Fantasy Travel Question

[Zane_Marlowe]

So I"m reading the Fantasy Hero travel table on page 333, and it's telling me that riding a mount is no faster than walking on foot. Travel values for walking and running (slow, and fast) are equal between the two modes. Now aside from the clear distinction in carrying capacity, doesn't it seem just obvious that horses will take you farther faster than if you're just on foot? Is there a rationale here I"m not getting?

[Lightning91]

I don't understand....

In my FH on p.333, the riding horse is 0.5 KPH faster on easy and typical ground (note: walking on typical ground is 4.5 according to the errata, vice 5.5).

The two values are the same on rough ground, and you can't ride on very rough ground.

This seems appropriate to me.:)

[EvilDrPuma]

Whose END would you rather burn all day: the horse's, or your own? I promise, if there are Long Term END rules on the table, you're going to go for the horse, which will typically have more END and more REC than a Heroic character.

[Kristopher]

I've seen several references stating that a messenger on foot will cover 20 to 25 miles a day, while a messenger on horseback will cover 40 to 50 miles per day.

[Spence]

I've seen several references stating that a messenger on foot will cover 20 to 25 miles a day, while a messenger on horseback will cover 40 to 50 miles per day.

Can cover.

If you don't want to founder the horse you won't really make too much more distance in a day, though riding will allow yu to outdistance those on foot since you can "rest" the horse a little by dismounting and walking. The main advantage to cavalry as a scouting force was they were great sprinters compared to men on foot, and the ride/walk/ride allowed more sustained travel giving more distance.

In order to get the 40 to 50 miles a day, you either trailed a string of remounts and released each horse as it became blown carrying you, or you used remounts from pre-established outposts, post houses or pony-express stations for example.

While an unencumbered horse will easily outrun or outwalk a man, once you pile on 300-500 pounds of rider, tack and gear, it will lose a lot of its natural advantage, and wear down fairly quickly if you insist on pushing the pace.

[Curufea]

I don't know how well researched the travel stats are in the rulebook. So I recommend doing your own reference work on this.

[Spence]

I don't know how well researched the travel stats are in the rulebook. So I recommend doing your own reference work on this.

Sound advice.

I took a look at the chart to refresh myself. It only has average KPH for casual travel which isn't too much different for walking. It has been a while since I did any serious riding, but when I was younger, especially when I was still at home and in school, my cousins and I spent our summers riding out to camp, fish and so on for days at a time. There wasn't much difference in "how fast", but there was a major difference in how much we could carry and how long we could do it. We could go further in a day mostly because we completely stopped to rest far less frequently, and for less time per stop till we made it to our camp site.

Of course we were never in a hurry either.

[Midas]

So I"m reading the Fantasy Hero travel table on page 333, and it's telling me that riding a mount is no faster than walking on foot. Travel values for walking and running (slow, and fast) are equal between the two modes. Now aside from the clear distinction in carrying capacity, doesn't it seem just obvious that horses will take you farther faster than if you're just on foot? Is there a rationale here I"m not getting?

As I understand it, a marching horse can't forage, so you either have to carry grain in saddle bags (one day's worth space wise?), depend on a packhorse/mule/ox, or travel one day and feed, water, and rest the horse the next.

So yeah, as long as you can trade horses, you can go faster, but if you are travelling for distance, you won't make much more time.

Just my guess,
Midas

[Markdoc]

Again, while I'm a bit dubious on the actual distances cited, I'll chime in with the rest - while horses can outpace men on foot in the short term, when it comes to sustained day to day travel, historically it seems they are not a great deal faster in good going and actually slower in rough going.

The exceptions to this are 1) if you are prepared to blow out your horse with a couple of days rough travel or 2) you have a string of horses, so each one can be lightly loaded and you can switch mounts - in which case you should be able to roughly double what a man on foot can do.

The biggest determinant of travel speed is actually food. A person on foot carrying his stuff, who can expect to have acomodation and food provided (ie: travelling along a road with plenty of inns) will do double or triple the distance per day of a person who has to forage and find a place to sleep, all things considered - if foraging is poor, probably more.

cheers, Mark

[Curufea]

It should be noted though that official messengers did (in some cultures) have way stations where they could change horses.

[Zane_Marlowe]

Wow! You guys are on top of this one! So to gather the threads together, the rationale seems to be something like: "you'll spend more time traveling, and spend more endurance (which the horse has in abundance) traveling faster on a mount than you would on foot; where horses are faster is just in the short periods of time, e.g., in combat." This seems perfectly legitimate given the reasons discussed so far.

I actually just looked up the Horse's running speed and endurance in the bestiary. They have a 40 END and a total running speed of 13", so what I may do is just rewrite the table (which is listed an optional alternative to calculating all the distances as they scale up) and scale accordingly. I'll post here again when I've got it done.

Thanks for the feedback!

[stewart]

in my FH game, i simply worked it this way:

man (walking or running) and horse (walking): 20 ish miles per day.

a horse running can go 40 ish in one day, but it is exhusted by the end of it.

a char can push a horse to go 40 miles for 2 days (which gives the character teh ability to cover 80 miles in two days when walking it would take 4) but this destroys the poor horse (it goes lame after).

i don't know how exactly accurate that is, but it is an easy mechanic for everyone to remember. you have your normal miles per day (20), which you can double once (to 40) but then your horse NEEDS to recover, and you can double it again (for 80) but you loose your horse.

and of course, you make the characters unburden their horse the faster they want to travel.

: )

[Zane_Marlowe]

Well, considerations about encumbrance are already built into the travel table, and are probably fine as built, but the question I had arose from what happens when an unencumbered rider on an otherwise unencumbered riding horse tries to get an average speed out of that horse in the course of a single traveling day. Given their naturally different speeds, I thought the table wasn't quite right, and am now working on a revision that seems reasonable given those differences.

So now I've been playing around with these speeds in Excel, and I'm finding that for an 8 hour travel day at conventional combat speeds (SPD + Running) you get the following: human = 35.71 miles, horse = 116.06 miles. That seems as wildly unrealistic as the text suggests, so assuming that average speed is less than combat speed, I tinker to get the following: human adjusted movement 4" = 23.81 miles, horse adjusted movement 7" = 62.50 miles.

Does 20-25 miles per day for humans and 50-60 miles per day for horses in relatively normal travel conditions sound unreasonable? Seems roughly okay to me, but I'm curious to know what further discussion reveals.

[keithcurtis]

Two minutes of research shows that the suggestions in FH are not too bad. The definitive work that most authors seem to quote is "Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army."
I would guess that 20 miles a day is sustained travel with a fully packed traveling horse. For shorter distances, and less heavily encumbered, you could travel much farther.

Keith "On a road, take a bicycle" Curtis

[Midas]

For shorter distances...you could travel much farther.

Y'know, in context that honestly makes sense. :eg:
Midas

[Manic Typist]

Mounted- you'll travel further in a day, not faster. You need to rest less often, for less time, and can carry more gear. Additionally, some rivers that might prove troublesome for a person on foot can easily be crossed by a horse (of course others are still too deep/fast, etc).

Not to mention, if things get really rough, you can eat the horses.

[Midas]

Does 20-25 miles per day for humans and 50-60 miles per day for horses in relatively normal travel conditions sound unreasonable? Seems roughly okay to me, but I'm curious to know what further discussion reveals.

Well, If I recall my early California history correctly, the reason the Missions were spaced 30 miles apart was because a travelling friar -presumably on foot, with a pack burro- could leave one mission in the morning and arrive at the next by that evening. So yeah, that sounds about right.

You also need to figure in size of the party. The larger the group the more time it takes for something to get done. For a modern example, one car can travel 100 mph down a freeway. One million cars can do about ten mph, if they are lucky. :idjit:

Midas

[Curufea]

The definitive work that most authors seem to quote is "Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army."


I wish they wouldn't - the horses were a different breed, armies travel at slower rates and carry more, the terrain in the Mediterranean area is different from western Europe. There are other sources and time periods.
For example for the rpg I recently wrote I discovered a nice work on the economics of 18th century France - travel from Paris to Lyon took about 5 days in a dilligence (one of the more comfortable stage coaches). It travels around 2 leagues per hour (about 6mph or so). Whereas postal riders travel on horse 5-6 mph and generally cover 50-60 miles per day during that period.
- from "Economic and Social conditions in France during the Eighteenth Century by Hennri Sée translated by Edwin H. Zedel, 1927" (http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/see/18thCentury.pdf )

[Spence]

Does 20-25 miles per day for humans and 50-60 miles per day for horses in relatively normal travel conditions sound unreasonable? Seems roughly okay to me, but I'm curious to know what further discussion reveals.

If the party consists of one horse per member, then I would shorten the mounted distance considerably.

As has been mentioned, messenger/couriers managed 40-50 a day, but they used remounts. Unless the a column was pushing their mounts and accepting the loss of horses, you really won’t be that much faster than 30-35 a day. And if you force march a horse at a high pace for a complete day you will just founder it.

If I am mounted with tack and gear, I can ride for a period, say an hour, I then dismount and we walk leading the horse for 30 minutes. Then we stop and both rest, cool down a bit more and water 30 minutes. Repeat. Remember the more the horse carries the slower the pace and the longer the rest and we are usually talking several hundred pounds of armor, weapons and other assorted stuff, not to mention the riders 200-250(?) pounds. Plus a bit of cool down is very important to prevent injury to the horse, which is why you walk prior to rest and are careful before watering. If an overheated horse drinks too soon or too quickly there can be problems. If I am in a hurry I can extend it to 1 hour riding, 1 hour leading and 30 minute rest.

If I am on foot with pack and gear. I march for an hour and rest 30 minutes. In a hurry I march 30 minutes, take a 5 minute break, march for 30, take five and then after 2 hours rest for 30.

In a 12 hour period this would give the mounted traveler somewhere around 9 hours of march to 3 hours rest (1hr ride, 30min walk, 30 min rest, 1hr ride, 30min walk, 30 min rest, 1hr ride, 30min walk, 30 min rest, 1hr ride, 30min walk, 30 min rest, 1hr ride, 30min walk, 30 min rest, 1hr ride, 30min walk, 30 min rest).

In the same period a man on foot would get 8 hours march with 4 resting. (march 1hr, rest 30min, march 1hr, rest 30min, march 1hr, rest 30min, march 1hr, rest 30min, march 1hr, rest 30min, march 1hr, rest 30min, march 1hr, rest 30min, march 1hr, rest 30min).

Well trained troops can increase the pace considerably for short periods. But not sustained if they want to be any good at the other end.

One of the most common misconceptions is that having a horse will automatically allow you to double or better travel speed/distance. This can be true with preparation, post stations or remount strings. But one mount per member with no replacements, no. You will get there faster no doubt, and the longer the distance the greater the lead. You will also get there much more rested. But you won't double the distance or speed for more than short "bursts". There was a reason horses were abandoned overnight once a reliable car/truck hit the world. Horses require a LOT of upkeep and care.


The ratio I would use for common travel is 20-25 for walking, up to 30-35 for mounted.

[Spence]

I wish they wouldn't - the horses were a different breed, armies travel at slower rates and carry more, the terrain in the Mediterranean area is different from western Europe. There are other sources and time periods.
For example for the rpg I recently wrote I discovered a nice work on the economics of 18th century France - travel from Paris to Lyon took about 5 days in a dilligence (one of the more comfortable stage coaches). It travels around 2 leagues per hour (about 6mph or so). Whereas postal riders travel on horse 5-6 mph and generally cover 50-60 miles per day during that period.
- from "Economic and Social conditions in France during the Eighteenth Century by Hennri Sée translated by Edwin H. Zedel, 1927" (http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/see/18thCentury.pdf )

Yes, exactly. But one thing to remember is Stage lines and postal riders never covered the entire route using the same coach team or mount. They switched out the horses. For a private party they usually don't have access to remounts every few miles. If they try to maintain such a pace with a single team/mount they will quickly drive their horses into the ground.

[Curufea]

Yes, exactly. But one thing to remember is Stage lines and postal riders never covered the entire route using the same coach team or mount. They switched out the horses. For a private party they usually don't have access to remounts every few miles. If they try to maintain such a pace with a single team/mount they will quickly drive their horses into the ground.

Yes - it does seem to be a stable of the fantasy genre that adventurers never use public transport :)

[Blue Jogger]

The ratio I would use for common travel is 20-25 for walking, up to 30-35 for mounted.

For a completely realistic horse, I would agree with Spence and others, that a horse doesn't go much further than a person can. Carry more gear, allows the rider not to get tired, etc, but not further.

For a magical horse (or a horse that can receive magical assistance), then 2 or 2.5 times isn't unrealistic. Or you don't give a darn about the horse... :eek:

Note that any magical traveling spell will leave horses (even magical ones) in the dust.

[Markdoc]

Yes - it does seem to be a stable of the fantasy genre that adventurers never use public transport :)

Well, buses don't run to most places that adventurers go to. When was the last time you saw a number 95 to the Lair of the Lich-king? :D

cheers, Mark

[Basil]

Well, buses don't run to most places that adventurers go to. When was the last time you saw a number 95 to the Lair of the Lich-king? :D

cheers, Mark

Well, I could make a joke about the bus lines around Bill Gates's house...

[BrilliantHelm]

I don't understand....

In my FH on p.333, the riding horse is 0.5 KPH faster on easy and typical ground (note: walking on typical ground is 4.5 according to the errata, vice 5.5).

The two values are the same on rough ground, and you can't ride on very rough ground.

This seems appropriate to me.:)

Lightning is correct. I have been around horses and ridden horses for decades. When it comes to rocky ground, I get off and lead them so they won't go lame.

[Spence]

Lightning is correct. I have been around horses and ridden horses for decades. When it comes to rocky ground, I get off and lead them so they won't go lame.


Yes, and in some areas that are generally not bad to walk across I would avoid. Especially if there might be holes they might put a leg into. whne I was younger and we rode a lot, we seemed to lead as much as ride.

[LordGhee]

Lord Ghee and Mardok debusess into combat.

not very heroic sounding.

:)

Lord Ghee

[Kristopher]

Can cover.

If you don't want to founder the horse you won't really make too much more distance in a day, though riding will allow yu to outdistance those on foot since you can "rest" the horse a little by dismounting and walking. The main advantage to cavalry as a scouting force was they were great sprinters compared to men on foot, and the ride/walk/ride allowed more sustained travel giving more distance.

In order to get the 40 to 50 miles a day, you either trailed a string of remounts and released each horse as it became blown carrying you, or you used remounts from pre-established outposts, post houses or pony-express stations for example.

While an unencumbered horse will easily outrun or outwalk a man, once you pile on 300-500 pounds of rider, tack and gear, it will lose a lot of its natural advantage, and wear down fairly quickly if you insist on pushing the pace.

http://www.geocities.com/davidbofinger/travel.htm

Where he states that with staged horses, 100 miles a day was possible, and that the "emergency rate of travel" on horseback would be about 15 mph. To get 40 miles out of a 10-hour day only requires the horse to travel at 4 mph, and an 8-hour day only requires 5 mph.

Another source, for which I have no link, is a friend of mine who grew up on a horse farm, and said that 30-40 miles in a day was a good limit.

To me, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable.

[Markdoc]

http://www.geocities.com/davidbofinger/travel.htm

Where he states that with staged horses, 100 miles a day was possible, and that the "emergency rate of travel" on horseback would be about 15 mph.

Which is reasonable, but that 100 miles a day is towards the upper limit for a good rider, changing horses every hour or so, and carrying nothing but the bare necessities. The pony express, known for the toughness of its riders and the quality of its horses, considered 75 miles about the upper limit for a rider, though they changed horses every 10 miles or so (their record is in fact about 100 miles, though the post as a whole travelled more than 200 miles a day, carried by multiple riders over 24 hours). So it's certainly possible, but no way could it be considered "normal travel".


To get 40 miles out of a 10-hour day only requires the horse to travel at 4 mph, and an 8-hour day only requires 5 mph.

Which is true, but remember that those are *sustained* rates of travel. If you stop for 10 minutes to check a strap or a horse's hoof and take a whiz, you need to kick the rate up significantly to sustain that level in the next hour, or travel longer. Same if you get off to lead the horse down a difficult slope, or slow to check the trees ahead for an ambush. 4 MpH is actually a pretty good sustained speed under real life conditions - and even for an experienced rider 10 hours in the saddle is nothing to sneer about. You certainly wouldn't do it on a regular basis


Another source, for which I have no link, is a friend of mine who grew up on a horse farm, and said that 30-40 miles in a day was a good limit.

To me, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable.

I suspect, since your friend's estimate is about half what the pony express considered the maximum for an experienced rider with several changes of top quality horses, that he is over-estimating. People to tend to do that when estimating how far they have travelled. It's certainly not impossible, but 40 miles by horseback is a hard, hard haul - it's about double what people managed historically and would almost certainly blow out your horse.

cheers, Mark

[Captain Obvious]

The Mongols moved 80 or 100 miles in a day. I'm certain they were changing horses to do that, but the remounts were moving right along with them as they went, so they weren't 100% rested when the change came. They had exceptionally tough horses too. Not as strong as European horses, and not as fast as Arabian ones, but able to slog it out over distances, and on coarser fare.

[Markdoc]

The Mongols moved 80 or 100 miles in a day. I'm certain they were changing horses to do that, but the remounts were moving right along with them as they went, so they weren't 100% rested when the change came. They had exceptionally tough horses too. Not as strong as European horses, and not as fast as Arabian ones, but able to slog it out over distances, and on coarser fare.

Cite?

John Masson Smith, Jr. of the University of California, Berkeley is an expert on steppe cultures and the Mongols in particular - he estimates their movement at 20 miles a day (which, you must remember for the time was considered impressive: the polish army that opposed them had a top speed of about 8 miles a day). Plano Carpini and Rubruck's diary estimates the same. Interestingly the yam - the mongol's military road along the old silk road had stations about 20 miles apart, which was considered one day's march.

Where we have accurate dates to work with, (as for example the mongol invasion of Syria/Palestine) we know that Hulegu's horde - which was marching down the trade road to meet the mamluks - moved more than 500 miles in 5 weeks - a touch less than 15 miles a day.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0073-0548(198412)44%3A2%3C307%3AAJMSOM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C

It's important to distinguish between what was possible at the extreme limit and what people could regularly do.

Henry the V's army, which was mostly mounted at the time, managed a forced march of around 50 miles in one day and kept that pace up for several days, when trying to escape the french. But they lost most of their horses, rendered the rest unfit for battle, and lost quite a few men and most of their supplies in the process. After 4 days they were forced to halt and give battle because they simply couldn't go any further.

So I don't doubt that the mangudai could cover up to 100 miles in one day, with a string of horses. They might have even been able to keep it up for a few days. Since historically, however, mongol armies moved at nothing like that speed, I doubt very much they could keep it up for long.

cheers, Mark

[Zane_Marlowe]

I'm quite into the military history geekery (it is a noble geekery at that), but there's a problem with the "horses get exhausted too" reasoning that's comprised the last few posts. All the foregoing arguments seem to be of this sort: "well yes, horses are faster, but load one up and he won't get much further in a day of travel than you'd get." I deny none of the historical facts you mention, but I'd also draw attention to the point that according to the FH travel table, the travel rates for horse and human are equal when both are unencumbered.

Consider the following thought experiment. An unencumbered rider travels 5.5kph according to the table. When that same rider mounts a horse, the horse is now encumbered (probably in the 11-25% range), and therefore goes about 3.5 kph, so that it is actually slower for the rider to use a mount than it is for the rider to travel on foot.

My original question wasn't so much about the realities of horse travel, but about an inconsistency in the published table.

Having said that, I'd like to register another note on the historical matters regarding armies and logistics. As far as I know, none of these armies in question, from Alexander to Henry, was composed of entirely mounted troops as far as I know, and even if there were, there are a lot of contingencies to eliminate before one could say that the most restrictive limit on daily travel was the speed the horses could manage consistently without being immobilized by exhaustion. The only exception to this that I could see might be the Mongols, but I won't say more about them since I've not studied their logistics beyond the fact that they were a mainly mounted army.

[Markdoc]

Consider the following thought experiment. An unencumbered rider travels 5.5kph according to the table. When that same rider mounts a horse, the horse is now encumbered (probably in the 11-25% range), and therefore goes about 3.5 kph, so that it is actually slower for the rider to use a mount than it is for the rider to travel on foot.

It's a good point, but you don't start to lose speed until you reach 25% encumbrance which for an average riding horse (STR 25) is 200 kilos. That's a rider, full armour, weapons and a fair bit of gear. If the poor old horse was carrying that, it probably *would* be slower than an unencumbered human.

To turn it around, a horse carrying a fully-armoured rider plus light gear would be in the 11-25% category and suffer no penalties to its movement. The same armoured man on foot, would be in the either 25+% or 50+% encumbrance category and therefore significantly slower.

It makes a certain amount of sense.


My original question wasn't so much about the realities of horse travel, but about an inconsistency in the published table.

Yes, well, can't help you there - many of the tables in FH are a bit squiff.


Having said that, I'd like to register another note on the historical matters regarding armies and logistics. As far as I know, none of these armies in question, from Alexander to Henry, was composed of entirely mounted troops as far as I know, and even if there were, there are a lot of contingencies to eliminate before one could say that the most restrictive limit on daily travel was the speed the horses could manage consistently without being immobilized by exhaustion. The only exception to this that I could see might be the Mongols, but I won't say more about them since I've not studied their logistics beyond the fact that they were a mainly mounted army.

Actually, even the Mongols rarely used armies exclusively of cavalry (although as far as we can tell the army that faced the mamaluks at Ain Jalut, which I cited *was* - it was only a part of the whole Mongol army.) The Seljuk forces that swept into Anatolia in the 11th century, were, however composed entirely of cavalry, the byzantine chroniclers of the time stating as much and adding that they were completely helpless on foot. Nonetheless, they proved to be slower and less maneuverable than the byzantine armies of the time which contained a large proportion of foot. The difference of course was that the Byzantines were well organised and had a commissariat.

Actual mounted movement speed is clearly not the defining feature for how fast an army moves (it moves at the speed of the slowest units anyway) - and I agree that doesn't have too much to do with the speed of a small group of individuals.

cheers, Mark

[Captain Obvious]

Cite?


Well, I've heard this in many places before, so these are not my primary sources...just the ones I can find quickly online.

http://militaryhistorypodcast.blogspot.com/2006/01/mongolian-fighting-tactics.html

http://florilegium.org/files/TRAVEL/On-the-Road-art.html

http://www.silk-road.com/newsletter/vol3num2/6_blair.php

(search for "miles" to get to the good parts quickly)

The last link mentions a post system that could cover as much as 250 miles in a day. Not typical of an army or the typical traveler, but shows the possibilities. The first link says "They carried their houses with them, drank their own horse's blood to stay alive, and could travel up to 100 miles per day" which implies a faster rate than was likely the average...when moving that fast, they didn't carry their houses or anything else...hence the blood drinking. I've been led to believe that this was a sustainable pace for them, although not the standard rate of travel.

I know that I have walked 10 miles in just a couple of hours, carrying 50 lbs to boot. It's pretty easy to imagine getting significantly further if there's a good reason behind it.

Physical limitations on speed of travel really aren't what slows down armies anyway. It's the roads. There's only so much room on the road, and it takes time to get the whole shebang started. Then the guys out front have to stop early enough that the guys in back can get set up for the night while there's still some night to get set up for. As far as the Mongols were concerned, this was rarely a limiting factor. Traveling across the plains, an army doesn't have to line up in columns...they can spread out over a wider front, and start and stop at more or less the same time.

[Kristopher]

I've heard a lot of references to the Roman military, mainly on foot, managing 20 miles a day on the march, even with their habit of setting up highly organized and somewhat fortified camps at the end of each day's march.

[Kristopher]

Well, I've heard this in many places before, so these are not my primary sources...just the ones I can find quickly online.

http://militaryhistorypodcast.blogspot.com/2006/01/mongolian-fighting-tactics.html

http://florilegium.org/files/TRAVEL/On-the-Road-art.html

http://www.silk-road.com/newsletter/vol3num2/6_blair.php

(search for "miles" to get to the good parts quickly)

The last link mentions a post system that could cover as much as 250 miles in a day. Not typical of an army or the typical traveler, but shows the possibilities. The first link says "They carried their houses with them, drank their own horse's blood to stay alive, and could travel up to 100 miles per day" which implies a faster rate than was likely the average...when moving that fast, they didn't carry their houses or anything else...hence the blood drinking. I've been led to believe that this was a sustainable pace for them, although not the standard rate of travel.

I know that I have walked 10 miles in just a couple of hours, carrying 50 lbs to boot. It's pretty easy to imagine getting significantly further if there's a good reason behind it.

Physical limitations on speed of travel really aren't what slows down armies anyway. It's the roads. There's only so much room on the road, and it takes time to get the whole shebang started. Then the guys out front have to stop early enough that the guys in back can get set up for the night while there's still some night to get set up for. As far as the Mongols were concerned, this was rarely a limiting factor. Traveling across the plains, an army doesn't have to line up in columns...they can spread out over a wider front, and start and stop at more or less the same time.

I've walked 10 miles in a couple of hours, in a blizzard (no joke). It's not hard for me to believe that a professional messenger could do 20 miles in clear weather, given all day to do it.

[Captain Obvious]

I've heard a lot of references to the Roman military, mainly on foot, managing 20 miles a day on the march, even with their habit of setting up highly organized and somewhat fortified camps at the end of each day's march.

Twenty miles in a day has been a long-standing standard for infantry movement. The amount of gear a soldier has been expected to carry hasn't changed much in the last couple thousand years either.

Pretty interesting to me.

[LordGhee]

Most infantry movement is base on a 6 hour march day, 5 miles an hour is a good clip (not a great) over flat ground. there are many example of troops on roads making 50 miles in one long day. (Jackson's troops in the sharpberg campain) the trick is keeping fed and water. families in coverd wagons over trails in 1840's going to Oregeon mad 10 miles an hour with animals. Some day's where ten hours some less.

A hard pace is 8 miles an hour- good ground roads ect.

Eco racers over marked trails and with maps make 10 plus an hour.

More on this

[Zane_Marlowe]

Couple quick points.

1. Lord Ghee, I wasn't sure if you were referencing 5mph in relation to my last post above, but the number there was in kph. If unrelated, please disregard.

2. Markdoc, the table has 11-24% as encumbrance (~88kg/193lbs) that results in a -2kph penalty, so I can't see a horse with a rider on it being unencumbered if you include just the rider's weight and the tack. If that's so, then traveling on foot is actually faster than traveling on horse, which just seems odd to me, and I'm beginning to wonder if the encumbrance modifiers are not meant to apply to mounts.

Interestingly, I also notice that it's -4kph for 25-49%, and 1/2 movement rate for 50-74%, but if you're encumbered in the 25-49% range, you've already lost more than 1/2 your movement if you're using any of the movements modes on table.

[Markdoc]

The last link mentions a post system that could cover as much as 250 miles in a day. Not typical of an army or the typical traveler, but shows the possibilities.

Sure - we've already discussed post systems and several of them claimed speeds in excess of 200 miles a day - using multiple riders and dozens of horses and riding through the night. I don't think anyone seriously doubts that number.


The first link says "They carried their houses with them, drank their own horse's blood to stay alive, and could travel up to 100 miles per day" which implies a faster rate than was likely the average...when moving that fast, they didn't carry their houses or anything else...hence the blood drinking. I've been led to believe that this was a sustainable pace for them, although not the standard rate of travel.

We've mentioned this as well (see my post just previous) - several sources mention that the light cavalry (who were unarmoured) could cover up to 100 mile sin a day - for short periods of time. If you are bleeding your horses for blood, to keep the rider alive, you're obviously pushing the bleeding edge (pun intended) - the Masai, who also bleed their cattle, do it no more than once a month, except under emergency conditions. And cattle are both a lot bigger than a mongol pony and not being flogged over a 100 miles a day. So yeah, with multiple horses, maybe an unemcumbered man could do 100 miles over good terrain. If he's (an they) are as tough as iron, he might be able to keep it up for a few days. But not more.


I know that I have walked 10 miles in just a couple of hours, carrying 50 lbs to boot. It's pretty easy to imagine getting significantly further if there's a good reason behind it.

Sure, so have I - I've done a *lot* of hiking under all kinds of conditions, over all kinds of terrain. And I know the first couple of hours is OK, the next couple start to get hard, the next two you start to stumble, the next two all you want to do is fall down and the next two even strong, fit men *do* fall down. Speed decreases rapidly, the more time you move.


Physical limitations on speed of travel really aren't what slows down armies anyway. It's the roads. There's only so much room on the road, and it takes time to get the whole shebang started. Then the guys out front have to stop early enough that the guys in back can get set up for the night while there's still some night to get set up for. As far as the Mongols were concerned, this was rarely a limiting factor. Traveling across the plains, an army doesn't have to line up in columns...they can spread out over a wider front, and start and stop at more or less the same time.

All true, but 10,000 guys can neither carry enough food to cross the steppes on horseback nor forage. Open ground or not, they move at the speed of their food train: which is why, historically it took them months to reach Europe from the eastern Steppe (and two years gathering supplies in preparation), not the couple of weeks it would have taken had they moved at the 50 or 100 miles a day discussed here.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

2. Markdoc, the table has 11-24% as encumbrance (~88kg/193lbs) that results in a -2kph penalty, so I can't see a horse with a rider on it being unencumbered if you include just the rider's weight and the tack. If that's so, then traveling on foot is actually faster than traveling on horse, which just seems odd to me, and I'm beginning to wonder if the encumbrance modifiers are not meant to apply to mounts.

Oh - OK, I was looking at the wrong table - I simply looked at the standard encmbrance table to see when movement penalties kick in - and there, that's at the next level up.

As I commented, many of the tables in FH are a bit suspect: if I were you, I'd simply redo them. One simple suggestion would be to kick the suggested movement penalties up one category so that they matched the movement penalties in the standard encumbrance table. Without much baggage a horse and rider should not be a great deal faster than a man on foot (at least for sustained travel), but in reasonable going they certainly should NOT be slower.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

A hard pace is 8 miles an hour- good ground roads ect.

Damn straight, it's a hard pace: anyone who can walk 8 miles an hour should be competing professionally, because they'd easily blow past all world records. Here's the actual numbers:

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/records/gender=W/allrecords/discipline=10KW/index.html

The world record is 6.2 miles in 42 minutes - for an average speed of 6.8 miles an hour. That's the world's fastest walker on a perfect surface, carrying nothing but ultra-thin clothing.

Of course, no human can *walk* 8 miles an hour - that's a fairly fast jog. People do go faster than that of course - world-class runners can manage better speeds than that even over a full marathon. but now you are talking about running - and not carrying anything.

As I said, people consistently overestimate the distance it's possible to cover on foot (or byhorse or even by car, for that matter). For all those "Of course you could walk 50 miles in a day" posts I'd merely point out the world record for long distance running is 62 miles in 6 and a quarter hours or about 10 MPH

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/records/gender=M/allrecords/discipline=100K/index.html

That's the world's fastest human over long distances, after years of training, in perfect conditions, carrying nothing and getting carefully-tailored food and water provided to him at regular intervals. And he sometimes has to be carried away in a stretcher afterwards....

Now, there *are* records of people on foot, carrying equipment doing those kinds of distances, running for a half hour, walking for a half hour, etc. But those records all emphasise the suffering involved - they also record strong men dying from the exertion of forced marches, so it's not something one does casually. It's most certainly not something anyone does on a regular basis.

As a good rule of thumb, a fit, healthy human, not carrying too much gear, can manage about 5 KPH or about 3 miles an hour on reasonable ground. 4 miles per hour is a brisk walk and 6 MPH is a steady jog. Humans pretty much can't go much faster than that with any sort of load over long distances unless they are in really, really great shape. It's important to remember that carrying much weight really degrades your speed very quickly.

To put that in perspective, for a horse, a walk is considered 3-4 MPH (about the same as a human) a trot is roughly 8-10 MPH (equivalent to a running human), a canter is 10-17 MPH (this is reaching or surpassing the peak of human running speeds, but a horse can keep it up for an hour or more with a rider: this is the speed of all those post-riders we talked about) and a gallop is generally reckoned at 20-30 MPH - although the fastest thoroughbreds have been clocked in excess of 50 MPH (though like a human sprinting, they can't maintain that for any period of time).

cheers, Mark

[Captain Obvious]

Another interesting travel tidbit I've read. In the American Colonies, when horses were still quite rare, it wasn't uncommon for two people traveling together to share a horse. Rather than both riding it at once and tiring it out, one would ride ahead a ways (couple miles probably) and then tie the horse up near some forage. He would walk on, letting the horse rest until the other guy reached the horse. The second guy would then ride on until he passed the first guy by a couple miles, tie up the horse, and repeat the process. It was a little faster than just walking, and not as tiring.

[Markdoc]

Another interesting travel tidbit I've read. In the American Colonies, when horses were still quite rare, it wasn't uncommon for two people traveling together to share a horse. Rather than both riding it at once and tiring it out, one would ride ahead a ways (couple miles probably) and then tie the horse up near some forage. He would walk on, letting the horse rest until the other guy reached the horse. The second guy would then ride on until he passed the first guy by a couple miles, tie up the horse, and repeat the process. It was a little faster than just walking, and not as tiring.

Until of course ... "Dude, where's my horse?" :D

cheers, Mark

[Captain Obvious]

Until of course ... "Dude, where's my horse?" :D

cheers, Mark

Heh heh...yeah. There was an assumption that no one else traveling along would take the horse. Probably not that much travel going on, and horse thievery was a hanging offense for a long time.

A certain amount of trust, too, that the guy you're traveling with won't just decide to ride the last ten miles himself...

[LordGhee]

Cool find

10,000 march rates and hoplite pay ect

http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H310/handouts/Military_d.htm

just found it still exploring it

Ghee

[LordGhee]

this http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-1/711apxhf.htm#dismount

[LordGhee]

and The German army WWII

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-1/711apxhf.htm#dismount

[Markdoc]

Cool find

10,000 march rates and hoplite pay ect

http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H310/handouts/Military_d.htm

just found it still exploring it

Ghee


Cool find, indeed! Repped!

It pretty much confirms what we have been saying here, which is nice - standard marching for the 10,000 was a bit less than 20 miles a day, with frequent rest days, forced marching with suppplies laid in ahead of time can kick that up by about 50% to around 25 miles per day. And at the time it was considered a wonder - not surprising, since the author cites the standard movement for a greek army of the time at about half that: less than 10 miles a day - which funnily enough is not that different from the 8 miles a day for the medieval polish army.

These figures haven't changed much over the millenia - both the romans and mongols defined a full day's march for an army as 20 miles a day and they were both considered very mobile compared to their foes.

Indeed, the global security site says the same thing - the absolute maximum march for dismounted troops there is listed as a bit over 30 miles in 24 hours - or about the same as the forced marches of ancient history.

It's an important point: The global security site notes "Commanders of heavy forces often overestimate (or simply fail to recognize) the speed with which dismounted elements can move. " I see it all the time in roleplaying discussions, but it has more important real-life consequences: the the failure of the the Schlieffen Plan in WWI crippled the German chances of victory. A contributing factor to that was Molke's insistence that the troops could march at 4 km/h. Of course, they could - for a while - but nobody could keep that pace day after day, loaded down with weapons, ammo and clothing. Worse, no provison was made for delays, so once the offensive fell behind schedule it could never catch up.

cheers, Mark

[Captain Obvious]

To keep things simple our house rule was that a horse could comfortably travel as many miles per day as their con score [that was assuming a normal weight load, and was the reason people tried to buy healthy horses]. For every mile past con it cost the horse 1 LTE up to double con distance. For every mile after double con it cost the horse 1 body. Each +2" of running added 1 mile to the distance. So a 20 con horse can comfortably travel 20 miles per day and can burn 20 LTE to travel 40 miles. If a horse had a 15 body it could travel up to 55 miles before dying from exhaustion.

Nice. Unfortunately, I seem to have repped you recently...

You know, I just thought of something...there was some Hero supplement from ages past that had overland travel rates, based on REC I believe. Something like 1 hex = so many km and a character can travel his REC in hexes per day. Anyone remember this?

[phookz]

The world record is 6.2 miles in 42 minutes - for an average speed of 6.8 miles an hour. That's the world's fastest walker on a perfect surface, carrying nothing but ultra-thin clothing.


I agree with you that 8 mph is very fast, but I thought I'd point out you have a math problem you calculation above: 6.2 miles in 42 minutes would equal 8.9 miles in an hour.

That being said, I completely agree with the sentiment that this is the speed for a world class athlete, completely unencumbered, on good terrain with good equipment (modern walking shoes must be better than medieval leather boots), and not representative of what an average character should be able to do.

[AmadanNaBriona]

I agree with you that 8 mph is very fast, but I thought I'd point out you have a math problem you calculation above: 6.2 miles in 42 minutes would equal 8.9 miles in an hour.

That being said, I completely agree with the sentiment that this is the speed for a world class athlete, completely unencumbered, on good terrain with good equipment (modern walking shoes must be better than medieval leather boots), and not representative of what an average character should be able to do.

A close real world analog to your runner in a more "Fantasy" mode would be the speed some of the Great Plains Native Americans could travel. Anyone got any good Indian Wars data? Should give a good benchmark for the speed of "Barbarian infantry".

[LordGhee]

speaking for the Great plains Indians (not really family history is that my 4th removed Great grandfather married an Indian when he was with the army in Arkansans)

They rode horses, the west is big.

So you would not find any data on foot travel. The plains Indians as in the greatest light Cavalry in the world (sounds better than the local stone age guys kick our . . . :) ) so mounted movement would be found.

hum need to look up undaunted courage for the Lewis and Clark expedition for there movement rates.



Now I will look up some references on Movement, humm where are my books on Custer.

Now out east when Rebbecca Boone was captured and her pa pursued the war party both groups covered 100 miles in about 4 days. They travel on foot.


Lord Ghee
El Paso TX
were Wyatt Eurp got off the train for he was to interview as Sheriff and saw a shooting and two stabbings in 30 minutes and got back on the train to go to tombstone . (truth).

[Kristopher]

speaking for the Great plains Indians (not really family history is that my 4th removed Great grandfather married an Indian when he was with the army in Arkansans)

They rode horses, the west is big.

So you would not find any data on foot travel. The plains Indians as in the greatest light Cavalry in the world (sounds better than the local stone age guys kick our . . . :) ) so mounted movement would be found.

IIRC, there were no horses in the Americas from the time the native megafauna died out at the end of the last ice age, until the Spanish reintroduced them in the 1500s.

So...there was a long time when the Plains Indians were not riding horses.

[Captain Obvious]

hum need to look up undaunted courage for the Lewis and Clark expedition for there movement rates.


The Lewis and Clark expedition were mostly in boats themselves. And by the time they got out west, the Mandans, Crows, et al already had horses and were experienced riders. Not likely to find any useful dismounted movement data there.

[Markdoc]

I agree with you that 8 mph is very fast, but I thought I'd point out you have a math problem you calculation above: 6.2 miles in 42 minutes would equal 8.9 miles in an hour.

Oops! My bad - teach me to do it in my head! :o

cheers, Mark

[Blue Jogger]

What seems weird is your standard vehicle starts with 6" Run which works out to 4 MPH (walking pace, we're not talking non-combat) and will keep pace with just about anything except a marathon runner or a very fast horse in short distances. (assuming the vehicle is magical and never needs to rest or recharge)

If it needs to outdistance anything, going 8 MPH (non-combat speed) will allow it to go a day's travel (20 miles) in 3 hours.

Anybody find this non-intuitive?

[Markdoc]

What seems weird is your standard vehicle starts with 6" Run which works out to 4 MPH (walking pace, we're not talking non-combat) and will keep pace with just about anything except a marathon runner or a very fast horse in short distances. (assuming the vehicle is magical and never needs to rest or recharge)

If it needs to outdistance anything, going 8 MPH (non-combat speed) will allow it to go a day's travel (20 miles) in 3 hours.

Anybody find this non-intuitive?

No - that's why people *use* vehicles. Because they don't get tired. In real life, a fit walker can cover several miles at 4 MPH, but if he tries to hold that pace, by the end of the day, he's likely to be doing 2 MPH or less. Try it for several days on end and he'll be lucky to be doing 1 MPH by the end of the second day. If you look at the modern marching tables on the last link Lord Ghee gave you can see this: in real life, a unit force-marching covers progressively less distance each day as their reserves shrink.

A more realistic walking speed is 3 MPH, and at that speed you'll cover a day's march in bit less than 7 hours of solid walking. Throw in time to get pack up your gear, prepare and eat food, then pack your gear out again and you're looking at 8-9 hours solid activity. That's a pretty full day. Push it out to a full 12 hours - say 10 hours solid walking - and you might make 30 miles, but now you're exhausted. Keep it up for 16 hours (18 hours total exertion) and you can cover nearly 50 miles - but that's the kind of exertion that historically destroyed armies if they kept it up, due to loss from exhaustion, men who can no longer walk because they have no skin left on their feet, men who simply desert rather than put up with the pain and so on.

It's why ships were the main method of travel where practical, because their average speed is less than that of a cantering horse, but they can keep it up all day and all night if the wind blows, allowing them to outpace anything on its own legs.

cheers, Mark

[LordGhee]

Just for comment, when the Spanish lead by Coronado travel up through New Mexico and across Oklahoma and Texas the Indians where not living on the Plains (the Lokoda lived in Ohio in the woods for example). The Tribes lived along the rivers (red river, north and south Canadian), the great plains where empty for there was not a way to make a living. luckily the Spanish brought Horses and the rest is History.

Lord Ghee