question about units size

[geogus]

Hi guys

This is my first post and im getting ready to be a DM in my fisrt GoT game.

I have a question about about units size

If i understood it well, the core book says that a unit is 100 men strong or 20 riders men strong.

Is that right? Donesnt seems correct for me.

IMO, an archers unit shouldnt have as many men as a infrantry unitiy, for instance.

A 100 men infrantry has little chance agains a 100 men archer unity in covencional batle.

The way i see it, a archers units should have 45 men, if 100 is the standard number for a infantry.

The same aplies to guerrilla, sailors, bandists, raiders, rogues.... etc etc

Am i correct and those units have fewer men?

[Kajani]

As far as I am know all units on foot have 100 men. I see the problem with the archers not exactly as you do. Under good circumstances (trained archers in good position) they have clearly a good chance against a same number of infantry. On the other hand if chased from close distance, bad weather, a bad tactical position or so things changed a lot. Also it may be that archers likely broke down when facing a direct attac because they are less trained for that. You could not judge the chances of archers vs others out from their greatest victories like Azicourt, Crecy, Poitiers etc., there were other battles in which archers lost or at least fought not as good as in the examples above against forces of similar size.

Of course you could change this, but in that case I think the health of the smaller units should be reduced too.

[geogus]

My point is that is easier for any army to give a spear or sword to a man and comand him to figth than to give a bow .

If we look at any stratetegy game (total war series), for instance, a unit has more men accordind their expected casualities and complexity of task

[Kajani]

A spear I would agree, a sword I would disagree. Swords are not cheap weapons, and it is not so easy to learn how to use it. You could also give green men crossbows and bows and send them into the field - you could not hope that they are very good with that, but the same problem you have with huge levies of untrained melee-fighters. They sure will break down early. And you should not forget that many infantry-units (garrison, infantry and mercenaries) are better protected than archers - and body armour isn't cheap.

[DaimosofRedstone]

My point is that is easier for any army to give a spear or sword to a man and comand him to figth than to give a bow .

Actually that depends A LOT on the particular culture.
Serfs in most of Middle Europe had at least some expertise with a bow, in England even with a LONGbow.
A sword is a different thing though. A sword has no secondary use. A spear might have been any number of things and if it was not it is cheap to make, an axe chops people as good as wood, a bill can be used to trim trees or knights.
A sword is only good for killing and quite expensive.

If we look at any stratetegy game (total war series), for instance, a unit has more men accordind their expected casualities and complexity of task

I hope you did not cite the Total War series as any kind of historic accuracy reference.
These games are strictly games with history coating, not history simulators.

As for the original question:
The whole idea of mono-cultural infantry or archer is actually quite dubious anyway. In the middle ages a knight brought his retinue (3-10 people, 2/3 infantry, 1/3 'archer') and he fought with his retinue.
Company sizes if there were comapnies, were not fixed but depended on how many people you could get together. But these also tended to be mixed.

[Kajani]

On the other hand, in the late middle age it was quite common if I am right that the English forces were build completely out of a small number of knights and a huge number of archers (between five and ten times as much as knights). Even the lists what these or that nobleman had to call to the arms used this system. That mean not that the knights and the archers were strictly separated, but on the other hand I think there was a huge gap between the noble armoured fighters (to feet or to horse) and the lowborn archers, and the tactics which they used differ.

[DaimosofRedstone]

I could set it to music by now:
England is different.
Drastically so.

[Kajani]

That might very well be - but on the other hand I would say given the fact that Martin's world is more than a little bit influenced by the war of roses and the hundred years war (or so at least it was said sometimes), I would say the English example may have some influence towards Westeros (although Westeros is NOT a enlarged England).

[Paedrig]

It is quite debatable if the "lances" (knight and his followers - de facto an mix of heavy cavalry, light cavalry, and footsoldiers of different kind) were in fact used as tactical unit. At least in the high and late medieval times (before this i do not know). These "lances" also of course differt a lot in strength.

I have read that in reality the different sorts of cavalry and footsoldiers were put together in greater units after an army was gattered. And this make sense, because a mass of mini-units ("lances" of cavalry and infantry/archers) would ineffective i. m. o.