Caesar And Supply Logistics

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Here is the famous ,offending vegetable.

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...=si&img=135

 

Basically, a very starchy root that needs a lot of pulping and cooking to render it 1. safe 2. at all edible.

 

 

Mmmmm sounds tasty

[caldrail]

Throughout the Gallic Wars and the Civil War, Caesar is constantly finding himself in need of food supplies for his armies. Many notable military historians and generals (Hans Delbruck , Napoleon) have criticized this as a weakness of Caesar's. As they say, an 'army marches on its stomach.' Supply was always an ancient warfare problem, but it is fair to say that Caesar found himself in trouble with this above the norm.

 

I've always had a hard time believing that a man so remarkably careful and calculated as Caesar was would have a problem with something like supply logistics. Therefore it is my hypothesis that (in many cases) Caesar deliberately undersupplied his men, as a method of getting them to perform super human feats of war, always with the promise that food was over the next hill, or in the camp of an enemy, or past the walls of an enemy camp. Leading the donkey on with the carrot so to speak.

 

Thoughts?

 

Any army requires its men to be fed in order to retain fighting fitness. Now that can mean a large number of suppers provided in one place. Think about - You've got an army of twenty thousand men in the wilderness without air drops, lorry convoys, or a handy supermarket down the road. Foraging from the local area will feed them for a few days although this will not endear your army to the local population, whose pets and farm animals are greedily consumed.

 

No. I don't believe Caesar underfed his men deliberately. It was more likely that he insisted on rationing what supplies he could muster. In fact, Caesar most certainly did have logistic difficulties. At Alesia he had men wandering far and wide seeking supplies of food and timber. When he discovered the gaul relief army was on its way he ordered his men to gather one months supply because he knew he would be under siege. Caesar could only do that once. In any event, underfed men do not perform superhuman feats in warfare. They either desert or mutiny. He couldn't promise his men food at Alesia because when Vercingetorix surrendered the gauls no longer had any.

[DecimusCaesar]

Under feeding an army does very little to encourage it. Caesar pushed into enemy territory quickly thus he did not get the chance to build up an adequate supply line. Lightining quick attacks were part of Caesar's strategies and as a result, if these failed he often found himself in a dangerous situation...such as before Pharsalus.

Lack of supplies only serves to disincourage the army. Crassus's men at Carrhae lacked proper supplies (especially water) and despite Crassus's attempt to rally his army, they lacked the morale and the strength to carry the fight against the Parthians. They wanted to surrender immediately when the Parthian Prince- Surena presented the terms to them.

 

We see the same at Adrianople centuries later, when the better equipped, trained, Veteran Romans were defeated by the Goths. One of the main reasons for this was that Valens had force marched them in hot weather for many miles, then lacked the water and food to keep their energies up. That is why their morale collapsed and they were defeated by an inferior foe. A well fed army would have been a much better use to Caesar and if he wanted to encourage them to fight harder then he would have only needed to tell them there was wealth and glory to be had over the next hill rather than food.

[caldrail]

The opposite is also a problem. Soldiers who sit eating lavish meals soon get lazy and reluctant to risk all for glory. I agree - The reasons for roman ferocity were harsh regimes, hard work, hard discipline, and ambitious well-spoken leaders.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The opposite is also a problem. Soldiers who sit eating lavish meals soon get lazy and reluctant to risk all for glory. I agree - The reasons for roman ferocity were harsh regimes, hard work, hard discipline, and ambitious well-spoken leaders.

 

Can you think of any examples where a previously hard-fighting group of veterans suddenly got lazy simply because they ate better? I'm skeptical.

[DecimusCaesar]

I don't think that Caesar had to worry about over-feeding his soldiers or making them lazy. At Dyrrachium and before Pharsalus he kept his veterans occupied with many jobs such as constructing ditches and building other structures. Caesar had more to worry about his veterans having nothing to do, because they frequently mutinied through boredom and inactivity rather than through lacking a proper diet.

[caldrail]

The opposite is also a problem. Soldiers who sit eating lavish meals soon get lazy and reluctant to risk all for glory. I agree - The reasons for roman ferocity were harsh regimes, hard work, hard discipline, and ambitious well-spoken leaders.

 

Can you think of any examples where a previously hard-fighting group of veterans suddenly got lazy simply because they ate better? I'm skeptical.

 

I would say this sort of thing occurred after major sieges. The soldiers have plundered the site, they've gotten considerably wealthier, and blow it quickly on good living. Unless the commander gets a grip quickly, his men are likely to wander off and enjoy themselves.

 

Mind you I accept your point as I can't think of any roman example but then discipline was always a strong point of the legions despite the corruption that went with it. It must also be said that the commanders didn't want fat lazy soldiers and in all likeliehood made sure they worked off a few pounds (unless they spent some of course!)