[Discuss] Armies and food

[John P. Murphy]

On Jan 14, 2008, at 5:13 PM, Robert Croson, Jr wrote:

> On 14 Jan 2008 at 12:53, Timothy Collett wrote:
>
>> I'm not saying that, in volume or mass, the soldiers necessarily
>> actually eat 5 times what an equivalent number of civilian peasants
>> eat.  But I would say that, given *what* they eat, it is not at all
>> unreasonable to count it as 5 times the amount of nutrition.
>
> Did you even stop to consider the numbers on this, because
> they're just plain ridiculous. But, since you started the discussion
> of nutritional value of the food, let's take it all the way.

Both of you are mixing apples and oranges here.  No, individual  
soldiers are not getting 5 times the calories or value of food.  The  
original statement I made in reply to Tim was,

 > I could easily see 500 active well-paid soldiers eating more than
 > 2000 or so peasants, sure.

And I stand by that, though I could have been more exact.  Note first  
that I stipulated "active" and "well-paid", and did not specify  
individual soldiers but rather a large group.  For one thing, when  
talking about the food consumption of large numbers of troops, it's  
not just the soldiers -- a troop of 500 soldiers will also have  
plenty of pack animals (if not war horses), and a number of  
attendants -- banner-carriers, drummers, messengers, and of course  
the noble's entourage.  (Probably several nobles for that many  
soldiers)  The soldiers themselves will generally be healthy young  
men, and usually the ones who are taller and in better shape than  
their fellows.

Then there are the peasants they're being compared to: many of them  
would be children, women, or elderly.  All of them would be much  
shorter and leaner than the average person today, and need fewer  
calories.  Many of them would be poor, and not getting enough  
calories.  There will be some work animals there, but probably not as  
many per person.

> And just to be complete, this has no bearing on the actual type of
> food that the person eats. It's all based on nutritional value. The
> soldier can get his 3,000 calories of venison, beef, prime grade
> wheat flour, etc., and the peasant can get mealy grain, mouldy
> bread, and a once-a-week bonus of stringy chicken. That doesn't
> matter, since we're talking caloric intake.

We're only talking caloric intake because you interpreted "more food/ 
better nutrition" as "more calories".  Tim is taking it in a broader  
sense: more, better, and more nutritious food.  This is pretty  
consistent with the way BM itself treats food, treating everything as  
measurable in "bushels" (or similar units, I forget what it is  
exactly), and not distinguishing by type or quality.  While (for  
another example) a noble may not consume one bushel of food per meal,  
the meat, spices, and cheese on his plate may equate to a full bushel  
of grain in terms of price and nutritional quality.

Given all these things together, I think it's entirely reasonable for  
BM soldiers (particularly high-earning soldiers) to consume 4-5 times  
more food than an equivalent number of the normal regional  
population.  In fact, I think the nobles ought to consume even more  
-- that'll be a nice little surprise to those realms where half their  
nobles sit in the capital all day.

John