How ancient armies, such as the Roman Legions, able to feed themselves during wartime campaigns?
In: Other
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
A valid tactic was also to attsck foraging parties. I forgot which one of Ceasars campaigns bit his foragers were harrased at every turn. Messed him up pretty good through attrition.
1. They didn’t fight in winter.
2. They had baggage trains with supplies like we have today.
3. They ‘foraged’ in friendly areas and ‘pillaged’ in unfriendly ones.
4. They suffered and starved when 1-3 didn’t work out for them.
Supply lines were a real thing back in the day, plus the army could requisition supplies from friendly population centers, trade with locals, forage for supplies and pillage enemy settlements.
Latest Answers