How sophisticated was Roman Logistics?

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

Looking at an old thread I made in a previous site a while ago, I found this quote.

 

From http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101224132753AA0KhF6

It had a logistical system that we equaled just before WW1. Even Napoleon was a logistical barbarian![/Quote]

 

From waht I seen in this thread and many threads in multiple sites on military warfare and history,its apparent Romans are generally seen as the most sophisticated pre 20th century army in history and that ROMANS ARE EVEN SEEN AS HAVING SUPERIOR LOGISTICS TO NAPOLEONIC ERA ARMIES!

 

How advanced and sophisticated was the Roman's logistics.Was it so advanced and sophisticated that it was even superior to Napoleonic era armies as everybody on the internet in various forums make them out to be?Or are these claims again the results of distortions in history by imposing modern concepts on the past?

[Melvadius]

I can not comment on comparisons with Napoleonic armies and I always get nervous when anyone ignores the Chinese capabilities in the same period - a possibly apocrophyl tale of one extra brick being built as a reserve for a major fortification on the Great Wall spring to mind. However as far as Roman logistics are concerned there are a number of indications that it could be fairly formidable given the Romans had a noticeable effect on both livestock breeding and the spread of some forms of agriculture along the northern limes.

 

[caldrail]

Roman logistics were certainly better organised than most others of their era, though I suspect today we would grimace at the poor and corrupt record-keeping, not to mention the interference of civilian merchants who were part of a ruthless and rapacious commercial system, or for that matter, the extent of personal profit from legionaries who sold supplies illicitly. However good or bad it may have been, the Romans did not record what legionaries thought about the supply situation. However we can't discount the possibility that irt fell short of expectation - Evidence from Vindolanda and the hints of Tacitus concerning mutinies suggest military logistics were less reliable than we might expect.

[caldrail]

I have stumbled across a mention of Rooman logisitcs in one of the Vindolanda Tablets. There's obvious evidence of preliminary discussion by post before anything gets done.

 

As tempting as it is to suggest this was typical, it's too much of an assumption. Nonetheless it does reveal that administration of supply was more about need and reward as opposed to finely detailed schedules and rotas. It would seem then that logistics was ad hoc. By arrangement.

 

Addendum: Here are three most relevant of the tablets I've seen in print. There is another dealing with logistics but since it concentrates on profit and loss, I assume it was between civilian merchants. The Romans are inverterate stocktakers and accountants. They keep lists of absolutely everything they've got, but every transfer of goods appears to be by request. There's no sign of regular automatic consignments.

 

You ought to decide, my lord, what quantity of wagons you are going to send to carry stone. For the century of Vocontius... on one day with wagons... Unless you ask Vocontius to sort out the stone, he will not sort it out. I ask you to write what you want me to do. I pray that you are in good health.

Tab.Vindol. II 315

 

Masclus to Cerialis his king, greeting. Please my Lord give instructions as to what you want to have done tomorrow. Are we to return with the standard to (the shrine at?) the crossroads altogether or every other one of us? ...most fortunate and be well disposed toward me. Farewell. My fellow soldiers have no beer. Please order some to be sent To Flavius Cerialus, prefect, from Masclus, decurion.

Tab.Vindol. III 628

 

Flavius Cerialis to his September, greetings. Tomorrow, which is October 5th, as you wish my Lord, I will provide some goods by means of which we may endure storms if they are troublesome.

Tab.Vindol. II 234

 

(Incidentially - I've noticed two mentions in sources of cohorts being commanded by prefects).

Edited June 9, 2011 by caldrail

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

We know that ancient logistics were often more advanced than we usualy think, and this since very early times as shown by assyrian or egyptian accounts. In the classical greek world we see convoys, organized supply trains equiped with standardized equipement (Sparta, see Xenophon) and standing orders on logistics for mobilization of the citizen forces (Athens, see Thucydides). We also see logistics in the way the Athenian fleet's was maintained (arsenal accounts). One may suggest (and I did it in my MA thesis) that two different logistical systems did exist in ancient greece, one state run land based structure in the peloponnese and a privately organized, sea based, for the Athenian league.

One element to explain the difference might be the availlability of coin in the two economies, which allowed Athens to care only for money, private initiative doing the rest (which could lead to disaster but does also explain a great deal of the peloponesian war) while Sparta's less advanced economy privileged using state ressources and state planning. Maximum daily consumption by soldiers is known for the period thanks to Thucydide's narration of the Sphacterie incident.

Later operations like Cyrus attempt against his brother (Xenophon's 10 000) also show logistical preparations of an advanced level while Alexander's army seems to have been more based on the athenian model, although in larger parts land based.

Roman era logistics shows that during the republic the effort was often had hoc and rather planned, although generals like Caesar could show huge mistakes in their logistics. Most of the logistic seems based on foraging and marchands, In the imperial era, trade would indeed play a large part but I think that the situation might have been different depending on the front the army found itself, for the eastern part of the realm was less favorable to private initiative providing supplies.

[caldrail]

We know that ancient logistics were often more advanced than we usualy think

I disagree completely. They were no better than one man's ability to organise and conceive. There was no 'science of logistics' back then, and only people like succesful merchants had any experience of handling networks of any kind. Efficient logistics are limited by the ability to communicate. I know the Romans developed a reasonably comprehensive system of mail (and where line of sight was possible - visual signals for specific purposes), but that doesn't mean logistics was developed to the same peak, especially since communication was for political as much as military control and that the legion was designed to as independent of supply as possible, thus the need for formal and continuous logistics was not present.

 

The Romans only made intense efforts at supply during such situations as sieges, when legions were in one place for long periods of time (thus foraging was ever more difficult and fruitless), and indications are they usually placed contracts with local merchants. There was not, after all, any form of supply corps in the Roman legions. Legions marched on campaign with rations to last, or if that were not possible, foraging and pillaging were substituted.

 

Straegy in the ancient world was not simply a military decision. It wasn't just about deciding where to fight and which route to get there. The requireement of feeding and watering your men during the campaign season was a vital consideration.

 

It brings up the conversation from Hannibals tent, when the starvation among his troops inspired on of his junior commanders to say that the men must learn to be cannibals and like it. The horrified Hannibal did not enact that idea! He had no way to contact his overlords for supplies, nor any reasonable means of achieving a supply. The ;possibility of desertion or mutiny must have been increasingly dangerous. All he could do was continue and hope the army reached bountiful land to forage from as soon as possible.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Well if I look to the current operations in both Irak and Afghanistan I see western armies also using a lot of private marchants for their logistic... But back to the ancients, and specificaly the romans :

 

- while during the republic we see ad hoc efforts, we also see true wonders of logistics, as shown by the way piracy was handled by Pompey, a man who gave logistics a huge importance. Caesar, as shown both in Gaul and in Greece (and elswhere beside...) was much less carefull on this topic. Previous generals also show interest on the topic, but nothing really conclusive.

 

In the imperial period, western warfare often required relatively little logistics due to the nature of the warfare, mainly guarison duty and squirmishes with sometimes larger operations. In the east on the other hand, a system of logistics was built to support the armies on long range warfare across very hostile natural environnement, as is often shown by that time's accounts, even as late as the 4th century (think of the logistics of Julian II's expedition). Possibilities for foraging were few in the northern and central syrian areas, and even less numerous in Irak...

 

A whole network of strongpoints and fortress was built to provide both border coverage and staging grounds for the armies.

 

Also while their was indeed no separate logistical corps, I think the praefectus fabrum and praefectus castrorum might very well have had a larger part in logistics than what you seem to think...

 

The fact that the Notitia Dignitatum also provides us with record of weapons production centers does also tend to make me think a true logistical system existed at the time (late 4th century) that I would see more as a legacy of an earlier period than as a late empire innovation.

[caldrail]

As for a standing logistical corps - no - i don't know of any evidence for that. It doesn't fit with the Roman modus operandi anyway. As I mentioned previously, logistics was something the Romans preferred to do without. Too clumsy and vulnerable.

 

Before we get too carried away with superlatives, bear in mind that you and I are no really any different from the Romans. We have, more or less, the same physical and mental capabilities, and if you really want a comparison, we also share some cultural aspects as well. My point is that the average base line of logisitcal ability is pretty much the same. It isn't that the ancients were advanced in any way, it's more like we're no better.

 

What has improved is education, in that a body of expertise is communicated and taught (although not everyone today is well-schooled in logisitics - it remains an area of study in its own right), plus telecommunications, computors, road, rail, air, sea, and the machinery designed specifically to faciltate the movement of goods brings us far ahead of what the Romans were capable of.

 

Therefore ancient logisitcs was not 'advanced' as you put it, seeing as the principles haven't changed and were understood in both eras, but rather we have a considerable advantage over them.

[Pompieus]

Have you looked at "The Logistics of the Roman Army at War 263BC-235AD" by J P Roth ?

[caldrail]

Note the title. It sometimes pays to be critical of published works and in my book, anyone who calls the legiosn "The Roman Army" is already working on a misconception. There is an insidious idea prevalent in the study of Roman times that the Romans had an army. No, they didn't, they had lots of them. That's what a legion is, though I agree it was possible to brigade legions together to form a larger temporary army if required.

 

Marius for instance is credited with creating a professional army. Immediately a mental image occurs to us, one we don't easily question, because to us the word professionalism carries certain meanings that don't necessarily apply to the ancient era. Behaviour for instance. Roman legionaries were not known for the sort of professional behaviour (or honour) that we expect today.

 

What Marius created was a system that alleviated the frantic need to raise troops every time a conflict got under way and out of control (as the Romans often found, their politically appointed generals at the start of a campaign were often poor performers). However, his system was not fundamentally different other than the retention of standing forces. Most of it was an organisational reshuffle and adoption of ideas already tested in war (by Marius himself it most be noted, as ghe was forced to make expedient changes to the usual procedures to conduct the campaigns he was involved in)

 

The idea that the Marius Reforms were a complete rethink is therefore incorrect, and since we can actually plot development over the ages, the Roman Legion is far from a fresh start, and indeed appears to encapsulate concepts that belong to Rome's feral origin.

 

Also we suffer from this idea that the Romans were essentially modern in thinking. I don't question their civic engineering nor their ability to organise labour, but to assume this was all evidence of a level of sophistication familiar to us is an anthropomorphic view. We are guilty, in that instance, of foisting our own world upon that of the Roman.

 

In fairness, no, I havebn't read the title so I cannot judge what the author says. I would suggest that it can be misleading to assume that one person is the source of all wisdom. The problem as I see it revolves around not only our desire to understand the Roman era by comparison with our own familiar enviroment, but also the human talent for recognition. In the same that the juxtaposition of features and sunlight creates a false impression of a face on a lunar crater, so we spot familiar elements in Roman culture and... well... join the dots to build a picture that isn't necessarily correct.

 

I will read that title if I come across it. Thanks for the tip.

[Dickonbard]

Roth's book is horrendously expensive, and reviews are somewhat mixed. Can anyone suggest a good and more accessible source on Roman logistics?

[Dickonbard]

To add to Caldrail's selection of logistics-related quotes from the Vindolanda Tablets, I like the following:

 

"I have several times written to you that I have bought about five thousand modii of ears of grain, on account of which I need cash. Unless you send me some cash, at least five hundred denarii, the result will be that I shall lose what I have laid out as a deposit, about three hundred denarii, and I shall be embarrassed. So, I ask you, send me some cash as soon as possible. The hides which you write are at Cataractonium - write that they be given to me and the wagon about which you write. And write to me what is with that wagon. I would have already been to collect them except that I did not care to injure the animals while the roads are bad."

 

The problem of getting supplies, money to pay for them and the means to transport them aligned is obviously a perennial one!

 

Vindolanda Inventory No. 88.946, accessed at Vindolanda Tablets Online

[Pompieus]

Although it's hard going at times, makes some questionable conclusions, and is expensive to buy and hard to find in a library; Roth's "Logistics of the Roman Army at War 264-235" is indispensible to understanding the level of professionalism the Romans achieved in this vital military art. If for no other reason than it is the only book sized treatment of the topic (along with Engle on the Macedonian army) and its exhaustive references to primary sources.

 

Fortunately you can look at it on-line:

 

http://www.realtechsupport.org/temp/IoT/texts/IoT_Logistics_of_the_Roman_Army_at_War.pdf

[caldrail]

Although it's hard going at times, makes some questionable conclusions, and is expensive to buy and hard to find in a library; Roth's "Logistics of the Roman Army at War 264-235" is indispensible to understanding the level of professionalism the Romans achieved in this vital military art. If for no other reason than it is the only book sized treatment of the topic (along with Engle on the Macedonian army) and its exhaustive references to primary sources.

 

Fortunately you can look at it on-line:

 

http://www.realtechsupport.org/temp/IoT/texts/IoT_Logistics_of_the_Roman_Army_at_War.pdf

 

Professionalism? That word ought to carry a UNRV health warning because although much is made of the supposed 'professionalism' of the legions, we don't see much of it in the written record. I agree they were trained to fight effectively (though they didn't always carry it off) but to imagine that the Romans had an esprit-de-corps and expectations of public behaviour in the same way we now expect of our armed forces is pretty much imagination only. The Romans wanted hardened killers and tolerated some pretty shabby behaviour from their soldiers on the grounds that they were paid to fight for Rome, amnd since legionaries were not loyal to the state per se, but to personality and their wallet, it's hardly likely they showed similar professionalism. They were good at what they did - that much we can say. - but to give the legions aspects that are anachronistic or indeed completely imaginary is not history.