10-20-2006, 07:05 AM
Robert
1) I said it at the start, in the past thread, I forgot to say it everytime.
2) Not only poets, I include historians. The problem with ancient historians is that we can´t compare their numbers with that of documentary sources, from medieval times onwards we can, sometimes, and everytime we can they are grossly inflated.
3) The armies of Constantine or Licinius are given by literary sources, not documentary. The numbers I gave before for the growth in size from XIV to XVIII century are based only on documentary evidence.
4) It was more efficient because the requirements of the army were much lower by restricting the size of the baggage.
5) Theoretically the Persians had the advantage of fighting at home, but "Alexander would never commit his entire army for a campaign that had not surrendered to him in advance" Donald W. Engels, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army, page 120.
There are 3 ways to supply an army advancing into enemy territory
1) Requisition/plundering. Very ineffective, forces have to spread over a large area.
2) Setting supply depots in advance, as did Alexander, you can do this in friendly territory, or taking a surrender in advance.
3) Using supply lines, that system didn´t develop until second half of the XVII century, allowing the growth in army size I have explained. The system requires a net of depots in the rear, a large transport column and an especilized supply corps. The army advance along a road it gets the supplies by supply trains from a supply head 5-7 journeys away, everytime the army advance further a new supply head is stablished. This is the system used from then until present days, and has nothing to do with what ancient armies used.
1) I said it at the start, in the past thread, I forgot to say it everytime.
2) Not only poets, I include historians. The problem with ancient historians is that we can´t compare their numbers with that of documentary sources, from medieval times onwards we can, sometimes, and everytime we can they are grossly inflated.
3) The armies of Constantine or Licinius are given by literary sources, not documentary. The numbers I gave before for the growth in size from XIV to XVIII century are based only on documentary evidence.
4) It was more efficient because the requirements of the army were much lower by restricting the size of the baggage.
5) Theoretically the Persians had the advantage of fighting at home, but "Alexander would never commit his entire army for a campaign that had not surrendered to him in advance" Donald W. Engels, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army, page 120.
There are 3 ways to supply an army advancing into enemy territory
1) Requisition/plundering. Very ineffective, forces have to spread over a large area.
2) Setting supply depots in advance, as did Alexander, you can do this in friendly territory, or taking a surrender in advance.
3) Using supply lines, that system didn´t develop until second half of the XVII century, allowing the growth in army size I have explained. The system requires a net of depots in the rear, a large transport column and an especilized supply corps. The army advance along a road it gets the supplies by supply trains from a supply head 5-7 journeys away, everytime the army advance further a new supply head is stablished. This is the system used from then until present days, and has nothing to do with what ancient armies used.
AKA Inaki
