Throughout the history of warfare, logistics typically assumed a role as pivotal during campaigning as the strategy itself, although the effort necessary to sustain those campaigns was often overshadowed by the more dramatic historical narrative. As historian Jonathan Roth so aptly noted, “Logistics is least observable when it works well, and usually only enters the historical record when it breaks down.” While influential battle captains and their heroic exploits captivated researchers through time, they were successful because they were as adept at the art of sustaining their armies as they were employing them.
THE GREAT CAPTAINS
Xenophon’s account of the Ten Thousand, the retreating Greek mercenaries who fought for Cyrus the Younger in his attempt to seize control of the Achaemenid Empire in 401 BCE, in Anabasis remains one of the most insightful studies of logistics operations in ancient warfare. Xenophon’s ability to sustain his force in the heart of a hostile empire over such a long period of time – a two-year, 3100 mile fighting retreat – while under near-constant assault was an unprecedented act of military and logistics genius for which historian Theodore Dodge declared him the greatest general prior to Alexander the Great.
Like Xenophon, Alexander the Great inherently recognized the logistical challenges presented when campaigning with large military force. Alexander considered logistics in every aspect of his strategic planning, and weighed the sustainment needs of his force against changes in weather, terrain, and even harvest calendars. Minute details that might be overlooked by lesser battle captains, such as the different consumption rates for water and feed for various species of pack animal, were key elements of Alexander’s planning. The success of Alexander’s expeditions were due in large part to his unparalleled grasp of the art of logistics and “his meticulous attention to the provisioning of his army.”
The Romans embraced the lessons of Alexander and combined his methods with an established system of depots and magazines and an advanced road network into an incredibly sophisticated, yet flexible, logistics system that supported – and to a large degree allowed – the expansion of the empire. Although the Romans didn’t have a specific term for logistics, it was important enough to them to consider the provisioning of the Legions a central field of professional study.
As with Alexander, logistics was a central consideration in planning for the Romans. Traditionally, March 1 marked the beginning of campaign season for the Legions, largely due to the availability of fodder. Once afield, the Romans relied on a well-developed system of supply lines to provision their forces, from traditional overland methods to waterborne transport – both sea and river – as well as through local foraging and requisitioning. And Roman planning doctrine of the time emphasized the necessity of securing these supply lines from enemy attack.
Genghis Khan employed a much more austere and adaptive system of logistics better suited to their way of war. Their exceptional equestrian skills and knowledge of the steppes enabled them to attack with unprecedented speed and mobility, and sustaining such techniques demanded efficient, disciplined logistics planning and organization. While the Mongols relied on supply trains in much the same way as earlier armies, they would abandon their baggage and carts upon entering enemy territory and subsist almost indefinitely on borts (dried meat) and kumis (fermented milk), allowing a hardened Mongol warrior could advance as much as 60 miles in a day. To the Mongols, logistics and strategy were one and the same.
THE PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINMENT
As warfare continued to evolve and armies became vastly larger, increasingly lethal, and exponentially more advanced, the principles of logistics that emerged centuries earlier remained essentially unchanged, even if they weren’t specifically codified. In the same way the modern principles of war grew from the experiences of the great captains of battle, the observations of military theorists, and the fundamental context of war, the principles of logistics evolved from millennia of sustaining expeditionary campaigns. Those principles – integration, anticipation, responsiveness, simplicity, economy, survivability, continuity, and improvisation – are as immutable as the very nature of war itself. They would be as recognizable to Vegetius or Genghis Khan in their time as they are to military logisticians today.
1. Integration
Coordinating and synchronizing logistics was central to the success of every great battle captain and was deeply woven into the fabric of their campaign planning.
Anticipation. No one considered the provisioning needs of their forces as deeply as Alexander, who often operated far from his supply lines and relied on his experience and insight to anticipate those requirements and avoid unnecessary pauses or culmination.
2. Responsiveness
The logistics system that supported the Roman Legions was a model of efficiency and responsiveness, ensuring that their forces afield could consistently acquire what they needed when they needed it.
Simplicity. By virtue of their fighting methods, both Xenophon and Genghis Khan depended on uncomplicated sustainment systems suited to their particular circumstances.
3. Economy
Alexander’s campaigns were models of efficiency. His soldiers had to carry their equipment and provisions, carts were rarely allowed, and they subsisted on what they needed and nothing more.
Survivability. Roman logistics relied on a distribution system built on supply lines that had to be protected. The survivability of those supply lines was essential, a lesson the Romans learned – and relearned – on numerous occasions.
4. Continuity
No better example of this tenet exists than in the campaigns of Alexander and in those of the Romans. Both recognized this fundamental principle and integrated it into their strategic planning.
Improvisation. Adapt or die. Every great battle captain understood the necessity of improvisation, but no one practiced it quite as well as the Mongols. In times of great duress, when all means of sustainment had been exhausted, a Mongol horseman would cut into their mount’s neck and drink a small amount of blood for nutrition. That’s improvisation.
If there is perhaps one principle missing on this list, it would be numeracy. The ability to not just work with numbers, but understand their impact on campaigning is an art. Alexander is the exemplar for this principle, and the lengths to which he studied and planned for his army’s sustainment requirements represent an unparalleled skill with data analytics.
