# Military Logistics in Ancient and Medieval Warfare



## Sheilawisz

There is something that is often ignored when battles are depicted in movies and books with a Medieval setting, and that is the military logistics that are needed to support the armies in battles and wars.

The logistics (the art of delivering enough food, water, weapons and other supplies to your forces) is crucial for a military force to be successful, and yet very little importance is given to this when describing battles in Fantasy or Historical fiction stories...

I mean, the movie _Troy_ depicts like hundreds of thousands of warriors that travel to invade the city of Troy with unprecedented forces, and yet it's not explained what resources were behind to support the daily needs of food, shelter, water, disposal of waste and other things that would be necessary for such a huge army.

The same happens in other similar movies and Fantasy stories: It's just like they raise an army, lead it marching to the battlefield and that's it!!

The art of disrupting your enemy's logistics is a decisive way to win a war, and I believe that it would be interesting to see an accurate description of military logistics in a Fantasy story.

What do we know about what the logistics were like in real-world Medieval warfare??


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Bad - for farmers. Armies carried their own provisions with them as much as possible, but they also tended to take whatever they could lay their hands on as they crossed the land. The provisions wagons, often including the weapons smiths for big armies, travelled behind the army.

But there have been battles fought through attacks on supply lines. The oldest I can think of is the ancient Romans who developed both the concepts of scorched Earth - basically burning down farms etc so that an attacking, chasing enemy would not have enough supplies to hase them as they fell back, and the even worse problem of "Poisoning the well", which is exactly what it sounds like. Add poison to the water supply, and then fall back and let the enemy drink it.

Also attacking the supply lines of an entrenched army was an established military strategy. Here you'd be talking about an army that's taken a city, and simply making sure that food etc couldn't make it in, thus starving the army. Several cities were recaptured during the Crusades using this technique, including Jerusalem. The invaders were simply forced to leave.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## ScipioSmith

Sheilawisz said:


> I mean, the movie _Troy_ depicts like hundreds of thousands of warriors that travel to invade the city of Troy with unprecedented forces, and yet it's not explained what resources were behind to support the daily needs of food, shelter, water, disposal of waste and other things that would be necessary for such a huge army.



I think it was Thucydides who claimed that the reason the Iliad starts in year 9 of a ten year war is that the Greeks must have had to disperse their forces for most of the preceding years in order to feed and pay them, only reconcentrating when they scented a decisive victory.


----------



## Saigonnus

The Wheel of Time went into it a little bit as one of the MCs led an army in the thousands across the countryside looking for his wife who had been taken by the enemy; who also numbered in the thousands.They had to scavenge what they could from the countryside, beans, grains or whatever to add to what they carried with them.

There are several reasons for it 

1. To provide the army with a little more variety than just the typical fare armies would have back then, and maybe even give the soldiers hard spirits or wine they normally wouldn't have. 

2. When in enemy territory, it keeps their forces from using that food for their own soldiers, especially if the fields are razed or salted (razing is easier).

3. It allowed for more trades and services within the army as often places they stop would have villages/towns nearby so the soldiers could buy or trade for things they needed beyond foodstuff (tobacco, utensils/cookware etc.) 

I agree that more authors should take it into account, or at least acknowledge the logistical nightmare that is supplying an army, but I can understand why they don't; it could possibly take up space in the novel better used to further the plot. Why write about sending out foragers to the local farms, when you can concentrate on the forward scouts who find the enemy lines and lead the forces to them.


----------



## ThinkerX

George RR Martin does take this sort of thing into account in his 'Song of Ice and Fire'.  Several major characters spend quite a bit of time wandering through a blighted landscape haunted by ruthless bandits looking for anything edible.  'Dance' features an army which is both freezing and starving to death.

Likewise, Kate Elliot also went into some detail with this in her 'Crown of Stars' series - several of her characters spend time in refugee camps, or are in the 'tails' of armies.

Elizabeth Moon, in what I think of as her 'Paladin' series, went into the whole supply and resupply issue in some depth - but also glossed over some of the nastier aspects.

Andre Norton went into this a bit in some of her 'Witch World' stories.

Feist touches on it in the 'Serpent War' books; in a couple of them we catch glimpses of armies stripping entire landscapes to feed themselves.

But yes, this sort of thing doesn't really come up in a lot of the more recent fantasy novels.

I was always a bit impressed by the old line roman legions: those guys could march twenty miles a day with full packs and set up a fortified encampment before turning in.  Each individual legionarre also carried enough food to last a couple of weeks if need be.  Dang impressive.


----------



## Zero Angel

You just need to read more military bent fantasy and you should be OK. There's a lot of sci-fi military stuff out there and you will encounter logistics there.

I think _The Art of War_ is invaluable for anyone wanting to understand ancient military and logistics.

The unannotated, unapplied versions are VERY brief, but I recommend annotated versions for more background and interesting stories. You especially want to at least read the ancient commentators' notes.


----------



## CupofJoe

A major subplot/strand of DLEddings Belgariad is the outfitting and raising an army.
I spent a lot of time researching 18century logistics and I was amazed at how many horses were need to move and support one cannon when on campaign.
And you can see it in modern warfare now [Iraq and Afghanistan spring to mind] when there is a ten to one or worse ratio between "support" and "fighting" troops.


----------



## Rainbowbird

Someone already mentioned the Romans, I think, but nevertheless...

Caesar was one of the most brilliant strategists of his time. The key to his success was a mixture between taking what he needed from the people who tried to defy him as well as making allies along the way and persuading those, who were not openly against him, to support him by sending supplies or even troops.   

So I suppose he knew that you can't really conquer a country with the whole population against you. Persuading even a few villages/cities/whatever to not only keep peace with you, but to actually help you, would therefore be the key to success. 

I think. :spin:

Rain


----------



## Graylorne

That's how Napoleon lost his empire: he underrated the difficulties of a march on Russia, while in front of him the Russians burned their own villages, stocks and lands to deny him food.


----------



## Zero Angel

Graylorne said:


> That's how Napoleon lost his empire: he underrated the difficulties of a march on Russia, while in front of him the Russians burned their own villages, stocks and lands to deny him food.



Please correct me if I am mistaken as I'm no historian, but I was under the assumption that (1) Napoleon was a master of logistics, (2) Napoleon completed his objective in capturing Moscow and was surprised that the Russians did not surrender to his terms at this point, and (3) it was not until the Russians refused to surrender and Napoleon was forced to winter in Moscow that his logistics failed. 

From my understanding, this was more a failure of logic than logistics. That is, he accomplished his objectives, but mistakenly believed that once accomplished they would lead to things they did not lead to. After having the situation completely rewrote, he was then forced to make due with what logistics he could.


----------



## Saigonnus

Zero Angel said:


> Please correct me if I am mistaken as I'm no historian, but I was under the assumption that (1) Napoleon was a master of logistics, (2) Napoleon completed his objective in capturing Moscow and was surprised that the Russians did not surrender to his terms at this point, and (3) it was not until the Russians refused to surrender and Napoleon was forced to winter in Moscow that his logistics failed.
> 
> From my understanding, this was more a failure of logic than logistics. That is, he accomplished his objectives, but mistakenly believed that once accomplished they would lead to things they did not lead to. After having the situation completely rewrote, he was then forced to make due with what logistics he could.



Napoleon was a logistical genius, like most of the great leaders tend to be (Adolf was one too) During the campaign, the russians kept attacking his flanks with cossack horsemen and used scorched earth tactics to deny Napoleon any source of food for the march; forcing him to rely on only what the supply lines could bring in. Napoleon had intended to force Czar Alexander to capitulate to his wishes and not attack Poland to put pressure on the French embargo of the UK, but he found the city largely abandoned and the Czar refused so he turned to leave. He wasn't a stupid man and didn't linger long, but his forces were cut off from retreat when the red army blocked the main thoroughfares in and out of Russia. They had to slog it out in the autumn mud and as a result lost 380,000 soldiers with another 100,000 made captive. Only 27,000 "fit" men made it out of Russia.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Thanks everyone for your interesting comments!!

History of the real world is full of examples of how smart commanders and leaders have used superior logistics to win battles and wars, and I would like to mention how a superior taxing system and excellent logistics allowed Edward III of England to raise powerful armies, fund military campaigns and win battles against the much larger French armies.

It's great that some Fantasy authors have worried to describe military logistics at least to certain point, and I agree that describing too much of it would work against the storytelling... however, sometimes it's really strange how the armies simply show up and go to battle without time to really prepare a campaign.

I think now of the _Return of the King_ movie, with who knows how many Rohan riders travelling for days on their way to the battle at Minas Tirith. How were they carrying enough food, not just for them but for the horses as well? What about the huge army that Sauron sent to destroy the city?

Then, we see Aragorn commanding another army that simply leaves the city on their way to the gates of Mordor.

When I watched _Troy_ I thought that the Troyans should simply defend the walls and wait for the invaders to run out of food and water, but then, that would not make an exciting action/adventure movie set in the Bronze Age.

Well, it's interesting to think of all this =)


----------



## Saigonnus

Sheilawisz said:


> I think now of the _Return of the King_ movie, with who knows how many Rohan riders travelling for days on their way to the battle at Minas Tirith. How were they carrying enough food, not just for them but for the horses as well? What about the huge army that Sauron sent to destroy the city?



Don't know about the humans, but the plains of Rohan had sufficient grass to feed the horses without the need to carry oats or hay. I believe in the books (it's been a long time since I read them) Tolkien goes a bit into the logistics necessary of supplying an army. He should know at least a little since he'd served in the English Armed Forces during WWI; his own forces tending to be suffering from supply problems. 

He actually wrote parts of the silmarillion while suffering from trenchfoot (which comes from having wet feet all the time; causing a bacterial infection) in a military hospital. That is also the reason the battle scenes were so intense, he'd seen the sudden and terrible collision of man on man up close and personal.

That is another thing few authors take into account... commonplace battlefield/travel ailments like dysentary or trenchfoot. If you have a character slogging through a swamp wearing leather boots for days, he's bound to have issues with trenchfoot. Likewise in that swamp, without clean water, you're likely to pick up some sort of bug in your intestines. Like with logistics, it doesn't usually further the storyline to introduce such things into a story, unless you really want to paint a picture of a desperate situation for the readers.


----------



## ThinkerX

If my somewhat hazy memory serves, Tolkien employed a military field manual to determine how far his characters/armies could travel.  He does go into logistics to some extent in the books; Frodo and Sam catch glimpses of Mordors logistics.


----------



## Kahle

One of the most important parts in any war is maintaining lines of supply and communications. As mentioned earlier, the Roman legion would carry its own rations for weeks, augmented by scavenging and hunting parties. This tactic was implemented by Gaius Marius, and removed the reliance upon trains of supply wagons and non-combatants such as camp followers-the legionaries were given the name "Marius' Mules".

Usually with medieval armies there were two divisions of people-combatants and camp followers. A medieval army was a mobile city, complete with all the necessities. There were official non-combatants such as the armorers, engineers for sieges, carpenters, fletchers, cooks, etc. The followers would consist of soldiers' families, servants, hunters, and bandits. These people provided services for the soldiers such as entertainment, sewing, cooking, and food. When a medieval army met its enemy in the field, the main camp was left to the rear, a significant distance from the action. There was actually a battle in the Hundred Years War-I think it was Agincourt-where the French knights abandoned the field to strike at the English non-combatants.

As for LotR, I presume the orcs would have slaughtered captives, animals and of course each other for food. In the books the darkness is lasting, covering several days, not the simple night/dawn transition shown by the movies. As for the Rohirrim, they only had a few days' ride to reach the Pelennor, and could have carried light rations on their horses.


----------



## Bortasz

When Polish king Jagieło was preparing for war with Teutonic Order. He was moving around country ordering big hunts so army could have meat for war. 
Remember that in ancient times, there where very little ways to keep food edible. And armies need constant source of food, and water. 
Consider this: 
If 1 person need 2 litres of water each day, than army of 5 000 men (Without horses, and people that fallow such army np. whores) need minimum of 10 000 litres of water EACH DAY. And water is basic need. People can survives weeks without food. But only days without water. Imagine now that you must go to land without fresh water for just 5 days. 
You must bring with you 5 000 army 50 000 litres of water minimum so you people will not lost there combat capabilities.


----------



## Dipti13

This is true that in movies they use the background of core medieval but the weapons they use are sometimes inappropriate. Nowadays these channels of entertainment grow the craze in between people but they take it in wrong sense. I have read many newspapers where people are killing each other with katana swords etc. I think they get motivated from movies to have one without going in personal training.


----------



## skip.knox

Gotta disagree with psychotik. Jerusalem was taken by storm, not by starving out the defenders. Antioch and Edessa were both taken by strategem.

I also have to disagree in a more general sense. Very few armies were done in via logistics alone. The better examples come from more modern times. The further back you go, the less often that happened. This is because earlier armies were smaller (I'm talking post-Roman Empire here) and were more able to live off the land. This was true right up to the 30 YW, at least. The aim of all armies was to take the other fellow in the field and kill more of him than he killed of you.

This is not to say people didn't worry about supplies. They did. But burning crops and such was mainly a way of doing harm (and of supplying yourself) rather than a path to victory. The best example there is the many campaigns of the 100YW.

Caesar did trash the countryside, but he never imagined he was going to bring the Gauls to heel thereby. He was just trying to cause mayhem. Probably the best ancient example would be with Hannibal and Fabius Maximus, the famous dictator who was nicknamed Cunctator for his guerrilla tactics. He consciously destroyed supply lines to make it impossible for Hannibal to build up his forces. It kinda sorta worked, but it was Scipio Africanus who defeated Hannibal, not Fabius.

My favorite ancient example is when Julius Caesar cut a line through the great oak forests of the Belgae, partly to clear a road for his armies, but also to strike at the cultural heart of the Celtic people who revered those forests. Again, though, that did not settle Gaul. Alesia settled that.


----------



## Zero Angel

I don't know skip.knox, when you read the Art of War, you see how important logistics was even to the ancient Chinese. I'm not saying this is the most primitive culture there is, but we're talking pre-the fall of Rome here. Killing more of the enemy is obviously great, but even in ancient times logistics is important. Also, living off the land as you suggest is a form of logistics (and covered in Art of War as well). 

I won't disagree that logistics alone stops armies, but logistics enables both success and failure and is one of the most important features of any military endeavor of any era.


----------



## skip.knox

>The art of disrupting your enemy's logistics is a decisive way to win a war,

This is what I was disagreeing with. The examples I cited showed that people in fact did not use the disruption of enemy logistics as a way to win a war. They used it as a way to cause harm to the enemy (e.g., destroying crops), but not as a means of winning either a battle or a war.

This is not to say logistics is not important. Marching on the stomach and all that. As others have pointed out, though, most pre-modern armies lived off the land. Certain very large expeditions might make an attempt at laying in supplies ahead of time (I would add Xerxes' invasion of Greece to the examples already provided by others), but these were exceptional cases. 

As for story possibilities, the point of the OP, it could provide a context, I suppose. Certainly some sort of Merrill's Marauders or French Resistance could be dramatic. The aim of the tactic isn't to win victory but to disrupt and resist until the real army could arrive. That, too, could form a good dramatic narrative. Our heroic resistance gets pursued, whittled down, until only a handful are left before the cavalry arrives. Bit of a God in the Machine, that, but it has potential.

Can anyone think of other logistics-based narratives (LBN [tm])?


----------



## CupofJoe

skip.knox said:


> >Can anyone think of other logistics-based narratives (LBN [tm])?


The one that springs to mind is "The Invasion". The planning, the reconnaissance, the build-up, contact, change in plans... results...
It is sort of done in D&L Eddings "Castle of Wizardry" when Ce'Nedra raises an army to aid Belgarion's approach on Torak.


----------



## X Equestris

I hate to necro the thread, but this seems like a useful discussion.  Too many authors tend to neglect logistics.  

As far as logistics-based narratives, The Lost Fleet series is pretty good, though it's science fiction and not fantasy.  It's based on Xenophon's Anabasis, so you could probably translate that into a fantasy setting easily enough.


----------

