Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5963986" data-attributes="member: 27160">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.</blockquote>

Verification