Dutch46 wrote: Henry Brown wrote: Dutch46 wrote:
As long as we are dealing with logistics, here is a little information concerning the rate of movement and what it took to move it of the Roman army which was pretty good at what they did and went here there and everywhere.http://www.therthdimension.org/AncientR ... _march.htm
It's just a little something to think about and consider when contemplating the movement of 2+ million men and their associated equipment.
Without a doubt the Roman army was amazingly efficient in their movement and logistics. I'm just not sure they are the best model for this. For one they never had to transport thousands of pounds of black powder and hundreds of cannon. Second, I can't remember a single instance in which the Roman Army operated in numbers anywhere close to what were given for the upcoming campaign. I think Napoleon's campaigns or the American Civil War are closer comparisons.
I agree with you that there are factors which make the comparison inexact. I picked this example because it illustrated the logistics involved in, when compared to the upcoming campaign, moving a small number of men, material and ancillary equipment all neatly summarized in a half a page. It's sort of a best case scenario. The massive size of the troop movements contemplated in the next book will complicate matters immensely.
I would simply point out (for no particular reason) that the invention of the corps organization for armies did several really neat things, operationally, tactically, and logistically. And the really key compontent in the creation of an army which could be divided into mutually supporting, independently moving corps was not so much the creation of staffs capable of managing the movement (although that was also necessary) as much as the emergence of a general purpose infantryman who could more than hold his own against cavalry, possessed missile capability, and
was capable of shock combat on his own at need --- i.e., the musket-armed infantryman with a reliable flintlock and a ring bayonet. Prior to that time, army commanders had to very carefully apportion their available strength in all of several different sorts of troops (shock infantry, foot missile troops, light cavalry, medium/heavy shock cavalry, etc.) because each had strengths and weaknesses which required a "combined arms" mix to offset one another. With the emergence of the musket-armed infantryman as the king of battle, things got enormously
simplified and it was possible to move beyond the "mass of droves" formation into a corps-based doctrine for both combat and strategic movement.
This capablility is in a fair way to being acquired by all Safeholdian armies now that CoG has muskets and/or rifles of its own, and they already had the sort of transport capabilities over which Napoleon could only have drooled.
For whatever its worth.
Might not be worth much, you know. [G]