I keep coming back to the metaphor of a 'playbook' when it comes to pre-modern logistics. I think it is much better than trying to think in terms of a logistics 'system.'

That's not to say that pre-modern logistics is dumb or underdeveloped though.... 1/21
The difference is that prior to railroads, steamships and trucks, logistics (which in that context mostly means the 4Fs - food, fodder, firewood and f-water - hey, alright, it sounded cooler than the 3FnW) is much more sensitive to local conditions. 2/21
The modern brute-force solution of 'transport everything from strategic supply reserves in the home country' isn't possible when overland transport is so expensive and naval transport may be unavailable due to geography, winds, sailing season, etc. 3/21
The good news is that unlike artillery shells or fuel, the countryside you are in already produces food, fodder, firewood and (f)water, so you can draw your supplies locally in the way that a modern army cannot.

The bad news is that you usually have to do so. 4/21
So you need a playbook which can react to a wide variety of possible location conditions. If you have friendly communities, you can use requisition or purchase to get supplies.

Btw, when you see 'general X opted to winter in <allied community>'... 5/21
...what's happening there is that he is making them feed and shelter his troops over the winter when foraging is difficult because the crops aren't grown yet in the fields. 6/21
This can work even in sparsely populated areas, if you can rely on local elites to gather up the food in advance of your arrival so you can roll in and pick it up without having to massively disperse the army. 7/21
If communities are unfriendly, you can do foraging - steal the food. Best done when the crops are ripe or nearly so in the fields. Wheat *plants* can't run away, but farmers carrying sacks of processed grain can - and they'll run into walled settlements you have to siege. 8/21
Taking fortified population centers can get you supplies, but only if you storm them - which is tricky. You need to be bigger enough than the settlement that you can just quickly build a ramp and roll on in, but not so much bigger that their stored food is trivial. 9/21
Finally, you have long distance transport, which basically only works if you are on a coast line with decent harbors, or a navigable river, *and* you have the coordination to get supplies from somewhere else moved to you in quantity. 10/21
And I do mean *quantity* - back of the envelope math suggests a single Roman legion (typically a sub-unit of a larger army) might consume 8.26 tons of food per day alone, which pops up above 10 tons when you account for fodder for animals. 11/21
So this ends up being a flexible playbook of common methods. The exact playbook may vary a bit one army to the next (one huge question that makes a big difference is, 'can your army harvest and then process and then bake raw grain?' or do you need bread made for you?)...12/21
But commanders in the field are constantly shifting the balance of methods to meet their needs. Given that ancient armies don't run out of food all of the time, they are also clearly engaging in long-term planning with rule-of-thumb assumptions that are fairly reliable. 13/21
Because, to be clear, this is a setup with relatively minimal margin of error. The limits of a pre-truck army's carrying capacity means that you can't carry more than a couple weeks supplies with you, so total collapse is never more than a few weeks away. Plan carefully. 14/21
Now, for the historian, the tricky thing is that no one tells us about this playbook. Even military manuals - your Vegetius and Onasander and so on - don't go into very much detail about the specifics of how an army did its logistics. 15/21
So we're left to sketch out the playbook by seeing what armies do in the field. There's a temptation to see that all as amateur ad hockery but remember the narrow margins for error and the complexity of the calculations being made here. 16/21
It seems little accident that Roman generals first started out as military tribunes (who seem to lead foraging expeditions away from the main army, by the by) and quaestors (who handle the pay-and-purchase side of the equation) before getting their own army commands. 17/21
Add in the duties of the aediles and also experience running large estates and it sure seems like Roman aristocrats get a lot of administration and logistics training before they reach the highest offices, which may go some distance to explaining the... 18/21
...Roman reputation for logistical excellence.

Anyway, if you want to read more about the basic concerns of overland food transport, check out: acoup.blog/2019/10/04/col… 19/21
And for a more or less complete beginner's logistics study of a fictional campaign, I've got you covered here: acoup.blog/2019/05/10/col… 20/21
And if you are wondering why I'm suddenly on about quaestors and food all of the time, well, my Patrons always get to know what scholarship I'm working on in the background because they get monthly updates: patreon.com/user?u=20122096 end/21

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Bret Devereaux

Bret Devereaux Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BretDevereaux

16 Jun
So @kataplexis wrote an open letter (rfkclassics.blogspot.com/2021/06/open-l…) outlining some things that institutional classics, esp. @scsclassics could be doing differently to help the field survive in these difficult times.

And I think she makes good arguments.
Being an ancient historian means always having a foot in two fields and so you see what different disciplines are doing.

Here is what @scsclassics has for endangered departments: classicalstudies.org/professional-m…
And to be clear, I'm not dismissing or ripping on the CAS. I'm sure they're pushing hard with the resources they have to do what they can. But I've never gotten the sense their efforts are central to how @scsclassics views itself.
Read 7 tweets
15 Jun
Good thread. 'The discipline and the public culture' want the research work of lots of teaching-track and adjunct historians (and classicists, by the by), but have no idea how - or worse yet, no intention to - fund that. Or really incentivize it at all. 1/20
And it does need to be funded. While a lot of pop history can be written with nothing more than google and a public library (though not necessarily written well!), doing real, rigorous historical research requires expensive resources. 2/20
The books needed for research are often very expensive, meaning that you really need the support of a university library which can buy these things. Research trips to archives or museums to examine primary source material directly are expensive and need to be funded. 3/20
Read 20 tweets
1 Jun
I am going to engage in some #ClassicsDiscourse; you will all have to forgive me.

When I saw that @AntigoneJournal was running a bit by Peter Singer, I was disappointed. When I *read* the bit by Singer I was...confused?

This? This is what you flushed your reputation for?
1/14
I will, I hope, spare you all from reading it (google will provide if you must) but for the better part of 800 words, Singer tells that he had never known about Apuleius' Metamorphoses (aka 'The Golden Ass') until quite recently. "Hey I just read this" - not a great start. 2/14
He concludes, and I am not at all kidding you, that this must be because it is *bad* - because how else would noted ::checks notes:: philosopher, animal rights advocate and eugenicist (careful, that last step is a doozy) have missed it?

Clearly, it must just be bad! 3/14
Read 14 tweets
24 Apr
This is an entirely fair question in response to my article in @ForeignPolicy on why we ought to avoid the term warrior (foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/19/uni…), so let's answer it. 1/25
First, we need to think about the state of the civ-mil. Is the civ-mil relationship generally good and healthy, as @EmanThinks 's argues?

I think the evidence suggests, no, the combination of changing attitudes and GWOT indicate that the civ-mil relationship is not great, 2/25
I would certainly not be the first to point out that it is a problem the huge gap between public trust in civic institutions and public trust in the military. As Lindsey Cohn noted in 2018 in War on the Rocks (warontherocks.com/2018/03/the-pr…) the growing tendency...3/25
Read 25 tweets
10 Mar
One thing I find odd is the sometimes facile dismissal (as unserious/unscholarly) of public-facing history which takes the form of "condition now is like condition then, what lessons can we take from that?"

As someone who occasionally writes in this genre, I have thoughts. 1/21
Now I don't want to conflate different kinds similar sounding arguments here. It is certainly reasonable to be tired of a particular (esp. if badly flawed) historical argument coming up again and again (e.g., the over-worn 'Thucydides trap'). 2/21
And I also don't mean the argument by non-historians that casts the historian as a useless, thin-necked poindexter who could not possibly have anything interesting to say from the 'ivory tower.'

Those folks are fools and blockheads and may safely be ignored as such. 3/21
Read 22 tweets
8 Mar
So I was watching a short video talking about people being confused about punctuation and can we please stop it with the notion that things which are contingent or arbitrary must also be purposeless or meaningless?

Yes, the way we use punctuation is entirely arbitrary...
...but so is the side of the road we drive on.

That doesn't make either thing purposeless. Drive on the wrong side of the road because it is arbitrary, and the meaning and function of the arbitrary rule will hit you like a mack truck. Possibly *as* a mack truck.
(I suppose I should clarify that the argument of the video in question was that the rules of punctuation, like all of the rules of grammar are fundamentally arbitrary (yes), and therefore 'boring' (maybe) and so may be safely jettisoned for a more expressive, free-form use (no))
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(