[Award Winner] Cartographical Economics and Demographics - A Guide to Realism

[terminal]

My guides tend to be aimed at country level economics and I guess would not adapt well to what was a city state. However you are correct that it would be more realistic to work out the naval workforce and some sort of replenishment rate. But my guides try and simplify complex processes to make them easier to calculate in a sensible logical manner.

If you worked out the net population growth, you could work out the limit for men that could be lost in a year and I think that is a welcome addition but does complicate matters and does not actually help to much in terms of economics. The reason for this is as follows.

The assumption at the start is that everything at the outset is paid for already, we are merely working out the maintenance of public goods within the realm/country, so we account for regular costs/depreciation/replacement costs averages etc.

You discuss the manpower aspect as important, and yes I to think it is important as mentioned in my guide, it represents the most costly aspect of our navies, in supplies, wages etc.

I believe you could work in some way of representing this within the equation as perhaps an average human replacement cost. This would be the cost to the state of replacing each man with a native or a mercenary. Demographically speaking you could also workout the the proportion of the population that is involved in naval duty much like I did in one of the episodes for the army if you want to work out the manpower size.

Needless to say, I certainly support adding this in, but believe it makes things unecessarily complex for my purposes and the purposes of my guides. I do encourage people to use my work and improce it where possible.

PS: Love Europa Universalis, it probably inspired in some way to making this guide.

PSS: I dont contest that Athens navy was that big however I would contest that a city state keeping a navy that size in running order is rational. Another point I should make is that when you talk abouyt Athens they did not having a standing navy as such, certainly I would contest that Athens would of had 200 standing triemes all the time. I believe at the time that during periods of wars and potential invasions i.e. Salamis that merchant ships were rented, commandeered etc and enlisted into the navy for that period. The guide generally deals with a standing navy because it is very hard to depict a navies cost without it being a standing navy, because costs are dependant on whether there is war or invasions etc. This is an important difference between the example you gave and my guides.

In the same way I would pressume that Athens did not have a standing naval manpower of 40,000 men, but that civilians were supplemented into navies as well as mercenaries and mercenary ships. I make this assertion because I believe the population of Athens would not of even been close to 40,000 at the time, considering Corinth in 4th Century BC population was about 15,000 people. Therefore I would suggest that Athens did not have a standing navy of 40,000 men but rather used this amount to fight specific battles.

My guide is for standing navies and thus manpower is less important, but still an important factor.

Anyway good post, got me thinking...

[Al. I. Cuza]

I think the navy was actually standing, but Athens was an exception for that time, because they were the leaders of the Delian League and as such, they were financed by the members and had a huge population boost (I think my professor said something of about 160.000 people). But in terms of normal Greek city-states the navy was not standing (they simply didn't have the manpower to keep the economy going and have a standing navy). The navy was mobilized only in times of need.

I agree with you, that in terms of the economic view, it is unnecessary to include the manpower as a factor. But I would simply calculate the maximum support for ships as the minimum between your calculations and calculations including the manpower. Just a thought (May have even been a factor for middle ages trade nations - Novgorod, the Hanseatic League, Genoa, Pisa, Ragusa, some crusader-states in Greece etc... didn't have that much inhabitants).

PS: You might want to reconsider some of the calculations for armies that were not equipped by the ruler. In pre-renaissance times, there actually were no standing armies, the people who were called to arms had to bring whatever they had: sword, pitchfork, hunting bow, sling, etc... Sometimes not even supplies were needed (as the armies were usually small) because they would pillage everything in their path.

[Ghostman]

I would contest that Athens would of had 200 standing triemes all the time.

AFAIK ships were stored in military shipyards when they weren't needed, so they definitely wouldn't be "standing", but were readily available when the need arose.

I believe at the time that during periods of wars and potential invasions i.e. Salamis that merchant ships were rented, commandeered etc and enlisted into the navy for that period.

They probably would be commandeered, but they would serve as supply and transport vessels. Merchant ships do not make efficient warships.

In the same way I would pressume that Athens did not have a standing naval manpower of 40,000 men, but that civilians were supplemented into navies

Ancient Greek military in general consisted of civilians. The Romans were pretty much the only ones* who created something approaching an actually professional military system; other peoples only employed professional soldiers as the elite units of their armies.

(* Of the time and place)