How to feed an Indian army?

Jens Nordlunde · 3rd November 2018, 05:39 PM

I am now and again wondering about the TONS of food an army needed. Lets take a medium army – 30,000 men on horse, 60,000 men on foot, 500 elephants, camels, bullocks, donkies and all the followers (often said to be of the same number as the army). I dont know how much an elephant or a horse eats and drinks each day – but it must be a lot – not to speak about the soldiers and the followers. Think also when a fort was sieged, most of them had limited room for storring a lot of food, and what about the water?
I am at the moment reading Jonathan Scott’s book about Deccan (the part Ferishta wrote), and what seldom is mentioned in other book is mentioned here, that the armies got ‘intelligence’ about the other armies – so they had a lot of spies. Also that it often happened that one army raided the other armies supplies – that must have been a disaster. When you have a lot of elephants and bullocks the moving speed must have been very limited so to move from Delhi to Deccan would have taken quite some time.
To day I read that a certain camp in Deccan (about 1450 AD) covered ten miles – just imagine to get an urgent message from one end to another.

Ok I have cheated – I have Goggled. An elephant eats about 200-600 pounds pr day, and drinks about 50 gallons of water. A horse eats 15-20 pounds of hey pr day, and drinks 5-10 gallons of water pr day. This may be understated, as Google speaks of wild animals (I think), and working animals would have a need for more food – not to speak about the camels, bullocks, donkies, the soldiers and the followers. The soldiers and the followers would need maybe half a gallon of water and at least half a pound of food each day - or more likely one pound of food.

Add to this that an elephant moves at a speed of 15 miles pr day - likely depending on the quality of the roads.
You may say that both armies had the same problems, which is true – but still.
Both armies must have had real problems with their delivery lines if they were cut.

fernando · 3rd November 2018, 06:16 PM

Rather impressive situations indeed, Jens.
... In a way that battles depended so much in logistics that probably many a times they would be dismissed due to food (or other) shortages before actual contact took place; or to consider that raiding one another to capture their supplies was in itself a battle. Also perhaps to consider that stocks kept on being restored as marching armies passed by villages and helped themselves to local barns.

Jens Nordlunde · 3rd November 2018, 07:14 PM

Yes Fernando, but imagine such an army passing by villages. A single village would not have been able to feed an army - and when you consider at which speed such an army moved - they would only have passed a few villages a day.
Not to speak about the early south Indian armies, said to be about one million people. I dont know if this was with or without the folleowers, but it does not matter - the amount of food and water was enormous.

fernando · 3rd November 2018, 08:15 PM

Perhaps our present concept of an army is different than it was by then. We imagine a column marching constantly, only stopping for resting. Maybe those armies were more a huge crowd, not in a continuous marching but, a mass of people that stayed in a spot for a long while, enough to plant and crop their own supplies, restore their ammunitins and, coming next season, move again; no rush to meet with the enemy, as a modern army does.
I don't know how serious is the mentioning of armies of a million people; you are in a better position to judge on that, by what you read about it. By the XV-XVI centuries things were already more restrict, so to say.
In the writings of Alvaro Velho, who was with Vasco da Gama on his first voyage to India (Calecut-1497) he described the various local armies as comprehending respectively:
Cael in Calegrande. Its King could gather 4000 footmen and 100 elephants.
Chomandarla in Coromandel. ( of Christians) 100 000 footmen.
Ceylon. 4000 men and many war elephants, and also those for sale.
Camatara in Sumatra. 4000 footmen, 1000 on horse and 300 war elephants.
Xarnauz in Sião. 20 000 footmen, 4 000 on horse and 400 war elephants
Tenacar in Tenasserim ( of Christians with a Christian King), with a good wind, 40 days away from Calecute. 10 000 footmen and 500 war elephants.
Bengala. 20 000 footmen and 10 000 on horse.
Melaca. 20 000 men, scilicet: 10 00 on horse and the others on foot, and 400 war elephants.
So comparing to those early armies, these forces could be fed by the snack bar around the corner, so to say ... and probably they didn't use to march for such immense distances.

Jens Nordlunde · 3rd November 2018, 10:25 PM

You are right Fernando, It was not a marching 'stream' of soldiers. A king asked his supporters to send armies, and so they would arrive in 'drops' so to say - if they arrived at all.
About an army of one million, I would say that maybe it was a 'wee bit' over estimated. Anyway they could muster a lot of soldiers when needed - not all well trained - but still armed. If they themselves had the arms, or if they were armed from the royal armoury is not quite certain, but at least some must have been armed from the armoury.
This would, of course, mean that a lot of the 'soldiers' had no battle training what soever - thay were armed, but that was it.

Now here it is interesting to notice, that some left the fight and went home during the battle, while others went over to the 'enemy' during the fight - for several reasons

Now if you read the article Saadat Khan Bahadur the First Nawab of Oudh in A Passion for Indian Arms, you will see, that he had an army so big that the Mughul ruler was afraid of him, and only the Nizam of Deccan could match him.
But at that time, the armies seem to have been a lot smaller than under the very early rulers of south India - maybe a tenth.
However, when you read that someone who had won a battle had thousands slaughtered and their heads put into stables - then I think one gets an idea of what religious wars wer in India at the time.

ariel · 4th November 2018, 02:11 PM

I often catch myself underestimating the magnitude of wars on the Indian subcontinent. It takes me some time to recall the size of their armies and the sheer number of conflicts here and there. And then I get goosebumps....

Perhaps only WWII and Taiping Civil War can hold the candle, but in India major wars were virtually an unceasing process over centuries.

And Jens' question is a great one: armies march on their stomachs. They must have had huge intendant services that had to be strong fighting units at the same time. Cutting off their supply lines would have stopped the invasion dead in its tracks. Russians did it to Napoleon and Ataturk to the Greeks.

3rd November 2018, 05:39 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	How to feed an Indian army? I am now and again wondering about the TONS of food an army needed. Lets take a medium army – 30,000 men on horse, 60,000 men on foot, 500 elephants, camels, bullocks, donkies and all the followers (often said to be of the same number as the army). I dont know how much an elephant or a horse eats and drinks each day – but it must be a lot – not to speak about the soldiers and the followers. Think also when a fort was sieged, most of them had limited room for storring a lot of food, and what about the water? I am at the moment reading Jonathan Scott’s book about Deccan (the part Ferishta wrote), and what seldom is mentioned in other book is mentioned here, that the armies got ‘intelligence’ about the other armies – so they had a lot of spies. Also that it often happened that one army raided the other armies supplies – that must have been a disaster. When you have a lot of elephants and bullocks the moving speed must have been very limited so to move from Delhi to Deccan would have taken quite some time. To day I read that a certain camp in Deccan (about 1450 AD) covered ten miles – just imagine to get an urgent message from one end to another. Ok I have cheated – I have Goggled. An elephant eats about 200-600 pounds pr day, and drinks about 50 gallons of water. A horse eats 15-20 pounds of hey pr day, and drinks 5-10 gallons of water pr day. This may be understated, as Google speaks of wild animals (I think), and working animals would have a need for more food – not to speak about the camels, bullocks, donkies, the soldiers and the followers. The soldiers and the followers would need maybe half a gallon of water and at least half a pound of food each day - or more likely one pound of food. Add to this that an elephant moves at a speed of 15 miles pr day - likely depending on the quality of the roads. You may say that both armies had the same problems, which is true – but still. Both armies must have had real problems with their delivery lines if they were cut.

3rd November 2018, 06:16 PM	#2
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Rather impressive situations indeed, Jens. ... In a way that battles depended so much in logistics that probably many a times they would be dismissed due to food (or other) shortages before actual contact took place; or to consider that raiding one another to capture their supplies was in itself a battle. Also perhaps to consider that stocks kept on being restored as marching armies passed by villages and helped themselves to local barns.

3rd November 2018, 07:14 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Yes Fernando, but imagine such an army passing by villages. A single village would not have been able to feed an army - and when you consider at which speed such an army moved - they would only have passed a few villages a day. Not to speak about the early south Indian armies, said to be about one million people. I dont know if this was with or without the folleowers, but it does not matter - the amount of food and water was enormous.

3rd November 2018, 08:15 PM	#4
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Perhaps our present concept of an army is different than it was by then. We imagine a column marching constantly, only stopping for resting. Maybe those armies were more a huge crowd, not in a continuous marching but, a mass of people that stayed in a spot for a long while, enough to plant and crop their own supplies, restore their ammunitins and, coming next season, move again; no rush to meet with the enemy, as a modern army does. I don't know how serious is the mentioning of armies of a million people; you are in a better position to judge on that, by what you read about it. By the XV-XVI centuries things were already more restrict, so to say. In the writings of Alvaro Velho, who was with Vasco da Gama on his first voyage to India (Calecut-1497) he described the various local armies as comprehending respectively: Cael in Calegrande. Its King could gather 4000 footmen and 100 elephants. Chomandarla in Coromandel. ( of Christians) 100 000 footmen. Ceylon. 4000 men and many war elephants, and also those for sale. Camatara in Sumatra. 4000 footmen, 1000 on horse and 300 war elephants. Xarnauz in Sião. 20 000 footmen, 4 000 on horse and 400 war elephants Tenacar in Tenasserim ( of Christians with a Christian King), with a good wind, 40 days away from Calecute. 10 000 footmen and 500 war elephants. Bengala. 20 000 footmen and 10 000 on horse. Melaca. 20 000 men, scilicet: 10 00 on horse and the others on foot, and 400 war elephants. So comparing to those early armies, these forces could be fed by the snack bar around the corner, so to say ... and probably they didn't use to march for such immense distances.

3rd November 2018, 10:25 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	You are right Fernando, It was not a marching 'stream' of soldiers. A king asked his supporters to send armies, and so they would arrive in 'drops' so to say - if they arrived at all. About an army of one million, I would say that maybe it was a 'wee bit' over estimated. Anyway they could muster a lot of soldiers when needed - not all well trained - but still armed. If they themselves had the arms, or if they were armed from the royal armoury is not quite certain, but at least some must have been armed from the armoury. This would, of course, mean that a lot of the 'soldiers' had no battle training what soever - thay were armed, but that was it. Now here it is interesting to notice, that some left the fight and went home during the battle, while others went over to the 'enemy' during the fight - for several reasons Now if you read the article Saadat Khan Bahadur the First Nawab of Oudh in A Passion for Indian Arms, you will see, that he had an army so big that the Mughul ruler was afraid of him, and only the Nizam of Deccan could match him. But at that time, the armies seem to have been a lot smaller than under the very early rulers of south India - maybe a tenth. However, when you read that someone who had won a battle had thousands slaughtered and their heads put into stables - then I think one gets an idea of what religious wars wer in India at the time.

4th November 2018, 02:11 PM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I often catch myself underestimating the magnitude of wars on the Indian subcontinent. It takes me some time to recall the size of their armies and the sheer number of conflicts here and there. And then I get goosebumps.... Perhaps only WWII and Taiping Civil War can hold the candle, but in India major wars were virtually an unceasing process over centuries. And Jens' question is a great one: armies march on their stomachs. They must have had huge intendant services that had to be strong fighting units at the same time. Cutting off their supply lines would have stopped the invasion dead in its tracks. Russians did it to Napoleon and Ataturk to the Greeks.