Obsessed with the Tang Dynasty

[Erpingham]

Herodotus describes how Xerxes used an enclosure that could hold 10,000 men a time to calculate the size of his army, but if that's entirely invented then you might as well toss all of Herodotus into the wastepaper basket.

Which is one of those areas where we differ, but as you said, let's not do it again. I think the China experts should argue this one out.

[PhilM]

But if you look at the primary sources they make clear that large armies could be supplied by pre-prepared food dumps or by sea and that armies travelled cross-country, not by road.

I haven't read the Persian army thread, and the applicability of this will obviously vary wildly depending on both time and place, but the assumption within Byzantine military treatises at least is that army movement is done on the existing route network for a number of reasons. Ensuring no one gets lost by being able to place signs at junctions, the ability to get good intelligence on the state of a road, the fact that they are more amenable to wheeled transport and the likelihood that gradients are more friendly than open countryside are just a few. Terrain in Anatolia can be quite rough and the route network was extensive, having been developed over centuries so I wouldn't extrapolate too widely, but it is certainly one context in which open-country movement was not the norm. Of course, that depends on if one believes that the treatises were written as practical guides for army leaders, which isn't an uncontested notion.

Apologies if this has been done to death before.

[Justin Swanton]

But if you look at the primary sources they make clear that large armies could be supplied by pre-prepared food dumps or by sea and that armies travelled cross-country, not by road.

I haven't read the Persian army thread, and the applicability of this will obviously vary wildly depending on both time and place, but the assumption within Byzantine military treatises at least is that army movement is done on the existing route network for a number of reasons. Ensuring no one gets lost by being able to place signs at junctions, the ability to get good intelligence on the state of a road, the fact that they are more amenable to wheeled transport and the likelihood that gradients are more friendly than open countryside are just a few. Terrain in Anatolia can be quite rough and the route network was extensive, having been developed over centuries so I wouldn't extrapolate too widely, but it is certainly one context in which open-country movement was not the norm. Of course, that depends on if one believes that the treatises were written as practical guides for army leaders, which isn't an uncontested notion.

Apologies if this has been done to death before.

Ah, but there you go. It's about not getting lost, following the easiest terrain and facilitating things for the wheeled baggage. Not specifically about the entire army marching on a road. Furthermore, a Byzantine army on the march numbered between 10,000 and 30,000 men if I'm not mistaken. Not the hundreds of thousands under consideration here. Wheeled baggage could stick to a road or track for more speed but I'm pretty certain the men/horses marched cross-country alongside it. Vegetius describes how Roman infantry were trained to march cross country in any terrain, with no mention of roads. The manuals all describe the formations a body of men could take whilst on the march and they were all far wider than any road. Also the positions the troops could take relative to the baggage and they were not on the road. Even in column most of the men would have to march off-road as a typical column that could convert into an instant line (exhibit the Spartan mora) was wider than any road or track.

But, yeah, we've all made up our minds about this a long time ago. You might want to read the Achaemenid thread and decide what you think of it. (gosh, it's 8 years old!)

[Erpingham]

Having said I would leave this, I would note that what the ancients understood as a road and what modern Europeans do may not be the same thing. Just focussing on the made up narrow roadway may be unwise.  Actual width of usable space on a route could be terrain dependant.

[PhilM]

Thanks for the link. In the context of what became a 75-page thread, that second post brought a wry smile. It will take me a while to get the time to read the whole thing.

Absent any specific context, I suspect it's hard to get much more accurate than "sometimes yes, somtimes no, probably". Plenty of interest in those specific contexts though.

[Erpingham]

It will take me a while to get the time to read the whole thing.

It should be a right of passage on the forum to read it, after which members shudder and say "Never again" 

[Cantabrigian]

Personally, I think the T'ang would grossly outnumber any of the opponents you might be thinking of.  I mean, the side with the big battalions generally wins. 

So, you'd know if you'd been T'ang-oed?

[Justin Swanton]

Personally, I think the T'ang would grossly outnumber any of the opponents you might be thinking of.  I mean, the side with the big battalions generally wins. 

So, you'd know if you'd been T'ang-oed?

[Imperial Dave]

 

[Erpingham]

Haven't seen you for a while Mike.  Nice to know you're still on good form 

[Justin Swanton]

Personally, I think the T'ang would grossly outnumber any of the opponents you might be thinking of.  I mean, the side with the big battalions generally wins. 

So, you'd know if you'd been T'ang-oed?

That sour tang is unmistakable.

[Cantabrigian]

Haven't seen you for a while Mike.  Nice to know you're still on good form 

You are too kind!  I'm sure I'll tire you soon enough...