Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5963776" data-attributes="member: 27160">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.Some key overview points to remember:- until WW1 troops could generally carry all the ammunition and equipment they might need for a field campaign with them. Sieges posed a slightly different challenge, but even then ammunition could usually be manufactured in situ if necessary.- 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.So, in summary, I don't think logistics was really a &quot;lost art&quot; at all. The logistics was kept simple by the size of the forces, but that was a two way street (the size of the forces was kept low to enable the logistics to work), and many manoeuvres were enabled by one side being able to field (and supply) an army where another couldn't.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5963776, member: 27160"] 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. Some key overview points to remember: - until WW1 troops could generally carry all the ammunition and equipment they might need for a field campaign with them. Sieges posed a slightly different challenge, but even then ammunition could usually be manufactured in situ if necessary. - 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. So, in summary, I don't think logistics was really a "lost art" at all. The logistics was kept simple by the size of the forces, but that was a two way street (the size of the forces was kept low to enable the logistics to work), and many manoeuvres were enabled by one side being able to field (and supply) an army where another couldn't. [/QUOTE]

Verification