Would be a plausible alternative history possible, where infantry and not cavalry/knights dominate the battlefields? (Medieval/Europe)
Horses are really stronk (although expensive)
Stronk focused on a lance head is pretty fun
Plus walking is for poor and gays
Horses also tall, if you tall on horse people listen to you
Simple, just don't have horses around, or they aren't suitable for riding.
>>44179842
In that case people would just ride camels, or elephants, or big goats
>>44179626
A world where forests are a thing
Like not just a thing but pretty much the world
Speed is the essence of war and a huge asset on the battlefield so the only time you would have cavalry playing a minimal role in warfare is if: A: The are no horses/mounts that can be domesticated or the ones that exist are too small for the battlefield
B: A world in which the environment severely limits the mobility of the creature (heavy mountains/swamp/forest/etc).
So you'd need more of an alternative world than an alternative history there friend
Pike formations took off significantly earlier than they did in our world.
Which I guess were a result of drilled professional soldiers becoming more of a thing vs raised millitias and mounted nobles
Which in turn was a result of the rising mercantile classes in europe?
So basically put more jews in your setting.
It's actually a world where larger fauna never evolved, and everything is the size of small dogs at best. Humans were unknowingly planted there by a precursor race that seeks to populate planets with intelligent life. Humans' massive size and frighteningly ravenous hunting practices have further promoted small, stealthy critters that are hard to notice and catch.
>>44179936
Question
But werent the Greeks basically early pike formations? I mean the Macedonian pike phalanx was damn intimidating and effective, at least in one direction. Yet still cavalry became a major thing couple hundred years later.
>>44179981
I don't know much about classical battlefields, but I was under the impression they generally went with shortspears and large shields.
It was continental-style advancing pikewalls that finally drove heavy cavalry into extinction. Just a solid wall of spikes way beyond counterstabbing range coming at you full tilt, supported by archers and the like is pretty much unbeatable short of using longer pikes.
>>44179891
Not in Europe.
>>44179626
It's called the Dark Ages anon, the real ones post the immediate fall of the Roman Empire.
>>44180041
I think Dark Ages anon is correct but for your historical benefit here is a picture
>>44179626
One where the General orders all his Infantry, Artillery and Cavalry to fucking Multi-class.
>>44179626
Didn't this happen in classical Greece because horses were way too expensive?
Its quite simple, the metals of the fictional world are strong enough to resist a small arms, therefore making armor still popular to be used.
No army is going to grab a 50.cal everytime someone appears in full plate, so cannons are mass produced to combat super armor that can beat earlier guns, majority of infatry combat is about stricking in the joints.
>>44181989
Greece is also not great terrain for horses, on the whole
>>44182540
until Alexander came in
his horsemen were pretty reknown, along with their pikemen though I suppose
romans didnt care too much for cavalry, giving that role to auxiliaries. but other cultures had things like cataphracts, or chariot. Numidians had their somewhat famous horses with just a rope around to hold on
>>44182604
To be fair, Alexander was mostly doing his campaigning outside of Greece.
Also the classical world lacks stirrups, which make it much, much easier to stay on your horse when you whack someone with something
>>44179626
Wait? You think cavalry and knights dominated the battlefield? No. Not even close.
It was a shit lot of peasants armed with bows and crossbows standing behind a wall of peasants holding long pointy sticks and shields that shat on everything.
They dominated so much that knights would refuse to go into battle until the enemy archers had run out of arrows. The pope even declared that anyone wielding things like crossbows against Knights would go to hell when they died.
>>44179626
No? Sort of?
Horses can be made useless by terrain and economy.
>>44179626
Two words:BIKE SQUAD
>>44179981
Cavarly became a major thing at the exact same time. A macedonian phalanx is shit without combined arms.
The thessalian cavarly, companions and such lead by Alexander were the first european heavy cavarly. Lightly armored for medieval knights, but their role was the same.
The diadochi had cataphract-style companion cavarly. And elephants.
>>44181989
>>44182604
Alexander's cavarly was mostly macedonian and thessalian, places with plains for horses.
After he died, greeks reverted to using just the macedonian phalanx without cavarly, because of cost and cultural inertia.
Fun fact: "cataphract" simply meant "armored" in many ancient texts. The sources mention cataphract ships and elephants.
>>44182851
>being this ignorant
Go back to jerking off to che's corpse, ya commie bastard
>>44183881
well that pic is going in the idea folder for later.
>>44183971
U mad, knightfag?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
A bunch of peasants with cheap, devastating firepower always win. It's historical; it has nothing to do with South American revolutionaries.
>>44179626
You mean like tercios?
>>44179626
Anon, infantry *were* always important on the battlefields. Mass cavalry charges were rare, archers/crossbowmen played a key role in many battles, and siege assaults (where cavalry can't be deployed) were often the decisive part of wars.
If you want to make cavalry useless:
-No horses, only zebras and other critters who have a hard time supporting human weight/don't like to be ridden.
-All civilized land tends to be uneven, rocky, or covered in forest/jungle.
-Or: most of the populace live in island chains, with larger islands regularly intersected by rivers. Everyone uses longships, that don't really have the space to carry large numbers of horse.
>>44179626
>what are pikemen
>>44184217
English longbow was used exclusively by the english for 200 years. It was not dominant or ubiquitous. If there was a counter to cavalry in the middle ages it was the pike which was both effective and widely used.
Now go kill yourself.
Horses were expensive.
The rich rode on horses.
The rich decided what was written in history.
This is why we think cavalry dominated battlefields. It's all a myth.
>>44184662
Not that guy, but what actually was the purpose of the longbow in the English army?
>>44184738
Weaponize peasants.
>>44184738
What is the purpose of shooting people for they reach you.
>>44184217
Not him, but actual historian here:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Formigny
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Castillon
Also note that the French WON the Hundred Years' War.
A bunch peasants with cheap firepower didn't always win. In fact, the reason the battles of Crecy and Agincourt get brought up so much is because they DIDN'T always win. They usually lost. It was unusual, so people talk about them alot.
Meanwhile, you have combined arms forces consisting of professional soldiers and knights who run roughshod all over peasant archers and no one bats an eyelid, because that shit happens all the time.
>>44184743
but a longbow takes a life time of training to learn to use properly. very few peasants had strong enough backs to use them only people who were sons of previous longbowmen become longbowmen in armies?
>implying they didn't
>>44185726
"Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery."
Why do you think Edward passed this law, you dimsim?
>>44185726
In England, there was a law for a long ass time that every able bodied man over the age of 15 and not like possessing a Knighthood (and a few other technicalities) had to to practice a certain minimum amount (I think 1 day a week) with the Longbow.
Was it perfect? Nope, far from it. But you get enough motherfuckers doing that over a few generations and you get a pretty brutally effective Archer Corps.
Still need support though. Combined Arms will almost always trump an arm entirely focused on one aspect.
>>44179626
A history where assault rifles were far earlier discovered.
>>44179981
Greek phalanx was more of a shield wall.
Makedonian phalanx relied on its lances.
Both were highly unflexible, without even terrain and secured flanks, the were fucked.
>>44186368
Which is correct. They didn't.
>>44182851
Peasants were not called to war. That was the deal of the whole feudal thing. Every footsoldier was at least semi professional.
>>44179959
Can you build a medieval-like standard of technology without beasts of burden, though?
>>44184738
Artillery, of you fire several thousand arrow at an area you will hit something.
>>44179665
This guy makes a lot of sense. He must be posting from horseback.
>>44184810
I'd also like to act that Agincourt, despite being so famous, actually DIDN'T prove the effectiveness of longbows because it's so famous for all the French knights who were captured (you don't generally capture people who are turned into arrow pincushions). If anything, Agincourt and Crécy show what happens when your king is LITERALLY insane.
I don't understand why, of all the battles in British history, they choose to emphasize the two in a war they lost horribly. Outside of maybe the wars the Byzantines lost, the Hundred Years War was the most complete defeat in all of medieval history. Why celebrate it? Hell, the French -who won- don't even care.
>>44179626
>Would be a plausible alternative history possible, where infantry and not cavalry/knights dominate the battlefields? (Medieval/Europe)
>laughingswiss.jpg
![Francis_at_Marignan[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/eNomLn8.jpg "Francis_at_Marignan[1].jpg")
>>44186880
>laughingswiss.jpg
Not even once.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marignano
>Marignano established the superiority of French cast bronze artillery and gendarme cavalry over the heretofore invincible phalanx tactics of the Swiss infantry.
>After lengthy negotiations, an "Eternal Peace" between the Swiss cantons and Francis in both his roles as king of France and duke of Milan was signed in Fribourg on 29 November 1516. Both parties agreed not to ally themselves with opponents of the other party in any future military conflict, and to seek diplomatic or judicial resolution of all future conflicts.
>The "Eternal Peace" with France was indeed kept for the remainder of the lifetime of the Kingdom of France, and was broken only after the French Revolution, with the French invasion of Switzerland in 1798. It opens a period of close ties between the Swiss Confederacy with France over the next three centuries (while at the same time Switzerland moved away from its association with the Holy Roman Empire).
Between this, the longbows and Flemish pikemen I'm starting to see a disturbing trend.
>Defeat French knights once in a fluke
>Declare eternal superiority
>Proceed to get utterly rekt by them
>Never talk about it
>>44186909
To be fair, its rarely just the knights. Its knights plus crossbows, knights plus artillery etc etc
Combined arms will always triumph ultimately. The Frankish lands have simply been in a better position for such than many places throughout a lot of history.
>>44179626
Cheers, OP. Armchair General threads are my favourite genre of /tg/ autism.
>>44187187
>spends their free time reading other people's autistic ramblings
>not autistic
choose one m8, you are the autism.
>>44186822
Yeah... if you don't mind being edgy about it.
>>44187527
So is ''autism'' the new ''cancer'' at this point?
>>44186604
Indeed, thats why the roman legionairies were such a failure! Oh wait...
Thats why the macedonian pikes were such a failure! Oh wait...
Thats why the winged hussars were such a failure! Oh wait...
Thats why karolinger infantry were such a failure! Oh wait...
When will people like you realize that generalizing is a sin
>>44188120
Buzzwords are gonna buzz
>>44188140
>Thats why karolinger infantry were such a failure! Oh wait...
Can you tell me more?
>>44179626
Terrain unsuited to horses like swamps, mountains or dense forest (Ireland, Switzerland, couple of swampy areas in north Germany).
Only other option for dominating the battlefield would be massed pikes worn by well armored well drilled soldiers, English and Flemish tactics for dealing with cavalry relied a lot on the enemy and fighting a defensive battle.
To get a pike armed (preferable) standing army you need a state structure not really seen in medieval Europe until the tail end. Besides you'd still end up with cavalry being used to raid the enemy.
tl;dr unlikely.
Why are you asking if I might ask?
>>44184810
Thanks for the info anon.
OP
Combined arms is where it's at!
>>44180041
Heavy cavalry was still charging across the field during the Napoleonic wars though. If you meant guys clad in plate armor with a lance here is a good read.
https://myarmoury.com/feature_lancepistol.html
The essence is that mounted pistoliers drove those from the battlefield rather than infantry.
>>44185726
>2015
>Using the word peasant without defining it.
Shiggy
Anyways between 3-5 years is closer to what was needed for an okay archer.
The English weren't the only ones with archers, however they were the army fielding the most in almost every battle.
>>44188182
Those fucks rekt shit. Well equipped, well trained, competent in a siege.
Cavalry only dominated in very specific circumstances.
By far the most common kind of battle in the Middle Ages was the siege, where cavalry is next to useless and mounted soldiers would spend 99% of their time unmounted to the point where they might even send their horses home if it was close enough because of the sheer amount of resources a few thousand horses would consume. Cavalry was a decisive force in field battles from the widespread adoption of the stirrup in Europe around the 10th century, it took them around 100 years to actually get the new tactics sorted.
This is assuming the terrain of the field battle would actually allow the cavalry to be a decisive force, otherwise it would just live up to its historically most common role: making sure routed soldiers stay routed.
Cavalry as a dominant unit in the rather rare decisive field battle (as opposed to the field skirmish) only lasted about 300 years. So up until the same time pike & shot became the latest and greatest, though even before then mixed units of pike and crossbow men gave cavalry endless shit.
Then it was back to more of a supporting role that diminished to the point that the vast majority of soldiers riding horses would dismount and fight as infantry, and only really fight as traditional cavalry in extremely desperate circumstances (Australian 4th Light Horse at Beersheeba), against technologically inferior foes, or as the aforementioned "routed infantry removal service". Decisive cavalry attacks did still happen, but they became pretty fucking uncommon by the 16th century.
Cavalry lasted far longer in Eastern Europe than Western Europe, given generally more open terrain and less common castles making field battles more likely.
The same thing is kind of maybe happening to tanks now, there is a serious debate as to why we don't just buy more attack helicopters, drones and cruise missiles.
>>44188120
>is ''autism'' the new ''cancer'' at this point?
I think it's more comparable to "faggot" in its usage on 4chan, though "autist" and its variations have more connotations of being obsessive, overbearing, or childish in one's enjoyment. Both are highly-offensive, but essentially meaningless insults which refer to a significant portion of the population, and are meant to offend and demoralize the target by association with that group.
>>44188299
Should we allow ourselves to make the distinction between dominant and prominent?
Cavalry was definitely more 'prominent' by Charlemagne and perhaps even the later Roman empire, however they were still part of a combined arms effort. I'd say cavalry remained an integral part of any army until Napoleon 1815, after that we don't really have that many wars in Europe anymore. I'd still stay cavalry was very prominent in European (and Ottoman) armies for closer to a thousand years between roughly 800 and 1800.
>>44188345
>after that we don't really have that many wars in Europe anymore.
We did, loads of 'em. I'd say the real elimination of cavalry didn't happen until Sedan (1870) because rifle technology had simply become so advanced that a frontal charge was suicide. WW1 machine gun advances killed cavalry as even a potential flanking force.
Infantry, cavalry and artillery supported and enabled each other.
>alternative history
What if moose were domesticated instead of horses? They'd be dumber, (a bit) slower and less controllable than horses but make up for it with being huge, moving effortlessly over rough terrain, and being absolutely lethal when enraged.
>>44188372
Loads?
Crimea which is essentially Asia and the Franco-Prussian war?
Germans were just having a civil war and Austrians accidentally strayed over the border :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mars-la-Tour
>>44179626
Sure.
If the horse wasn't native to Eurasia, then there would be Cattle and Oxen bred as mounts.
>Great herds of War Bulls, their massive horns reinforced with steel.
>Debates over Highland War Cattle Vs. Spanish Conquis-torros.
>>44179626
Sure, the great horse-plague of 1009 wiped 'em out.
>>44182749
>Also the classical world lacks stirrups, which make it much, much easier to stay on your horse when you whack someone with something
The main benefit of stirrups seems to be that they make riding less strenous, making the sort of mobile warfare that built the Mongol Empire possible with human riders. Without them, the strategical speed of riders is apparently not significantly faster than a footman's.
>>44180859
>min broder
just make gustavus adolphus come about a few hundred years earlier
>>44188401
>Crimea which is essentially Asia and the Franco-Prussian war?
And the Sons of Saint Louis, and the Belgian Independence War, and the Franco-Austrian war, and the Danish-Prussian war, and the Austrian-Prussian war, and the 1848 Italian Unification attempt, and the Balkan Wars, and the Turkish-Ottoman wars (if you want to consider those European).
There are probably a few I've overlooked, but there are a plethora of wars between 1815 and 1914. That's discounting all the wars Europe participated in but mostly took place outside of Europe.
>>44188340
Probably the most autistic definition of autism I've seen.
Going by Hall's "Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe" decent infantry is very good defensively. A shield wall, pike block, or something like that is pretty hard to budge. The problem is that a large part of their combat prowess comes from cohesion, every man in his place. Maintaining that order, without people drifting apart of getting in the way of each other on the move is very difficult.
So trying to attack one group of infantry with another requires significant superiority, or you'll break upon the anvil, and then get massacred upon withdrawal. What infantry on infantry fights we do see in the late middle ages appear to have been largely about baiting the opponent into this.
Cavalry rose to prominence in Europe largely because they where the bets way of cracking up those infantry blocks. What might be lost in cohesion as they advance is compensated for by having a half ton or more of warhorse come crashing down on the enemy at high speeds. Against good quality infantry the cavalry shock isn't a guaranteed success, but was often the best option around for anyone wishing to go on the offensive. Lacking this, I suspect that any means of disrupting the enemy formation from a distance would be highly treasured. Magic, field portable ballistae, early cannons, incendiaries, maybe things like war elephants or armoured carriages drawn by well protected animals.
>>44188483
Without Axel to provide help and to balance his Vasa temper (sure, he wasn't as bad as his dad, who in turn was a lot better than uncle Erik, but that's not saying much), times ripe for sweeping modernisations of state and army, a neighbouring empire torn by civil war to provide Opportunity, and artillery to play with, well, he might not be in his element.
Then again, not being at war with every neighbouring country when he gets the crown might help.
>>44179626
What if a disease like the black death but only for horses swept though and killed almost every available mount? No horses, no cavalry.
Or what if the weather was different and it rained almost constantly. Everywhere. Making everything so muddy that horsemen couldn't charge en masse. It would also make all long range projectile weapons useless.
The development of polearms might also help. If billhooks and halberds were around (and more popular) earlier it might have made foot combat more appealing.
>>44188340
Faggot is a mild insult/endearment. Autism is a polite way of saying "retard".
A proper nation-state forms pre the Peace of Westphalia and shocks the world with a huge mass conscription army the way the First French Republic did at the end of the 18th century.
Of course easy to teach ranged weapons like crossbows, longbows, and guns increase the effectiveness of the shock peasant army concept, but I wonder how it would look if a force that used cavalry as the disruptors to the pike on pike battles, English Civil War style, were facing a force that had a unified command structure between their field force and say guerrilla forces using woods and rough terrain to make up for a lack of horses?
Like, Medieval Europe North Vietnam can't afford tanks (horses) but their regular infantry are supported by the Medieval European Viet Cong.
>>44188784
>The problem is that a large part of their combat prowess comes from cohesion, every man in his place.
So the issue is actually training time?
A pike block takes too long to train when you have crappy peasant levies but a knight/man-at-arms is a professional with tons of time to hone his killing power. Pike based armies actually have professional soldiers (whether they be Macedonian Pezhetairoi or Spanish Tericos).
How do you get rid of cavalry dominance in the Middle Ages? Make the yeomen class bigger and have it include far more professional foot troops. Then give them polearms.
>>44188857
>Of course easy to teach ranged weapons like crossbows, longbows, and guns increase the effectiveness of the shock peasant army concept,
How would they obtain these weapons, become good with them and how would they accept conscription?
PS, Europe isn't Vietnam.
>>44179626
Horses don't exist would be the obvious one. Horses are smarter than humans would be funnier.
>>44184230
This bros
Humans are filthy nasty disease carriers at the best of times...especially back before cleanliness was really a thing for most of the world.
Say that humans who try to domesticate riding animals eventually pass on a deadly disease or two to whatever they're training...something we humans have long since become accustomed to.
People would eventually either stop trying to ride or would find a way to breed through it. Just make the hearty breed super rare and difficult to breed. Then you'd only have the ultra rich using them.
There...no true massed cavalry.
>>44186604
Also, critically, they were practicing ranging shots not aimed shots. One arrow fired 50 yards at one knight is cool and cinematic. 1,000 arrows shot upwards and falling in a fucking hailstorm of death every few minutes until the field of battle is carpeted with the bodies of Frenchmen is how you win a battle.
>>44188897
>So the issue is actually training time?
And a bunch of other factors like terrain and morale, both of which are outside of a commanders control from time to time.
A thing to keep in mind was that the guy who was expected to turn up as a man-at-arms was at least six times richer than the lowest paid footman and paid four times as much as a foot archer, who himself earned a wage comparable to a master carpenter.
The rich lads were one of the people capable of maintain a war horse and prime riding skills needed to fight effectively. These guys weren't part of a standing army though and convincing a modern day lawyer of brain surgeon he needs to learn how to use a gun for national defense is wasting a nations potential.
Even the English Yeoman of the 100 years war had to be paid for by the state to make them turn up.
>>44188939
That worked great for a while but got old really fast when the enemy side had cannons.
>>44188857
>>44188903
>How would they obtain these weapons, become good with them and how would they accept conscription?
Not him, but I could imagine such a system arising in an Italian city state (which might end up conquering the hell out of everyone like Rome once did?).
>How would they obtain these weapons?
Most likely spears and crossbows for the lower citizenry (cheap, easy to produce, easy to use) with more specialized weapons (zweihänder, longbows,cavalry) for the richer citizenry.
>Become good with them
Crossbows and lances are easy to use. Nevertheless, it could be instituted that martial proficiency is a civic duty.
>and how would they accept conscription?
The same way the citizens of Athens did? By not being entitled shits and accepting that rights come with duties?
The above would require abandoning the Condotierri system though. Then again, Condotierri were backwards as fuck precisely because they had a near monopoly on warfare in Italy.
*Note that citizenry means citizenry in the medieval sense, not the modern sense.
>>44189018
I typed a reply and then my chrome crashed. Managed to screen cap it though.
>>44180041
>>44179981
Cavalry was essential to the Macedonian Phalanx. The phalanx was anvil to engage your enemy, and the cavalry was used as as hammer to smash the flanks. The trick was that you need well drilled troops to actually stay in formation, plus even ground, plus more flexible infantry and cavalry to guard the flanks. Alexander managed to manage all these things (which is no small feat, when you consider that his army contained fighters of many nations). However, the diadochi rarley had troops as well drilled as Alexander's and they lacked his tactical brilliance. The phalanx probably could have been used much longer if there were more generals who had the skill and logistical ability to use it properly.
Also the Medieval? Renaissance pike didn't kill off cavalry overnight either. It was really the combination of pike and shot that did that. Even then, Cavalry didn't cease to be relevant; after all, cavalry in the form of dragoons and mounted rifles (and sometimes even lancers) stuck around way past when the pike was invented.
>>44179626
No.
Because that's actual history.
>>44189254
Pikes chiefly replaced other infantry because they usually rolled over anything besides other pikes too.
>>44188140
Literally all of those were excellent examples of combined armies, anon. As in, well known for being combined armies.
>>44189202
>Managed to screen cap it though.
Neat. I guess that raises a new point.
What's a cheap and easy to use alternative long range weapon (inb4 slings)?
It also makes you wonder how the Roman Republic somewhat consistently upheld its conscription system until it fell, and why or why not an Italian city state could manage to copy it.
The fact that the citizenry would be only a small top layer of society wouldn't be too difficult to deal with, considering their feudal opponents were most likely an even smaller slice of their respective societies.
>>44189315
The Romans were notoriously light on cavalry after the Marian reforms, relying disproportionately on local mercenaries. This is why they never did very well against cavalry-heavy people.
>>44189324
Roman history is not my strong point but if I recall correctly they weren't full time soldiers before the Marian reforms, even then they still lacked manpower during the punic wars because they repeatedly lost entire armies.
After the marian reforms the roman army became a volunteer force with state supplied armor and equipment and a good living wage. The Roman state effectively paid for this with taxes and a constant supply of war booty. Many medieval monarch didn't have this luxury as the feudal model is largely Germanic in origin. Rulers relied on vassals for everything and therefore had little or now tax raising ability.
An example would be the Agincourt army of Henry V. I am taking the lowest troops numbers and the lowest possible wages, in truth the numbers might have been higher, the supply and baggage train is not included and a lot of people were paid more than the minimum.
7000 archers 3 pence a day
1500 men-at-arms 12 pence a day
240 pence per pound
Total wage cost of keeping that army in the field 365 days, assuming they buy food and armor themselves.
31937 pounds for the archers
27375 for men-at-arms
Total: 59.312 pounds let's round that off to 60.000 pounds
A lot of archers who had a horse were paid double and men-at-arms of knightly rank were paid double too, then there were lords who were paid even more.
The Royal revenue of Henry V during those years (with exceptional war taxes being raised) was around 80.000. The domestic expenditure on his court, bureaucracy and a load of other things alone were nearly 80.000 a year which meant he was nearly perpetually in debt trying to cover expenses with taxes not collected etc etc.
In short: Even that 9500 man army of Henry the V couldn't be kept in the field for a full year.
