- This claim is in the TUV manifesto, and has previously been widely reported in the media – but our research found that whether it’s true or not depends on what you mean by “smallest”.
- In the absolute sense, at many times in the past 300 years the army has been much smaller than it is today.
- However, when population size is taken into account, it is fair to say that per capita, the British Army today is smaller than it has been in 300 years.
- The data that relevant per capita calculations rely on comes with significant health warnings – but, at the same time, it stems from the results of major statistical projects that compile historical information and still represent the best evidence that’s available.
In its 2024 Westminster election manifesto, the TUV claimed:
“They [the UK government] have cut the Army to its smallest size in 300 years.”
Whether this is correct or not depends on what “smallest” means.
Over the past three centuries, there have been many times where the British Army’s headcount is much smaller than it is today.
However, relative to the overall population of Great Britain (historically) and the UK (today), it is fair to say that per capita the army is smaller now than at any point in the past 300 years.
Either of these interpretations is valid and, with that in mind, this claim is accurate with consideration – although the considerations don’t end there.
This fact check relies on two key sources of information that should be treated with caution, despite being the best available evidence. That’s because these sources – one from the Ministry of Defence, and the other a joint initiative between the Office for National Statistics, the Bank of England, and Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence – involve curating historical data that can be difficult to properly source.
For a deeper dive into historical sources of data, read on.
- Sources
FactCheckNI asked the TUV where they got the information behind this claim, and they responded quickly with a couple of links to news stories (see here for an example), adding that this had been widely reported elsewhere.
We found the same claim reported earlier this year in the Sun and the Guardian, while this BBC article from 2021 ups the ante to state the army is the smallest it’s been for 400 years.
- Current figures
This claim explicitly refers to “the army” NOT the “armed forces”, which would also include: the Royal Navy (including the Royal Marines); and the Royal Air Force (RAF).
According to the most recent quarterly government statistics, as of April 2024, there were 110,300 people in the British Army. This comprises:
- 75,320 UK regular forces (permanent personnel);
- 4,300 Gurkhas;
- 26,090 volunteer reservists; and
- 4,590 other personnel.
For the purposes of this check, we will focus on the overall size of the UK regular forces (75,320), as is standard, rather than also including reservists and others who are not full-time, permanent soldiers.
- 300 years ago
The year 1714 is a long time ago and, while this fact check relies on several statistics from around that time, all of these should come with a health warning: in short, these cannot be assumed to be as reliable as modern figures, or even data from a lifetime ago when record-keeping had become more robust and has better stood the test of time.
In 2017, in response to a Freedom of Information (FoI) request, the Ministry of Defence released figures on the sizes of the British Armed Forces for (almost) every year between 1700 and 2016 (where appropriate – as you might imagine, there was not much of an air force in the early 18th Century). The MoD’s cover letter for these figures states:
“Please note, figures prior to 1900 have not been sourced, and therefore their reliability is unclear.”
FactCheckNI spoke with the MoD about this, and they reiterated that the pre-1900 figures, in particular, represent the best-available information but are not fully sourced. The MoD also said that today’s army remains flexible, efficient and fully fit for purpose.
This does not mean the figures are wrong, or that they should be disregarded. It does mean they should be treated with caution – but, regardless, they are the best figures the MoD could find (and also the best that FactCheckNI has come across during our research).
According to that FoI response, 300 years ago, in 1714, the total size of the Army was 26,000. This is considerably lower than the current size of the British Army around 75k total in the regular forces.
Moreover, 1714 was not a particular outlier. According to the MoD’s best-available figures, between 1700 and 1749 – excluding 1700, 1715 and 1717, for which no statistics are available – the overall manpower of the army veered between a low of 12,000 (in 1721) and a high of 74,000 (1745).
It wasn’t until 1750, when numbers hit 79,000, that the army grew larger than today’s regular force numbers of 75,320 – and it was 1796, around the start of the Napoleonic Wars, before the force was larger than today’s overall number (which includes reservists) of 110,300.
Note that this MoD data is not fully comprehensive. No data on army size exists for 1861-1899, inclusive. This fact check makes no assumptions about that data, either way.
Taking all that into account, and based on the best-available evidence: in the absolute sense, it is not accurate to say that the army is the smallest it has been in 300 years.
However, what about population size? Today’s army might have more people than the same force 300 years ago, but what about in relative terms?
- Per capita, today
Calculating per capita figures requires population figures. For the modern day, this is straightforward.
The Office for National Statistics produces quarterly estimates for the total UK population. The latest figures at the time of writing were published in March this year, and suggest that 67.6 million people lived in the UK in mid 2022.
The current size of the army’s full-time regular force is 75,320.
This means there are 75,320 / 67.6 = 1,114 soldiers per million population.
What about 300 years ago?
- Per capita, pre census
The first Census didn’t take place until 1801: it found the population of England and Wales to be 8.9 million, not counting those at sea, in the military, or prisoners (the latter constituting an additional 469,188 registered in this process). This same year, Scotland had a population of just over 1.6 million people. That’s a total of 10.5 million in Great Britain (which this fact check will use as the comparator, bearing in mind the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is itself just over a century old).
The best historical population data FactCheckNI could find for the period in question comes from the UK Historical Data repository, a joint project between the ONS, the Bank of England (BoE) and the Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence (ESCoE).
This project includes population estimates for both England, going back as far as 1086, and for Great Britain, going back until 1700.
In 1714, the population was 6.5 million. The army size was 26,000, giving a figure of 4,000 soldiers per million population, which is more than three times higher than today’s figure.
What about all the years since?
For large periods of time, the absolute size of the British army was larger than it is now. Based on the MoD’s data, this is true for every year from 1800 onwards, except for 1803, 1822 and 1823.
Regardless, when the UK’s rising population is taken into account, it is clear that the army is smaller now, per capita, than it has been for every year since 1800.
- 1714 to 1800
Before 1800, the years with the smallest per capita army were 1721 and 1793.
In 1721, around 12,000 soldiers were in the army and the population was 6.65 million, so 1,805 soldiers per million population.
In 1793, the army numbered around 17,000 and the population was an estimated 9.87 million, equating to 1722 soldiers per million population.
Both of these figures are considerably higher than the contemporary figure of 1,114.2.
Once more, it should be emphasised that these historical statistics – of both the size of the army and the GB population – should be treated with real caution. Despite this, they still represent the best-available evidence, and certainly the best that FactCheckNI was able to find. (Please get in touch if you know of anything better).
With all that in mind, based on all the available evidence it is fair to say that, per capita, the British Army today is smaller than it has been in 300 years.
