StarDestroyer.Net BBS

For a VERY brief overview of logistics in general as a primer (and I stress brief) you can use Keegan's "A History of Warfare." Interlude #4 starting around page 299 in the soft cover edition is devoted to the topic "Logistics and Supply." It doesn't focus particularly on the time period in question but does provide a bit of context as a primer to the impact of logistics on combat operations.

Thanas wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:Or you could compare the size of army the Romans could field drawing solely on the resources of Gaul to the size of army medieval France could field from their own resources... I'm almost certain medieval France would win, for the reasons you've already outlined.

They would not, for the army of Gaul effective for campaigns was always in the range of 15-25.000, and that is just the standard field army, not counting the garrisons. In contrast, the entire army of the Kingdom of france in 1214 was merely 15000, if even that number.

The Kingdom of France in 1214 was smaller than Gaul. Borders that far back are a bit fuzzy, but Gaul was essentially boundaried by the Gevonne river in the southwest, the Rhone to Lugdnum to Geneva to the Rhine in the southeast, and up the Rhine to the border with the Belgae in the northeast. The Kingdom of France in 1214 excluded Flanders, Champagne, Bourgogne, Bourbonnais, Auvergue, Toulouse, and Guyenne, and was maybe 40% of the land area of modern France. This is also after a 12-year war with England to claim Anjou, Bretagne, Normandy, Maine, and Touraine from John Lackland. Additionally, while King Phillippe II Augustus had 15,000 at Bouvines to face Otto IV, Prince Louis had another 10,000 in Limoges facing Lackland, for a total of 25,000 soldiers in the field

The 1242 Battle of Taillebourg involved around 50,000 soldiers under Louis IX of France and Alfonso, Count of Poitou and Toulouse, who between them ruled most of modern France. About 60% of the force came from King Louis, the remainder from his brother Count Alfonso.

The Dark wrote:

Thanas wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:Or you could compare the size of army the Romans could field drawing solely on the resources of Gaul to the size of army medieval France could field from their own resources... I'm almost certain medieval France would win, for the reasons you've already outlined.

They would not, for the army of Gaul effective for campaigns was always in the range of 15-25.000, and that is just the standard field army, not counting the garrisons. In contrast, the entire army of the Kingdom of france in 1214 was merely 15000, if even that number.

The Kingdom of France in 1214 was smaller than Gaul.

But had much higher population.

Additionally, while King Phillippe II Augustus had 15,000 at Bouvines to face Otto IV, Prince Louis had another 10,000 in Limoges facing Lackland, for a total of 25,000 soldiers in the field

I stand corrected, so they manage to match the total number of soldiers in the field (counting the garrisons on the Rhine still puts the romans over by 10.000 or so, depending on the era). And these are standing troops, ready at every moment.

The Kingdom of France never managed to have that number of standing troops, indeed they had almost nothing that could be called standing forces.

The 1242 Battle of Taillebourg involved around 50,000 soldiers under Louis IX of France and Alfonso, Count of Poitou and Toulouse, who between them ruled most of modern France. About 60% of the force came from King Louis, the remainder from his brother Count Alfonso.

As far as I know, there have never been real hard numbers about that battle. Most of those are estimates, if you know more, I would ask you to cite them. Accepting claims from people of the middle ages on face value is pretty much futile.

Thanas wrote:

Lusankya wrote:How was Mediaeval France able to support a greater population density? I seem to recall that agriculture was aided by a shift in global temperatures and the horse drawn plow (as well as the introduction the potato, which obviously hadn't happened yet in mediaeval times), but I thought that these things coincided more closely with the agricultural revolution. Was it to do with improved crop strains, or am I just mistaken when I remember the timing of various agricultural advances?

During the 600s, we have the first heavy plows. Then in the medieval time there was the Dreifelderwirtschaft (which probably was the biggest) and of course the first heavy windmills. France was the country with the highest density of wind and water mills and the first heavy industrial mills in western Europe. France is also an ideal country if you want to move stuff quickly, you have excellent waterways (the Rhone, the Loire etc.) with good connections to the mediterranean and the North Sea/Atlantic ocean. So we have a combination of relatively good infrastructure, climate change, a rise in production and most importantly the "industry" to convert that production into foodstuffs.

Isn't it also true that France simply had better soil than her neighbors, and until more modern farming methods were used they had a much higher population?

Not necessarily better soil than her neighbours per se, for example the agri decumati was very, very fertile, as were the former settlements of the Alamanni if their population numbers are to be believed. However, you are certainly correct that quality wise, they had more soil - and soil that was continually farmed and refined for several centuries.

Just a question.. I was reading a blurb on a site that claims that travel through Mediveal times were dangerous due to a variety of reasons such as bandits, wild animals and just the sheer toughness of the roads.

If so, does this has any impact on logistics?

Bad roads would have an enormous impact, they slow down wagon movement firstly, secondly they increase ware and tear on wagons (meaning more spare parts, and margins of surplus transport required to move the loads for wagons that break beyond repair) and will increase the number of draught animals and handlers required to move a fixed load a fixed distance in a set period of time. Either you use more animals, or you go slower because the animals get tired more quickly. If the roads are bad enough, say during heavy rains that cause deep mud or winter snows, movements may halt completely. Indeed fighting in the winter was not really common prior to the 19th century.

I suspect bandits and wild animals are less of a problem for military logistics then normal travelers, because if the road convoys are above a certain size they probably don’t need additional escorts. If they did, then you have to supply those escorts too, though its more likely that the escorts would instead simply reduce the size of the field army being supported by detaching men.

It occurs to me though that really this is something we could calculate ourselves and put into real numbers if we first decided upon an army and a timeframe, say 8,000 foot soldiers plus 2,000 mounted cavalry that needs to be supported for five days. The amount of food men and beasts require is pretty easy to figure out; and how much will fit on a wagon. Then we figure out how many wagons that is and how many animals and people are required to move them. A margin is then added to cover the food required by those draft animals and handlers. We might also add a margin for other types of supplies, but its easier to keep things simple.

This will then give us the number of wagons required to transport one basic load of supplies. We then know how much logistical effort is required to support the army provided it is within a five day round trip by wagon from its logistics hub. This can then be multiplied up or down or longer or shorter distances.

Of course such numbers have only limited value, because depending on the terrain an army might also need to move water, while on the other hand it might be able to find all of its fodder for animals and most or all of the food for men from local supplies. In that respect a medieval army has a potential to live completely off the land that you just cant manage with latter and much larger gunpowder armies.

Thanas wrote:

Emerson33260 wrote:

Thanas wrote: ...and you base this comparison of different grain yields and methods of farming on what, exactly?

Comments on land usage in-

Werner Rösener; Peasants in the Middle Ages
Frances and Joseph Gies; Life in a Medieval Village

How do those feature quotations about Roman grain yields and methods of farming with medieval ones? Direct citations, please.

The sources don't discuss Roman farming, I am making assumptions. The statements in my books are to the effect that in Medieval times, large areas came under cultivation that had never been worth farming before. "Never" is pretty nebulous when one contemplates the appearance of land that was perviously farmed but has lain fallow for five centuries or more. I will happily be guided by you to sources that give figures on agricultural production in the Roman era.

Thanas wrote:

Since I posted my previous, a teaching assistant from Kansas State University suggested in a conversation that the medieval situation was even worse than I thought. The medieval period featured several protracted periods series of cold winters followed by wet springs. This would have depressed agricultural production somewhat by itself, but was also favorable conditions for the spread of rye ergot. When consumed by humans, ergot causes hallucinations and severe vascular constriction, the second of the two being identified by doctors of the time as "Saint Anthony's fire." Other cereal crops of the time were less productive than rye, in a proportion almost directly related to their resistance to ergot, but the connection between ergot and its health effects was obvious so farmers changed to those other crops. There is no mention in any extant classical source of anything that matches the description of ergot; like syphilis, it seems to be a problem that the Romans didn't have.

So....why did the medieval period I am talking about manage to vastly exceed the population density of the Roman period?

Because the Roman population never reached the limit of its food supply. The campaigns of Julius Caesar depopulated what is now Metropolitan France, then the population grew steadily until the Antonine Plague, dipped severely ("A third" and "25%", say those of my books that condescend to distinguish Gaul from the Empire in general. Wikipedia's "Demographics of France" agrees), and then rose again until the beginning of the barbarian invasions.

Thanas wrote:Rye ergot was certainly known to the romans, given that they had Rye production.

"Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome was certainly known to the Romans, given that they had people??" Speaking of assumptions. One of the major drawbacks of civilization has been the introduction of diseases that were originally confined to a small geographic area to a much wider population without resistance. The Antonine Plague was an affliction that had never been seen before, smallpox or possibly measles. It is too bad that crop diseases just did not get the attention that the ones that knocked thousands of people dead in a short time did.

Thanas wrote:However, it was not their preferred crop. The main crop of the Romans was Emmmer, which is a very low-yield crop.

All crops up until about 1700 qualify as "low yield," whether in terms of return on labor, return on acreage, or return on seed. The return on labor gradually improved all through the Middle Ages (improved animal harness, improved plow designs, scythe supplants sickle and so forth, but they never did reinvent the Roman harvesting machine.) The other two did not change much, seed giving back five-for-one under ideal conditions and averaging lower.

Emerson33260 wrote:The sources don't discuss Roman farming, I am making assumptions. The statements in my books are to the effect that in Medieval times, large areas came under cultivation that had never been worth farming before. "Never" is pretty nebulous when one contemplates the appearance of land that was perviously farmed but has lain fallow for five centuries or more. I will happily be guided by you to sources that give figures on agricultural production in the Roman era.

Sorry, I am not going to do your work for you. You made the comparison, I expect you to have at least a basic knowledge of Roman Agricultural figures.

Because the Roman population never reached the limit of its food supply.

And you base this on..what, exactly? Why don't you show me some figures?

The campaigns of Julius Caesar depopulated what is now Metropolitan France, then the population grew steadily until the Antonine Plague, dipped severely ("A third" and "25%", say those of my books that condescend to distinguish Gaul from the Empire in general. Wikipedia's "Demographics of France" agrees), and then rose again until the beginning of the barbarian invasions.

Merely citing demographic developments is not much of a use when you ignore other factors.

Thanas wrote:Rye ergot was certainly known to the romans, given that they had Rye production.

"Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome was certainly known to the Romans, given that they had people??" Speaking of assumptions.

Nice strawman, but that was not what I was arguing. For example, Rye ergot might have been used in the Eleusian Mysteries as a sort of drug.

Thanas wrote:However, it was not their preferred crop. The main crop of the Romans was Emmmer, which is a very low-yield crop.

All crops up until about 1700 qualify as "low yield," whether in terms of return on labor, return on acreage, or return on seed.

So your response that some crops were far more low yield than others is to go... "They were all low yield?" Hey, all cars that are called "four wheelers" must have the same advantages, correct?

The return on labor gradually improved all through the Middle Ages (improved animal harness, improved plow designs, scythe supplants sickle and so forth, but they never did reinvent the Roman harvesting machine.)

The Roman harvesting machine? Which one are you specifically talking about? There were several ones, are you talking about the one Plinius describes?

I am not going to dispute your assertion that the return on labor increased throughout the middle ages, but this is just one more fact that means that on average, medieval agriculture was far more efficient than during the Roman times.