How ancient armies, such as the Roman Legions, able to feed themselves during wartime campaigns?
In: Other
Sun tzu says to use your enemies food stores against them. As in beat them in the battle and use their rations to continue the fight else where.
The armies main force might be together but pillaging parties would span several cities in length. Usually the peasants and town were mostly unprotected since the defenders had to focus on the main force. That’s why Russia’s strategy Of burning every was so good because that was the main source of food for the invaders
The Ottomans had to ways to deal with this issue.
1. They carried most livestock with the army when they went on campaigns. The livestock were mostly consumed by high ranking officials and the Sultan.
2. The towns on their road and nearby were informed so that the locals would sell them what was needed.
Armies could:
1. create a supply line – a whole infrastructure. Food especially large quantities of grain is heavy – so river and sea lift is preferred.
2. forage – but that is finite
3. loot and pillage – but that is finite
4. It isn’t just food but water. Any sizable force can’t be watered from one well and would need a stream
A good read in Donald W. Engel’s excellent work, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army. It is not a dry read but it helps to know the basic outlines of Alexander’s campaigns against the Persian empire. The basics discussed largely apply until the advent of steam power.
One of the ways Napoleon was so successful was because of how quickly he could move his army around. He would advance so quickly because every City he took he picked clean, and used all the farm land to the disposal of the army. He brought very little food or supplies. He grabbed it on the go. He was able to move so fast that people weren’t able to pack up and go.
It’s actually what lost him the Russian campaign. He pulled up with 600k soldiers, with the anticipation that he would just pillage as he went feeding his huge army. Only problem was as the word spread, the Russians did something never seen before. They burned everything. Entire cities on fire. The army was decimated by this tactic. It wasn’t so much the cold that destroyed them as much as a lack of supplies.
With great difficulty. There are basically five options, and they all have problems:
* You can bring food with you from your own territory overland, but that’s very difficult and you can’t feed a large army;
* You can bring food up on ships, but then you can’t go far from the coast;
* You can buy food from the locals, but they might be reluctant to sell, because, you know, you’re there to conquer them and they’re not into that;
* You can rob food from the locals, but then you can’t stay in one place for long, because the people you’re robbing are not going to leave their stuff where it’s easy for you to get it;
* You can defeat your enemy and take his food— but to do that, you have to win the war in the first place.
there was basically an equally sized mass of people functioning as baggage carriers, servants, etc… the staff or the help … this train of folks and animals brought some amount of food from the outset but, once on campaign, armies needed to forage, hunt, collect, and pillage to sustain themselves
Logistics in war is often overlooked but they are what makes or breaks a war. This is visually more apparent in sieges.
The armies brought huge wagon trains full of food with them, and many also brought entire herds of livestock, which would be slaughtered along the trail. Armies would often supplement their supplies from the neighboring countryside. Sometimes this was done peacefully through hunting, foraging, barter, trade, or purchase. Other times, it was violently stolen through intimidation or raids.
Some buying from and strong arming the locals. Plenty of stealing, looting, pillaging. Then there was the massive troupe of people who would follow the army, they weren’t employed by them, and would sell services of all kinds, goods and wares. Where the army went there was to be money so people and traders would follow the campaign. It was apparently very profitable however risky.
Latest Answers