Logistics or Loyalty

[TopHatter]

A friend and I have been having an extremely spirited debate about the limitation of loyalty vs logistics.

For example, at Valley Forge Washington held his army together practically through sheer force of will and the loyalty of his men to him.

However, I am arguing that logistical concerns can and will trump loyalty.
In other words, had the British been able and willing to campaign in the dead of winter, they would have overrun and wiped out Washington's army in short order at Valley Forge, regardless of the loyalty of his men.

Thoughts?

[astralis]

TH,

depends on the length of the conflict. if you can take a more-disciplined, loyal army and shatter the enemy/end the war quickly through sheer force of will, then logistics won't mean too much. the exploits of cortez or pizarro come to mind.

string it out and logistics will prevail. the union beat the confederates because of superior logistics.

[JAD_333]

Your question assumes Washington would have quartered his troops at Valley Forge no matter what the British did. Surely his position was influenced by the fact that he knew the British weren't coming in the winter.

It also assumes ample provisions would not have been forthcoming if the British did mount a winter attack. There were actually ample provisions in and around Philadelphia to keep Washington's troops well supplied. Lack of money to pay for them was the problem. However, the dynamic might have changed if the people of Philadelphia knew the British were coming. Quite possibly patriotic fervor would have overridden commercial considerations.

We'll never know.

[Shek]

Lee's Army of Northern Virginia lost thousands of soldiers through desertion during the winter months of 1864-65 when the Confederacy had trouble providing rations (and it would have been worse had the AoP not allowed 3K head of cattle - it may have been 5K, but I can't remember exactly - to be captured and driven back into ANV lines).

Loyalty varies among individuals, and folks can only stretch their bodies up to a certain point, whether it's a matter of physical exertion, starvation, or simply mental will power.

[zraver]

how many calories in a big fat bar of loyalty? Loyalty to an ideal or the state is the least secure of any form of loyalty because they are abstract ideas. In a nation the size of the US, buddies, family, the local community, and the regional government are all more real.

Troops quartered away from everything but their buddies will probably be loyal longest and until their buddies leave or they starve. troops closer to home, go home.

[Red Seven]

This may be a far cry from Valley Forge, but we tend to underestimate the determination of the human spirit. Research into the effects of strategic bombing campaigns upon morale etc of target populations (London, Berlin, Tokyo, North Vietnam in particular); invariably show that instead of breaking the human spirit have quite the opposite effect. Defiance, the will to resist, patriotism, loyalty and other abstract issues seem to actually "feed" off suffering, deprivation and destruction.

[USSWisconsin]

This may be a far cry from Valley Forge, but we tend to underestimate the determination of the human spirit. Research into the effects of strategic bombing campaigns upon morale etc of target populations (London, Berlin, Tokyo, North Vietnam in particular); invariably show that instead of breaking the human spirit have quite the opposite effect. Defiance, the will to resist, patriotism, loyalty and other abstract issues seem to actually "feed" off suffering, deprivation and destruction.

I strongly agree, mutual suffering can provide unity that is hard to duplicate. The idea of boot camp comes to mind, merging recruits into platoons or crews. Hitler even used the phenomenon to help unify Germany during the Allied bombing in WWII. I even see it in the office, where the threat of layoffs drives people to work around the clock and give unprecidented efforts, at the cost of their health and family life.