It still seems obvious the percentage of a population that makes up a standing and/or professional military force is being grossly exaggerated, here. It is not even nearly comparable to the infrastructure work/labour force, which the one idea I'm quoting wants to be conflated with, directly.
Even the largest armies of Classical or Medieval Eras were a tiny fraction/percentage of the total "men of military age" (approximately aged 20 to 40) available to the society. That was both because the huge majority of the population was required to keep the rest fed and because the states could not muster enough of the society's wealth to arm, equip, and feed a larger military force. Even the relatively small (percentage wise) Roman Imperial Army put a massive strain on its state.
Medieval states (in Europe) got around this by relying on professional warriors (knights) who maintained themselves on land granted them for the purpose, and a large force of conscripted infantry of, in most cases, dubious military value. Obvious exceptions were the English shire levies (archers), Swiss Cantons, Flemish and Italian city militias, and lowland Scots, all of whom administered massive defeats to forces of armored knights. Once the states began to hire knights instead of calling them up temporarily from their fiefs, the requirements in cold cash became so large they had to borrow immense sums from the new banking families - and not infrequently failed to pay the loans back.
This all changes with the Industrial Era.
First, centralized production of weapons and ammunition brought the relative price of arming troops down.
Second, more efficient agriculture released a higher percentage of the population for potential military duties.
Third, more efficient control of taxation and levies (customs duties were a huge income producer in many states) made more cash available to the State.
Finally, starting experimentally in many smaller states, but formalized in Revolutionary France, the mass conscript army used all of the above to produce armies that compared to everything before, were massive. Most Ancient and medieval battles involved no more than 20 - 40,000 men on each side. 17th -18th century battles between professional musket-carriers involved forces of up to 60,000. The armies under and opposing Napoleon regularly numbered over 100,000, and Imperial France maintained an army of over 350 regiments - 600,000 men or more in uniform almost constantly from 1798 to 1815.
By 1914, the start of the Modern Era, European states like France, Austria and Germany mobilized up to 5 - 8% of their total population, and maintained that for 4 years. Armies numbered in the millions - as did casualties per year of war.
So, there is a Quantum Jump in both real numbers an percentages with the Industrial Era - Industrial War and Armies are not the same as those before, and therefore may need a different mechanism to represent the raising and maintaining of military forces.
I suggest, as a starting point for discussion, that each military unit in the Pre-Industrial (or more precisely, previous to the introduction of Mass Conscription in the Industrial Era) Eras requires one Specialist rather than one general Population Point. This would both represent a smaller percentage of the total population and the fact that the population taken are the 'best and brightest' - young men in prime health and fitness.
Mass Conscription allows units to be 'formed' using general Population Points - possibly more than one unit per Point, with only 'specialized' military forces requiring Specialists - like Artillery, Armor, Air and Naval Units that generally require a more well-trained and educated part of the population.
) has the same stat as Bronze Age Spearmen and not as Greek Hoplite (who are better armed and armoed?) Are these the same wargear loadout also for Medieval era spearmen? (Before Late Middle Ages Pikemen.
