How many soldiers can one man lead?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3964
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 00:04
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: How many soldiers can one man lead?
Posted By: snowybeagle
Subject: How many soldiers can one man lead?
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2005 at 06:39
|
In pre-gunpowder historical era, what do you think is the largest number of soldiers (trained or untrained) a leader can lead without any assistant leader? 40? 100? |
Replies:
Posted By: aknc
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2005 at 06:47
|
a lot more than that ------------- "I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!" |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2005 at 06:51
|
I'll qualify further by stating "lead effectively". Does it matter whether it is for offence or defence? |
Posted By: Richard XIII
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2005 at 07:38
|
5
------------- "I want to know God's thoughts... ...the rest are details." Albert Einstein |
Posted By: baracuda
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2005 at 07:56
| I agree with Richard XIII, effectively 5 to 8, but if you want to mean as just a figure then a lot more.. |
Posted By: aknc
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2005 at 10:09
It does ------------- "I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!" |
Posted By: aknc
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2005 at 10:13
|
the romans got it best.80,the number of men a centurion leaded ------------- "I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!" |
Posted By: baracuda
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2005 at 10:50
|
For infantry;
Effectively - if it means to control every single action of everysingle unit, then the ideal is the army standard for SAS,SAT,SEAL... units they are usually in pacs of 8-10. Efectively if it means, showing a plan then hoping for the best during battle, then you can be infront of a horde off a couple thousand people.. it wouldn't matter but you would only be a 'figure head', you wont be able to change too much the flow of battle, as only a handfull will see your actions/signals and percieve it as you intend it.. So it wouldn't be effective in a sense. you might get it to work effectively if you reduced the number to 20-30 but thats not sure.. Thats the reason for people for signalling and people to command and relay those signals to minor groups of troops on the battle field. For ranged - weapons 1 commander can control much much more archers.. over 100 need be, as they fighting style is distant to the field.. and hence seing range much further than an infantry unit. For cavalry - sword or lance; 1 commander i'd say up to 60-80 units.. With veterancy, you can almost double units to all part the infantry. |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2005 at 18:58
|
I'd say several thousand, you just have to think, mob! ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2005 at 02:51
|
"A disorderly more an army than a heap of building materials is a house" - Socrates. Oh man I have been playing too much Rome Total War ------------- |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2005 at 11:57
|
Belisarius said allegedly, when he was told the news that the Ostrogoths' King Witiges was coming to besiege Rome, held by the Byzantines, with about 150.000 men:
" Rare was a general who could handle 40.000 men, he was rarer still who could handle 80.000. What about Witiges who has brought twice that number against us?" Belisarius was right, Witiges couldn't! ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Lannes
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2005 at 12:03
|
As many as can hear him (of course, that's only assuming they are willing to hear him)... It is hard to give an exact number of men especially when you have to take into consideration things like how loyal the men are, how much discipline the leader's troops have, what kind of troops they are, etc. ------------- τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι; |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2005 at 07:56
|
About 20 to 50 depending on formation and type of units. Some units are simply unleased on the battelfield other need to be commandeered. ------------- |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2005 at 07:57
A century wasn't controlled by one man only. ------------- |
Posted By: Moustafa Pasha
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2005 at 11:40
|
Hitler controlled several millions of soldiers in the sense that a field commander could not move his men without the express authorization of Hitler. That is exactly what happened in Russia and on D-Day when the whole German army in France waited for orders and could not move because Hitler was sleeping. |
Posted By: human
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2005 at 02:48
lol Constantine XI. Me too!!!! ------------- You Got to Lose to Know How to Win... |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2005 at 04:14
|
I suppose the answer would be if there was no semblance of discipline, a leader can't even lead a single soldier. However, if they trained together, and as a disciplined force, I guess a single leader could lead up to 50 soldiers, max. I don't have military experience to back my guess. It's from what I observed. In a classroom, the best teacher could not handle more than 50 students. In military organisations, I recalled reading a sergeant leading 40-50 men to safety without any co-leaders, under exceptional circumstances. |
Posted By: mazuk
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2008 at 12:23
|
This is a complex question, many aspects are invovled here; Respect - from soldiers Discipline - maintained from soldiers Maintenance - soldiers knowing how to maintain their equipment sufficiently Drilling - know the movements,commands,formations etc Fighting effectiveness - trained efficiently to allow leader to lead / unit experience Answer all them then it may be easier to gauge  ------------- "Night or the Prussians" |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2008 at 11:33
|
I think the OP needs to clarify what he means by "lead". Are we talking about the lowest echelons of command, or the highest? Then there are variables like the type of warfare, the technology available, and so on. In general I would say 8 to 15 ... whether its a 20th century squad, a Roman contubernia, or an ancient Germanic warband, this seems to have been the basic building block of military forces throughout history. |
Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2008 at 05:04
|
Themselves.
------------- What is the officer problem? |