StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Does anyone know of any good books on medieval Western European and Byzantine logistics of the Crusades?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

John Haldon, Byzantine Warfare, 2007
John Haldon, Warfare, state and society in the Byzantine world, 565-1204 (London 1999)

These are great books about the Byzantine warfare apparatus, I can safely recommend them. Do not however fall prey to the same Osprey book by him "Byzantium at War", which is just not that good.

If I were you, I would look into the Crusades as well. They were medieval logistics put to the test, the warriors sometimes resorting to literary eating their horses to sustain food. The accounts there should show you both the problems and solution used.

http://www.writing-world.com/sf/hordes.shtml

I did find this as a kind of rough overview, but it's mainly meant for medieval fantasy. Not that it wasn't written with the intent of being realistic.

Would George Dennis' Maurice's Strategikon: Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy (1984) be of any use?

Also, what is your specialization, Thanas? I had you pegged for a late antiquarian/early medievalist.

General antiquity from around Sulla until Charlemagne, with a side order of Renaissance-1700 is what I am most focusing on in general history.

Speaking out of ignorance, how much did logistics advance from antiquity to the medieval period? I recently grabbed a book from my university's library on Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army and found it rather intriguing and insightful.

It depends what you mean by antiquity.

If you have the Roman Empire which could pretty much relocate up to 120.000 men at will and keep an army of 250.000 supplied in one place for at least four years (while still supplying the major cities with grain and other shipments), then medieval logistics did not advance but rather degrade significantly to the point of such feats only being reached once more during the 19th century (and even then it needed extensive foraging as in the case of Napoleon). It really needed the development of the train to achieve the feats of Roman logistics.

If you however contrast it with the armies of say, Hannibal, medieval logistics fare a bit better - if we are talking about late medieval logistics, that is. That is not to say that Hannibal was extremely bad at logistics (if anything, he excelled at it) but rather that he had less to work with in the first place.

Speculation:

It probably helped that the Roman Empire was an empire; they had the base of territory to draw off the kilotons of food and the transport needed to sustain major armies. Try to accomplish something similar in a typical medieval kingdom and the economic base might not be there.

Actually, that is rooted in the fact that the Roman Empire "industrialized" the production of food, which wasn't achieved again for many many centuries in Western Europe. Agriculture was one of the largest drivers of the Roman economy. Coupled with roads and a system of trade and commerce, it allowed the rapid flow of goods, relatively speaking.

But I think the latifunda system was retained to some extent in the Eastern Roman Empire.

Simon_Jester wrote:Speculation:

It probably helped that the Roman Empire was an empire; they had the base of territory to draw off the kilotons of food and the transport needed to sustain major armies. Try to accomplish something similar in a typical medieval kingdom and the economic base might not be there.

That argument does not really follow, based on population density alone many 16th century kingdoms exceeded the figures of the Romans and the city states of Italy were far more wealthy than Rome. What really makes the difference here is a centralized logistics system that has been constantly refined for over 6 centuries.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:But I think the latifunda system was retained to some extent in the Eastern Roman Empire.

Well, in Egypt primarily, but even there the latifunda system crumbled. In the Eastern Empire, the final death blow were the arab and awar invasions.

Thanas wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:Speculation:

It probably helped that the Roman Empire was an empire; they had the base of territory to draw off the kilotons of food and the transport needed to sustain major armies. Try to accomplish something similar in a typical medieval kingdom and the economic base might not be there.

That argument does not really follow, based on population density alone many 16th century kingdoms exceeded the figures of the Romans and the city states of Italy were far more wealthy than Rome.

Exceeded in what way? Food production per area calculated from population density? Even if the Romans were not able to produce as much food per unit of area, they had a lot of area compared to all Medieval kingdoms in Europe. Well, except Grand Duchy of Moscow, but Russian agriculture on those days was primitive even by Medieval standards.

So, even if 16th century kingdoms could do more intensive farming, it still does not follow that they could have maintained as large armies on the field as the Romans did. This of course does not mean that the refined Roman logistics were not needed; in order to supply your army you need both sufficient production and the means to deliver the goods to the troops.

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

Thanas wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:Speculation:

It probably helped that the Roman Empire was an empire; they had the base of territory to draw off the kilotons of food and the transport needed to sustain major armies. Try to accomplish something similar in a typical medieval kingdom and the economic base might not be there.

That argument does not really follow, based on population density alone many 16th century kingdoms exceeded the figures of the Romans and the city states of Italy were far more wealthy than Rome.

Exceeded in what way? Food production per area calculated from population density? Even if the Romans were not able to produce as much food per unit of area, they had a lot of area compared to all Medieval kingdoms in Europe. Well, except Grand Duchy of Moscow, but Russian agriculture on those days was primitive even by Medieval standards.

Medieval France supported 20 million people alone. By comparison, The entire Roman Empire had 75-100 million inhabitants maximum. That is an enormous difference in agriculture.

it is a difference of logistics and centralized government.

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?

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.

Thanas wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:Speculation:
It probably helped that the Roman Empire was an empire; they had the base of territory to draw off the kilotons of food and the transport needed to sustain major armies. Try to accomplish something similar in a typical medieval kingdom and the economic base might not be there.

That argument does not really follow, based on population density alone many 16th century kingdoms exceeded the figures of the Romans and the city states of Italy were far more wealthy than Rome. What really makes the difference here is a centralized logistics system that has been constantly refined for over 6 centuries.

I'm sorry; I thought that was included in my statement. I consider what you say in your reply to be self-evidently true, and meant to communicate just that.

Put another way: a Renaissance Italian city-state might have the same, or even higher, population density than the same area did under the Romans. But it could never draw on as much food to support a large army as the entire Roman empire. Even if it had the same level of refined technique in the area of logistics, it would not be able to field forces of anywhere near the same size. The city-state simply wouldn't have the population base or the cropland, even if each individual farmer and each hectare was more productive than in Roman times.

So the size of the armies the Romans could maintain at the end of a long logistics chain can't be directly compared to what any medieval power could field, because even the largest and richest medieval powers didn't have the sheer bulk the Romans did.

To get a fair comparison, you would have to look at the capabilities of, say, mid-Republican Rome (around the time of the Punic Wars, when they had secured control over Italy) and an alliance of Italian city-states covering the same territory that coordinated their logistics the way Rome could coordinate its. And I can't think of any example of such an alliance actually existing, though that doesn't prove it didn't happen.

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.

Or you could compare cases of an army being deployed at a long distance and normalize in terms of population, arable land controlled by the power fielding the army, or other factors. That might be easier to find data on; I'm not sure.

Thanas wrote: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.

Side note, to both Thanas and to everyone here who speaks no German: the word Dreifelderwirtschaft translates directly into English as the "three field system," which is a very well known concept in medieval European history.

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.

Thanas wrote: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.

Huh. OK, so the increased population density did not outrun the decline in government efficiency. Thank you.

But I hope my meaning in the previous post was clear, even if my speculation about France was wrong.

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.

Is that all of what is present-day France, or just what the French actually ruled back then? I thought the English still owned substantial parts of the country until the 1220s or so.

He's talking about the Kingdom of France, not a superimposition of present-day national boundaries.

And just logistics and organisation isn't the end of the story; stability and actual territorial control is important. The Romans could move resources around the Mediterranean, they controlled vast networks of safe highways, and other physical advantages not enjoyed by single medieval states. The Romans could send a legion from Gaul to Syria with far greater ease than the 12th century French could send ten thousand troops on a Crusade. The agricultural situation described above meant that the central ability to organise replenishment for troops over long distances isn't there because multiple states are passed through, none of which can easily feed tens of thousands of extra mouths for any length of time.

Thanas wrote:
Medieval France supported 20 million people alone. By comparison, The entire Roman Empire had 75-100 million inhabitants maximum. That is an enormous difference in agriculture.

it is a difference of logistics and centralized government.

That is an enormous difference in agriculture, to the distinct disadvantage of Medieval France. As more people try to farm, land that is less productive is put into crops. I would say the average output per given area of farmland and/or per farmer was certainly lower in France in the 1300s that it had been in Roman Gaul precisely because there was much more land under the plow. Further, those less-productive farms would tend to be in inconvenient locations, away from rivers and far from the few roads. There would be less surplus for whatever purposes.

Emerson33260 wrote:

Thanas wrote:
Medieval France supported 20 million people alone. By comparison, The entire Roman Empire had 75-100 million inhabitants maximum. That is an enormous difference in agriculture.

it is a difference of logistics and centralized government.

That is an enormous difference in agriculture, to the distinct disadvantage of Medieval France. As more people try to farm, land that is less productive is put into crops. I would say the average output per given area of farmland and/or per farmer was certainly lower in France in the 1300s that it had been in Roman Gaul precisely because there was much more land under the plow. Further, those less-productive farms would tend to be in inconvenient locations, away from rivers and far from the few roads. There would be less surplus for whatever purposes.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

Rye ergot was certainly known to the romans, given that they had Rye production. However, it was not their preferred crop. The main crop of the Romans was Emmmer, which is a very low-yield crop.