Martin van Creveld's Supply War and its Place in Modern Historiography: A Critical Analysis

Introduction

Martin van Creveld's 1977 book Supply War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton has been a seminal work in the field of logistics history, garnering significant attention and establishing Creveld as a prominent military historian. The book provides a comprehensive overview of the evolution of military supply from the early modern period to World War II, highlighting the critical role of logistics in shaping the course of warfare.

Despite its contributions, Supply War has also been subject to substantial criticism in recent years. Numerous scholars have identified errors, oversimplifications, and questionable interpretations in Creveld's work, raising concerns about its overall reliability and validity. This essay will delve into the key criticisms of Supply War, examining the specific points of contention and their implications for understanding military logistics history.

*Major Criticisms of Supply War

1. Linear Progressionist View of Supply Development: Creveld's narrative of supply development presents a linear progression from rudimentary systems to increasingly sophisticated ones. This view has been challenged by critics who argue that supply systems have evolved in a more complex and nuanced manner, influenced by a variety of factors beyond technological advancements.

2. Disregard for Pre-planning in Supply: Creveld asserts that pre-planning of supply is often ineffective and that armies should adapt to changing circumstances. While flexibility is crucial, critics point out that pre-planning remains essential for large-scale operations, particularly in modern warfare.

3. Oversimplification of Local Procurement: Creveld's discussion of local procurement lacks a comprehensive understanding of its diverse methods and complexities. Critics emphasize that local procurement encompasses a range of strategies, from foraging to requisition, and that its effectiveness varies depending on the context.

4. Underestimation of Land Transport Capabilities: Creveld underestimates the capabilities of land transport in the early modern period, suggesting that armies relied heavily on plunder. Critics argue that land transport played a more significant role, particularly for larger armies and over longer distances.

5. Disregard for Changes in Soldier Quality: Creveld overlooks the qualitative changes in soldiers during the revolutionary period, which impacted mobility and supply requirements. Critics highlight that these changes, such as increased firepower and tactical flexibility, necessitated new logistical approaches.

Schrader's Critique and Its Significance

Charles R. Schrader, a prominent US Army logistics expert, has been particularly critical of Supply War. In his book reviews and research, Schrader has exposed numerous factual errors, flawed arguments, and misleading conclusions in Creveld's work. Schrader's critique underscores the need for careful evaluation of Supply War's claims and a reliance on more reliable sources for accurate historical insights.

Conclusion: Supply War's Position in Modern Historiography

Supply War has undoubtedly contributed to the awareness of logistics as a crucial aspect of warfare. However, the substantial criticisms of its content and methodology raise concerns about its uncritical acceptance as a definitive source. Historians and researchers should exercise caution when engaging with Supply War, recognizing its limitations and seeking out more rigorous and nuanced studies of military logistics history.

Recommendations for Further Research

• Consult specialized works on logistics history by experts in specific periods or regions.

• Examine primary sources, such as military records and diaries, to gain a deeper understanding of historical logistics practices.

• Consider the social, economic, and technological factors that influenced logistics systems in different contexts.

• Analyze the interplay between logistics and military strategy and tactics to gain a holistic view of warfare.

By adopting a critical and multifaceted approach to logistics history, researchers can move beyond the limitations of Supply War and contribute to a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of this vital aspect of military affairs.