The army behind the army

[Terrance888]

Don't forget logistics isn't merely food. Logistics is brining enough blacksmiths to make replacements and repairs. Logistics is brining that engineer company to span that bridge the enemy burned. Logistics is also holding areas you conquered, especially after taking a stronghold able to project power over those areas-garrison troops, basically.

Depending in availability of magic, mages can tend anything from almost unique and one of the kind, to work alongside the general/commander and focusing on single points on the battlefield and campaign ground to attack/divine/buff to companies of specialized wizards: one repairing weapons, one animating garrison troops, one building constructs, another to assassinate enemy wizards ect. In the middle we have (note this IS fictional) "Inheritance" style wizard-appointments: A cabal if wizards surround and defend the leadership, with each major detachment with at least one wizard to at least stem the enemy wizard, if not to give their allies a great advantage against the wizardless.

For recommendations, I would recommend "Peter the Great: Colossus of Russia". The success or failure of supply trains and availability of food shaped almost all the military campaigns detailed wherein: note especially the events leading King Charles to Poltava. (Losing his Supplies, raiding Severia, Taking the Wheatfields of Ukraine. Scorched earth) as well as Peter's military and supply buildup which let him out garrison, out number, and out wit the enemy by simply sitting on every available route of retreat.

EDIT: Read "Wizard" as "Magic-user" of any kind.

 

[S'mon]

If that is your view, can I suggest reading the J. Pryor book on the logistics of the crusades? It covers the Islamic and Mongol forces involved as well as the Christian, and it seems quite clear that the logistics of all three were quite carefully considered and planned for.

I was talking about Western Europe actually - the Byzantines did have an idea of logistics - but what you say about the Crusades fits with what I said. Armies were swarms of locusts, ravaging the land. If forced to become static they would exhaust the locality and begin to die off in large numbers.

 

[S'mon]

- armies prior to around 1800 were small enough to be outnumbered by the local civilian population. This meant that the usual method of aquiring food and fodder was to buy or requisition it, since the local people had enough to last until the next harvest, which was easily enough for an army for a few days. This worked fine as long as the army kept moving; sieges were, once again, a special circumstance, requiring carting food in from surrounding areas.

- the main concern of Christian knights, Islamic armies and Mongols during the crusade campaigns was how much fodder and grazing was available in the areas to be advanced through. This decided whether a campaign could be embarked upon or not. It actually played a big part in deciding what campaigns were fought at all, and in some cases a miscalculation led to a retreat or defeat.

This is exactly what I meant - armies lived off the land, there was no supply train.

 

[Balesir]

This is exactly what I meant - armies lived off the land, there was no supply train.

Well, OK - that was true until World War 1. The Prussian army in the Franco-Prussian war started the siege of Paris with a "lull" due mainly to them detailing substantial forces to harvest the abandoned fields surrounding the city and grind the grain to make bread. The Napoleonic Grand Armee did not supply itself from "home" territory; it had a large and sophisticated commissariat that was responsible for purchasing or requisitioning food from towns and districts en route. A primary reason the Corps marched along separate routes until battle was (about to be) joined was so that supplies could be acquired from a larger area as the Armee marched.

In other words, to say that "living off the land" equates to "logistics being a lost art" is not really reflective of the development of logistics through history.

The idea that "there was no supply train" depends what you mean by "supply train". Until WW1 there was no trail of flowing supply vehicles stretching back to the home depots except in the occasional case of a siege being conducted near friendly territory. But armies did have carts and waggons with them to carry heavy equipment; armour, (spare) weapons, siege engine parts, artillery (when used) and camp gear were frequently carried by cart or ship where possible. These vehicles did not convoy back and forth to friendly territory, though - they remained with the army, possibly being used to bring in food from nearby towns when the army was stationary (as in a siege).

The great advance in the Marlburian army, which you called out in your original post, was the development of a more advanced cart, in fact. This, together with advances in artillery carriages, allowed the army to travel along rougher roads and tracks without abandoning its baggage and artillery to do so - a major advantage, but not really a complete departure in the means of supplying the army.

Something that Napoleon (among others) refers to is the "lines of communication", and this sometimes causes confusion. Lines of safe passage back to friendly territory were, indeed, important - but not because they were used to convey food and/or ammunition to the army. The reasons LoC were needed were twofold: (1) to provide, as the name suggests, communication - political and military - with the other parts of the country/empire, and (2) as a route along which replacements and reinforcements could reach the army. Both of these are essential functions - but not (directly) connected with supply.

 

[Derren]

This is exactly what I meant - armies lived off the land, there was no supply train.

Thats wrong. Supply does not only include food. That indeed was foraged on the move. But it also includes replacement weapons, ammunition, spare parts and "amenities". And those were carried around by the army, or rather the entourage following it (made up by craftsman, merchants the families of the soldiers and other camp-followers). While there were no units going back and forth there certainly were supply trains following the army which were vulnerable to attack.

Tross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (If you can read it, the German version is better as it also includes the romans and not only Landsknechte)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warfare#Supply_trains

 

[haakon1]

Unscientifically

Unscientifically, I mention logistical elements when the PC's encounter forces on the march.

I specifically remember them encountering some horsemen returning to a city with a herd of captured enemy horses to sell, and seeing a feudal levy and country knight escorting a portable smithy and supply of arrows and bolts towards the front.

If you throw in stuff like that, you've got a nod to "there's a war on" and "it's realistically got some logistical elements", without bogging down in the details.

 

[Mark CMG]

Folks need to differentiate between supply trains and supply lines.

 

[Joker]

Thanks for all the suggestions and new insights. I'm gonna look into the mentioned books.

It didn't occur to me that pillaging armies ravaged the lands so they could feed their troops. I just thought they simply did it because they could.

 

[Celebrim]

Mornin' everyone,

I'm fleshing out some parts of a setting I'm working on and right now I'm focusing on the various armies of this campaign.

Does anyone know of any books or documentaries focusing on the logistics of running an army.

Before really digging into logistics, I would start by reading one of the definitive treatices on the subject: '[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Supplying-War-Logistics-Wallenstein-Patton/dp/0521297931"]Supplying-War-Logistics-Wallenstein-Patton/dp/0521297931[/ame]'.

My aim is to understand what is needed in detail and see how that translates in a fantasy setting. I think that if I comprehend the little things I can see how magic could supplement or even replace the more conventional means of supporting a large fighting force.

D&D magic was created and balanced in terms of its utility within the presumed game, where the presumed game was a small team adventuring for relatively short periods within an underground environment filled with monsters of various sorts. This means most notably that D&D magic was never balanced on the basis of its economic utility, and as such, before you can move out of the presumed game and into a larger fantasy world you have to take a good hard look at D&D magic and revise it as necessary to make the world of your intention.

 

[haakon1]

D&D magic was created and balanced in terms of its utility within the presumed game, where the presumed game was a small team adventuring for relatively short periods within an underground environment filled with monsters of various sorts. This means most notably that D&D magic was never balanced on the basis of its economic utility, and as such, before you can move out of the presumed game and into a larger fantasy world you have to take a good hard look at D&D magic and revise it as necessary to make the world of your intention.

Or assume that for some reason, the gods (and arcane magic) are NOT on the side of the big battalions, but instead favor the brave.

"Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, and why we died. All that matters is that today, two stood against many. Valor pleases you, so grant me this one request. Grant me revenge!

And if you do not listen, the HELL with you!"
Conan, "Conan The Barbarian"