists of hundreds of ships and their crew)and a bunch of men that Stannis convinced to join him, then a population of well over 1 million seems necessary.

The Westerlands: Tywin marches into the Riverlands with about 40 000 men unless I am mistaken, these are later to be reinforced by 10 000 men with Lord Stafford (though the poor man got munched on by a wolf before he had the chance). So 50 000 men in total, unless they have a fleet as well. Not sure if it is stated in the books whether they rebuilt it or not. Considering that the huge wealth of Casterly Rock (as well as Tywin's keys to the Royal Treasury) should mean that they'd be able to afford arming and feeding more soldiers than normal, and that Lord Stafford had to "scrape the barrel" for recruits for his reinforcing army, this army may well be as much as 2% of the Westerland populace. This should give us a population of about 2.5 million people.

The Stormlands: 20- 25 000 (the troops that go with Renly and Stannis). In the books they are repeatedly described as poor and rather undeveloped, so I doubt that they can arm more than 1% of their people at a time, so about 2-2,5 milion inhabitants then.

The Reach: This one is the real killer! They muster 60 000 men for Renly's invasion force, and unless I am mistaken they are said to be keeping 30 000 men back for guarding Highgarden, Oldtown and other locations. They also have the Redwyne fleet, which consists several hundred ships. Assuming an average of 50 men a ship (though I'm not sure how large their warships are), and about 300 ships, that gives us another 15 000 men serving in the navy. So a military strength of about 105 000 men in total, give or take ten thousand or so. The Reach is extremely lush and the main food exporter of Westeros, so they probably can arm as much as 2% of their population without their economy collapsing. This gives us a population of 5,1 million people or so. However, I'm not sure if Mace Tyrell has really mustered the full strength of the Reach yet, so their population and army size could be even larger!

Dorne: No solid information as of yet. Quentyn claims "50 000 spears", but that seems like utter bullshit considering that Doran, who is the commander of the Dornish military, states in the book that they are the weakest of the Seven Kingdoms in terms of manpower. So perhaps 20 000 is more likely? Comes down to opinion here I guess. The Dornish country however is very harsh to live, farm and travel in. So 1% of their population under arms is as much as they can afford. It's not like they seem to export anything (bar peppers...) or have any real cities either. So perhaps 2 million inhabitants in Dorne then.

Iron Islands: Well, they are stated to possess a navy of 1000 longships, which sounds completely drugged up and ridiculous for so small and destitute islands! But I guess if we estimate 20 men a ship (longships being much smaller than regular warships) and that they have a thousand ships, we get 20 000 men. Well, well. Perhaps keeping a navy isn't as resource intensive even for these poor islands as an army would be (perhaps they can supply themselves much easier, considering how much faster they travel and such) so let's say they compromise 2% of the Ironborn then, giving us a population for the Iron Islands of about 1 million people. Sounds a bit ridiculous, but there it is.

Total population of Westeros: Roughly 20 million, give or take.

Sounds reasonable enough I guess. Out of these, less than 1 million should be living in the main cities. Perhaps 300 000 in Kings Landing, 250 000 in Oldtown, 150 000 in Lannisport, 60 000 each for Gulltown and White Harbor (pretty sure I've seen those numbers thrown around here) and what, 20 000 in Barrowton? Then a considerable number of people would live either in towns, such as Pennytree and Maidenpool, or inside the countless castles and keeps erected across Westeros. Sunspear in particular seems, according to Arianne Martell, to have so many inhabitants that it almost could be a city. Wintertown around Winterfell is perhaps a more common example.

The vast majority of the population would live in small farming communities and villages spread across the countryside, however.

Those are my two cents!

These can't be right the riverlands has to have a bigger population then the north and we know dorne is the least populous region so the estimates are wrong.I believe that the population of these kingdoms are bigger then most ppl expect 3 millions seems a bit small for just a huge place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These can't be right the riverlands has to have a bigger population then the north and we know dorne is the least populous region so the estimates are wrong.I believe that the population of these kingdoms are bigger then most ppl expect 3 millions seems a bit small for just a huge place.

What's your reasoning behind the Riverlands having a bigger population than the North?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that Westeros is the size of South America, a total population of 50 m would be perfectly plausible.

WRT travel, people could travel very fast in medieval times if they wanted to. Armies usually travelled very slowly, although even then, a cavalry army like the Mongols could move rapidly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that population-wise Westeros ordering should be (pre-war):

Reach

Riverlands+Westerlands

North

Vale

Stormlands+Dorne

Iron Islands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with free northman but i remember in the books it says the stormlands have around the same population as the north and 2/5 the population of the reach. I think the riverlands are more populated then the north.

Nowhere is it stated that the Stormlands have a similar population to the North.

Regarding the Riverlands, it is fertile, but not as fertile as the Reach. So it would have a higher population density than the North, but a lower population density than the Reach. At the same time, it is less than 20% the size of the North. Therefore, even if it has a population density 4 times higher than that of the North, the North would still have more people than the Riverlands.

Also, the Riverlands is never estimated to have a larger army than the North.

I have just reread the chapter where Catelyn meets Renly in CoK. Renly states that he heard that Robb had crossed the Neck with 20 000 men. He then tells Catelyn that he assumes Robb would now have 40 000 men, after the Riverlords had joined him.

This tells me that the Riverlands armed capabilty is estimated at about 20 000 men. This when the war is happening in the Riverlands itself, with all of its population within easy reach of the lords that would want to raise them into an army.

At the same time, Martin has told us that Robb did not cross the Neck with the full strength of the North, due to the North's vast size and the long time it takes to raise its full armed capability. So while 20 000 is clearly not Robb's full strength, it would seem that Renly expects that 20 000 is indeed the Riverlands full strength.

As it turns out, only 10 000 Rivermen joined Robb, as the rest spread out to defend their lands against Tywin's raiders.

But the point remains that Renly thought that the Riverlands would be able to add 20 000 men to Robb's army. Meaning that the Riverlands - although densely populated, has a lower overall population than the North.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is MO on this subject, at the time the books start, the realm is at the end of the longest summer in living memory, Tyrion tells us that the last hard winter occured arounfd the time he was born, he said it lasted 3 years. Obviously Tyrion is the son of a great lord, he isn't going to starve, but how many of the smallfolk would, 10%, 30%, 50%!, who knows? Keeping in mind the climactic conditions I would have to say that the population in Westeros is at a historic high, it was probaly around 20 million after the winter when Tyrion was born and might be around 40 million at the start of the war but this won't be sustainable if there is a long winter, other factors that might have an effect on population would be plauge and disease, and famine. Another factor limiting the size of armies is lack of weaponry, the Riverlands could raise many more men but they lack the resources to arm them, the Lannister forces are superior because they have the gold to buy the weapons to arm them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Cat and Renley have their little discourse about the army sizes, Edmure has already lost a big battle and half of the Riverlands is blocked by Tywin in Harrenhal. Robb and Roose had engagements too. Renley probably factored those losses in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Cat and Renley have their little discourse about the army sizes, Edmure has already lost a big battle and half of the Riverlands is blocked by Tywin in Harrenhal. Robb and Roose had engagements too. Renley probably factored those losses in.

No he did not. That's why he overestimated Robb's total forces by 10 000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite England having 2 million people, and France having something like 6 million people, the typical battles of the time - like Agincourt - involved armies of what - 8000 people on a side?

At the Battle of Agincourt (1415), the English forces are generally estimated to between 6000 and 9000 men. With 5/6 of said force being archers and 1/6 being knights and men-at-arms. The French forces are estimated anywhere between 12000 and 36000 men. While it is generally agreed that 10000 French men were knights and men-at-arms, sources are unclear concerning the numbers of common infantry soldiers or archers.

I am not sure whether Agincourt was a "typical" battle for the 15th century. Several subsequent battles of the war seem to have involved smaller armies. The next battle of comparable size was probably the Battle of Verneuil (1424),almost a decade later. The difference being that the two main opponents were joined by their allies. England was supported by the army of Burgundy, France by that of Scotland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in the late 19th century, Prussia only had a population around 20 million. France probably had something similar.

The population of Prussia in 1871 was estimated to 24,690,000 people. The population in France in 1872 was estimated to 37,653,000 people. I think you are underestimating the 18th century and the steady rise of French population during it. France had about 20 million people in 1700 and about 30 million in 1800.

Now, if you look at the Franco-Prussian War you suddenly see armies that are of comparable size to the armies of the Han Dynasty in China when China had a population of 45 million. I don't think this is a coicidence.

The French Army consisted of about 493,000 regular troops. And another 417,000 reserve troops of doubtful quality. The Prussian Army consisted of about 300,000 regular troops. And another 900,000 reservists and militia members. There was a difference in quality, with the Prussians having a more efficient system of conscription and less opportunity for men to pay money to escape military service. Also the Prussians had a better organized General Staff to oversee the logistic side of the war.

During the Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1592, Japan had a population of ~13 million. It had a troop strength of 500,000. It was definitely a feudal society.

In more ways than one. Starting in 1588, Toyotomi Hideyoshi started his "Sword Hunt" policy. Forbidding anyone outside the samurai class to bear swords and other weapons. The edict was initially aimed to prevent further peasant uprisings (common throughout the 16th century), disarm various ronin, and eliminate the warrior-monks whose loyalty was always in doubt. But subsequent military leaders maintained the edict well into the 19th century. Reinforcing a rigid class structure. And in the process preventing the Japanese from having armies conscripted from outside the hereditary samurai class.

During the Vietnam War, both North and South Vietnam were still semi-feudal societies. South Vietnam had a population of 12 million. It's army consisted of 1.5 million South Vietnamese soldiers. North Vietnam had a population of 24 million. Not clear what the size of their army was but over 1.1 million North Vietnamese soldiers died. Hence the army was obviously much larger.

1,1 million is the estimated number of North Vietnamese military personnel which died during the 20 years of the war (1955-1975). It is doubtful that the standing army had more than 300,000 soldiers at any given year during this period. Not all of the casualties were actually killed by enemy combatants. The North Vietmanese are thought to have lost at least 100,000 soldiers to a combination of malaria, cholera, other infectious diseases, dehydration, poisonous snake bites, etc. Jungle warfare takes its toll on any army attempting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The population in France in 1872 was estimated to 37,653,000 people. I think you are underestimating the 18th century and the steady rise of French population during it. France had about 20 million people in 1700 and about 30 million in 1800.

Thanks for pointing that out! Now, let's look closer at the Napoleonic Era:

http://en.wikipedia....Napoleonic_Wars

France, with one of the largest populations in Europe by the end of the 18th century (27 million, as compared to the United Kingdom's 12 million)....

The sizes of the armies involved give an obvious indication of the changes in warfare. During Europe's major pre-revolutionary war, the Seven Years' War of 1756–1763, few armies ever numbered more than 200,000. By contrast, the French army peaked in size in the 1790s with 1.5 million Frenchmen enlisted. In total, about 2.8 million Frenchmen fought on land and about 150,000 at sea, bringing the total for France to almost 3 million combatants.

The UK had 747,670 men under arms between 1792 and 1815.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites