How to feed an Indian army?

fernando · 5th November 2018, 01:59 PM

I don't know Jens but, burning the dead after a battle is not properly a religious ritual, but a need to avoid epidemic situations. If rulers had some common sense, they would (both faiths) think of a practical solution. Maybe burying the dead was not an option to exclude; having so many men at disposal, there would be enough to be selected undertakers. Who knows whether there are period written descriptions on this subject ...

Jens Nordlunde · 5th November 2018, 04:41 PM

While reading Jonathan Scott's book quoting sources wirting about the history, but also about the present time - 15th - 16th century, I have seen mentioned no where, what they did with all the dead people.
Anyway we are now quite a bit away from the subject - my fault sorry.

Agriculture at the time was not so intensively done as now, so what they could get from each village must have been as a water drop on a hot stone. Their needs must have been brought from far away - corn, foot, hay, water and whatever.

A funny thing is, that when reading the book I have only once read about a Sultan keeping a part of the army in reserve should it be needed. I have earlier read that the Mughals did so, but I have never seen it mentioned more than once. There are mentions about who is leading the right wing, the left wing and the centre - but no mentioning about who is leading the reserve.

In one of my books I have the battle formation used by the Mughals.

fernando · 5th November 2018, 05:58 PM

From what i gather as implicit from reading chronicles, depending on how far or how intense is going to be the battle, the need to prepare things requires corresponding antecipation. We may be talking months... several of them, at times. And if a determined ruler leaves with a constant potential of engaging in war, he will surely keeps his (huge) barns full. Apart from perishable goods, he will amass tons of supplies proportional to his bellicist intentions. Same goes for his arsenal efforts; you know, big battle thoughts, big everything else.
I take it that men in charge of army reserves do not have such high rank as those leading battle wings; maybe this is why they are not mentioned. Although men 'doing nothing' are hard to keep with discipline, and their leaders, in a way, must be tough enough to keep them obedient, avoid their desertion and all that. And after all, those men need to be fed as those in action ... although maybe a bit less, as they are not consuming so much energy.
I realize that, something else that doesn't come (often ?) narrated in books, are the (staff) managers that rulers must have to handle all these logistics; you know, tons of food ingredients coming and going, improvised kitchens, hundreds (thousands) of recipients, queues for the meal (certainly organized by shifts), altercations among men and ... in the end ... whoo's going to feed the animals.

Jens Nordlunde · 5th November 2018, 09:21 PM

Fernando, yes it is true that the preparations took months. Sometimes up to three months.
This was not all about foot, but to gather an army took time, as you had to write to all your 'friends' and ask them to send whatever of armed men they had - wait for their answer or their arrival - sometimes without any luck.
Part of the army were veterans, but a lot of it did not have a clue about fighting, they turned up to get whatever money they could.

What I find frightening is, that the night before a battle, part of the army could either go home or go over to the enemy, which could also happen during a battle - so you could never be sure of how big your army was. Bribes were, of course, part of this, and a number of other things were also used like jealousy between the different parts of, especial the Mughal court, but also at other courts under Mughal control, as at least four groups tried to get control.

shayde78 · 6th November 2018, 03:15 AM

Interesting conversation!

Here's an overview of how the dietary needs of soldiers were met over the ages. Very focused on the west, but some applicable practices to armies anywhere.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/p...ng-the-troops/

fernando · 6th November 2018, 02:59 PM

Great link, shaide !
... and a critical condition to bear in mind; the number of men to be fed.
If you have a real (huge) army you will hard manage (or even intend) to serve them gourmet dishes as a diet. Besides, i don't think it is easy to cook and serve food to (several) thousands with a set point flavour. Not to think that nourishment Intendents could pocket their share when fixing with suppliers the (mediocre) quality of raw materials. Also cooks could be driven to not through into the pots the required quantity of ingredients;a few barley corns (period measure) less per portion would make them rich in a glimpse. Both these schemes and cooks very ofen being drafted and not complying with the minimum requirements, would make the men have on the table (when there was one) some 'washed out' stuff their superiors would hypocritically call food; Napoleon was only a follower.

Jens Nordlunde · 6th November 2018, 03:52 PM

Yes it is an interesting link Shayde. When I was in the army, a 'century' ago, I remember the C-rations, I dont remember any A or B-rations.
Without knowing it, I would think each Indian soldier, at the time, cooked for himself, or they did it in groups, or their wifes did it.
Must have taken a lot of wood to cook for so many people. Yes there were a lot of woods in India, but in some places there were big deserts - no water, no wood, no foot - no nothing, but a big army and a lot of sand.
If you found a well you could drink the water - and hope it was not poisoned.

5th November 2018, 01:59 PM	#1
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	I don't know Jens but, burning the dead after a battle is not properly a religious ritual, but a need to avoid epidemic situations. If rulers had some common sense, they would (both faiths) think of a practical solution. Maybe burying the dead was not an option to exclude; having so many men at disposal, there would be enough to be selected undertakers. Who knows whether there are period written descriptions on this subject ...

5th November 2018, 04:41 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	While reading Jonathan Scott's book quoting sources wirting about the history, but also about the present time - 15th - 16th century, I have seen mentioned no where, what they did with all the dead people. Anyway we are now quite a bit away from the subject - my fault sorry. Agriculture at the time was not so intensively done as now, so what they could get from each village must have been as a water drop on a hot stone. Their needs must have been brought from far away - corn, foot, hay, water and whatever. A funny thing is, that when reading the book I have only once read about a Sultan keeping a part of the army in reserve should it be needed. I have earlier read that the Mughals did so, but I have never seen it mentioned more than once. There are mentions about who is leading the right wing, the left wing and the centre - but no mentioning about who is leading the reserve. In one of my books I have the battle formation used by the Mughals.

5th November 2018, 05:58 PM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	From what i gather as implicit from reading chronicles, depending on how far or how intense is going to be the battle, the need to prepare things requires corresponding antecipation. We may be talking months... several of them, at times. And if a determined ruler leaves with a constant potential of engaging in war, he will surely keeps his (huge) barns full. Apart from perishable goods, he will amass tons of supplies proportional to his bellicist intentions. Same goes for his arsenal efforts; you know, big battle thoughts, big everything else. I take it that men in charge of army reserves do not have such high rank as those leading battle wings; maybe this is why they are not mentioned. Although men 'doing nothing' are hard to keep with discipline, and their leaders, in a way, must be tough enough to keep them obedient, avoid their desertion and all that. And after all, those men need to be fed as those in action ... although maybe a bit less, as they are not consuming so much energy. I realize that, something else that doesn't come (often ?) narrated in books, are the (staff) managers that rulers must have to handle all these logistics; you know, tons of food ingredients coming and going, improvised kitchens, hundreds (thousands) of recipients, queues for the meal (certainly organized by shifts), altercations among men and ... in the end ... whoo's going to feed the animals.

5th November 2018, 09:21 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Fernando, yes it is true that the preparations took months. Sometimes up to three months. This was not all about foot, but to gather an army took time, as you had to write to all your 'friends' and ask them to send whatever of armed men they had - wait for their answer or their arrival - sometimes without any luck. Part of the army were veterans, but a lot of it did not have a clue about fighting, they turned up to get whatever money they could. What I find frightening is, that the night before a battle, part of the army could either go home or go over to the enemy, which could also happen during a battle - so you could never be sure of how big your army was. Bribes were, of course, part of this, and a number of other things were also used like jealousy between the different parts of, especial the Mughal court, but also at other courts under Mughal control, as at least four groups tried to get control.

6th November 2018, 03:15 AM	#5
shayde78 Member Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 445	Interesting conversation! Here's an overview of how the dietary needs of soldiers were met over the ages. Very focused on the west, but some applicable practices to armies anywhere. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/p...ng-the-troops/

6th November 2018, 02:59 PM	#6
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Great link, shaide ! ... and a critical condition to bear in mind; the number of men to be fed. If you have a real (huge) army you will hard manage (or even intend) to serve them gourmet dishes as a diet. Besides, i don't think it is easy to cook and serve food to (several) thousands with a set point flavour. Not to think that nourishment Intendents could pocket their share when fixing with suppliers the (mediocre) quality of raw materials. Also cooks could be driven to not through into the pots the required quantity of ingredients;a few barley corns (period measure) less per portion would make them rich in a glimpse. Both these schemes and cooks very ofen being drafted and not complying with the minimum requirements, would make the men have on the table (when there was one) some 'washed out' stuff their superiors would hypocritically call food; Napoleon was only a follower.

6th November 2018, 03:52 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Yes it is an interesting link Shayde. When I was in the army, a 'century' ago, I remember the C-rations, I dont remember any A or B-rations. Without knowing it, I would think each Indian soldier, at the time, cooked for himself, or they did it in groups, or their wifes did it. Must have taken a lot of wood to cook for so many people. Yes there were a lot of woods in India, but in some places there were big deserts - no water, no wood, no foot - no nothing, but a big army and a lot of sand. If you found a well you could drink the water - and hope it was not poisoned.