Soldiers marching.

[Badger]

I was wondering for those who are more knowledgeable about this.


How much could your typical group of soldiers march in a day? In an hour?

And what of calvary?

And for later periods how far and how much effort for moving artillery pieces?

[Curufea]

See this link to a previous thread on the same subject-
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55292

[Markdoc]

See this link to a previous thread on the same subject-
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55292

Yeah, what he said.

But as a rough rule of thumb:

Group carrying supplies on wagons or seige gear, 8-10 miles a day.

Group all or most on foot, carrying their own gear, about 20 miles a day (if they are well disciplined)

Group riding and carrying their own gear around 25 miles a day

Group riding carrying their own gear with plenty of remounts, abot 30 miles

Figure than in the short term the last 3 groups can double their mileage, but they start to straggle, lose men who drop out, pile on the LTE loss, etc and that they can triple the distance for a day or tow by pushing themselves to the absolute limit, but will disintegrate as afighting force after a couple of days like that.

cheers, Mark

[MorpheousXO]

for some reason I always find this kind of info interesting... I should really do some research on actual mass combats, I suppose, and other aspects (travel, logistics, whatnot).

[Edsel]

Group all or most on foot, carrying their own gear, about 20 miles a day (if they are well disciplined)

Group riding and carrying their own gear around 25 miles a day
Yeah being mounted doesn't really give you a lot of extra distance in a day. The primary benefit is that you can carry more stuff. The horses may be faster but they are constrained by terrain that us primates can scramble over. This often prevents them from taking the most direct route.

[Badger]

Yeah, what he said.

But as a rough rule of thumb:

Group carrying supplies on wagons or seige gear, 8-10 miles a day.

Group all or most on foot, carrying their own gear, about 20 miles a day (if they are well disciplined)

Group riding and carrying their own gear around 25 miles a day

Group riding carrying their own gear with plenty of remounts, abot 30 miles

Figure than in the short term the last 3 groups can double their mileage, but they start to straggle, lose men who drop out, pile on the LTE loss, etc and that they can triple the distance for a day or tow by pushing themselves to the absolute limit, but will disintegrate as afighting force after a couple of days like that.

cheers, Mark

Yeah, this was what I was hoping for, kind of a rough estimate. Though I did like that thread, Curufea pulled out. (I usually get more than I expect, here:thumbup: ).

[assault]

Yeah being mounted doesn't really give you a lot of extra distance in a day. The primary benefit is that you can carry more stuff. The horses may be faster but they are constrained by terrain that us primates can scramble over. This often prevents them from taking the most direct route.

Armies usually follow roads where they exist, or established paths/routes where they don't. They don't just wander randomly over the countryside.

The main thing with horses is that you can't push them as hard as you can with men. Infantry will keep marching when horses start dying.

The other thing to consider is the availability of fodder. You either carry grain with you, or you have to allow horses time to graze on available fodder - if it exists.

The main factor inhibiting the movement of large forces (armies) is the speed of their baggage trains. Smaller forces can force march over relatively short times and distances, but big armies usually travel at the speed of an ox- or horse-drawn cart. Usually on poor quality roads, often in lousy weather.

And that's another reason why they tend to follow set routes - you can't just drive these vehicles around anywhere.

It's a wonder armies managed to travel at all.

[McCoy]

And now you understand why "home court" is such an advantage.

[Badger]

Armies usually follow roads where they exist, or established paths/routes where they don't. They don't just wander randomly over the countryside.

The main thing with horses is that you can't push them as hard as you can with men. Infantry will keep marching when horses start dying.

The other thing to consider is the availability of fodder. You either carry grain with you, or you have to allow horses time to graze on available fodder - if it exists.

The main factor inhibiting the movement of large forces (armies) is the speed of their baggage trains. Smaller forces can force march over relatively short times and distances, but big armies usually travel at the speed of an ox- or horse-drawn cart. Usually on poor quality roads, often in lousy weather.

And that's another reason why they tend to follow set routes - you can't just drive these vehicles around anywhere.

It's a wonder armies managed to travel at all.


Right, I had figured all that factored in. I've studied enough civil war to know that much. (I just never hear the distances they talk about :thumbup: )

[Badger]

And now you understand why "home court" is such an advantage.



Not to mention, the "home" team can rest up somewhat while they wait for the game and be all that much stronger :thumbup:


Edit: And of course, an @$$ like me would send a few little calvary units to pull "hit&runs" all down the trail to further bog them down and drop their morale.

ooh, and a minefield in the road. MWAHAHAHA (depending on tech level of course)

[McCoy]

Not to mention, the "home" team can rest up somewhat while they wait for the game and be all that much stronger :thumbup:


Edit: And of course, an @$$ like me would send a few little calvary units to pull "hit&runs" all down the trail to further bog them down and drop their morale.

ooh, and a minefield in the road. MWAHAHAHA (depending on tech level of course)
If your tech level is too low for a mindfield, try caltrops. Better yet, install the mind field in the center of the road, then sew caltrops on the shoulders.

[Badger]

If your tech level is too low for a mindfield, try caltrops. Better yet, install the mind field in the center of the road, then sew caltrops on the shoulders.

ooh caltrops I forgot about those?


:eg: MWA :eg: HA :eg: HA :eg:

[Spence]

Remember the weather. As assault mentions above. Most early roads were just dirt, not paved. Even a little rain could turn roads bad. Add in a few hundreds of infantry and cavalry plus ox carts and the road become a quagmire that could reduce the rate of travel to 1 or 2 miles a day. I have read of accounts where heavy items like siege engine parts and cannon actually get swallowed up in the mud. Even open fields could become impassible to carts and sledges. Cavalry and infantry could cross open soggy ground if they dispersed into smaller units and took different routes. Of course that turned your force from an army to penny-packets to be snapped up and destroyed. Choke points like river fords could really slow down an army. Usually the "Campaign Season" was the local "not winter" and "not rainy" season.

[assault]

Usually the "Campaign Season" was the local "not winter" and "not rainy" season.

As an example of an exception, at times in Scandinavian history, winter was the preferred campaign season, because frozen rivers made better roads than what passed for roads during the rest of the year!

But that is an exception.

[Spence]

As an example of an exception, at times in Scandinavian history, winter was the preferred campaign season, because frozen rivers made better roads than what passed for roads during the rest of the year!

But that is an exception.


Excellent point! After you mentioned it I think I remember seeing that somewhere before. But I cannot recall. It does make perfect sense, given the climate and terrain.

[assault]

Excellent point! After you mentioned it I think I remember seeing that somewhere before. But I cannot recall. It does make perfect sense, given the climate and terrain.

I've actually been trying to find a reference to it. All I can find is a comment to the effect of it occurring in medieval (post-"Viking") Sweden.

Anyway, it's plausible enough. We know stuff like the battle on Lake Peipus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Ice) happened, anyway.

[Markdoc]

Hmmm. I don't have references in English handy, but here is what I have read:

The preferred late campaigning season (there was also a summer campaign season, after the fields were prepared and sown) in the far north was split in two - first late autumn/early winter (basically after the first hard frost) - say around late October - sometimes earlier, sometimes later.

At that point, the harvest was in, and your fighting men freed from overseeing that and/or working. You had plenty of food. The ground would be frozen solid, making for better marching conditions and movement of supplies on wagons. The rivers would not be frozen yet, meaning you could also shift supplies by boat. This was time for strategic movement and establishing your winter base.

Depending on the weather, the early campaign season would normally (but not always) stop around the end of December, simply because the weather was getting too bitter and the first serious snows starting. Soldiers would hole up, apart from short-distance raids, drink Christmas/Jul in (the christmas celebration up here is still called Jul, the old pagan name, and it long predates the arrival of Christianity, and according to old writings, Christianity didn't change the festival much). In Febuary, when the worst of the snows were over but the rivers still frozen, the war parties would go out again.

Now there'd be enough snow/ice to make sleds practical (some early scandinavian wagons were built so you could take the wheels off and swap them for runners) and the frozen rivers made excellent roads, for two reasons. 1. They were nice and flat and the wind tends to keep them free of piled snow. 2. They run through the lowlands, whereas roads often went by more direct routes and often held to the high ground - meaning lots of up and down - a killer if you have to shift all your own food - and in a scandinavian winter you did: there'd be no foraging. 3. Most settlements were built on waterways - meaning there was almost always a river that went were you wanted.

That lasted until mid-march - early April by the latest - at that stage the thaw would start and you wanted to be home before then. The thaw would turn the ground to mud and the ice breaking up would render rivers unpassable for both men and boats. Paradoxically, the beginning of spring was the traditional dying time in Scandinavia and Russia: it's when the old and the weak, having used up their reserves during the winter, would usually die and when food supplies were at their lowest - before new stuff would start growing. Add to that impassable roads and rivers....

It's why Easter used to be such a big deal here and was even before christianity came.

cheers, Mark

[tkdguy]

This one is more for Renaissance armies, but it has some useful information:

http://www.syler.com/

[Sir Ofeelya]

At the Battle of Austerlitz (2 December 1805), Marshal Davout'sIII Corps marched 110 km (about 70 miles in 48 hours and went in to action when immediately. Apparently he had hardly any stragglers. That was on crappy early 19th C roads.

[Starwolf]

I personally consider the Roman Legions to be one the finest examples of military excellence. They were trained to march 25 miles per day carrying a full kit on their backs... in armor.

Linky: http://library.thinkquest.org/26602/onthemarch.htm

What this doesn't mention is that the legions could do this day after day, and at the end of a march, each day would construct a triangle shaped earthwork walled encampment. Alternatively they could at the end of a march go straight into battle. Julius Ceaser actually reduced the size of his legions to make them more mobile and manueverable, legend tells that in one campaign in gaul he moved his entire army over 50 miles in a forced march,, and went straight into battle.

Modern infantry on the other hand are constrained to just a few miles (around 10) per day, and that is in good weather, with modern roads. Of course if they are mechanized, it's a whole different matter.

:D

[Markdoc]

What this doesn't mention is that the legions could do this day after day, and at the end of a march, each day would construct a triangle shaped earthwork walled encampment.

Just to pick a couple of minor nits, the normal roman schedule called for 1 days marching, 1 day rest. And under normal circumstances, they didn't march in armour: you can see depictions of marching legionaries, who are depicted wearing the thoracomachus or subarmilis, a padded coat which was worn under the armour. Marching in armour was only something you'd do when there was significant risk of combat - otherwise (as far as we can tell from carved images) the armour seems to have been rolled up and attached to the legionaire's pack (although there are pictures of marching legionaires carrying the lorica segmentata (the traditional "overlapping plates" type of armour) on a wooden pole.

But it is true that they could keep this pace up for much longer than a day and did so on plenty of occasions. To keep in shape, 3 times a month a legionary had to do an 18 mile route march with 60 pounds of equipment,armour and weapons to carry. It's not for nothing the reformed army called itself "Marius' mules"



Modern infantry on the other hand are constrained to just a few miles (around 10) per day, and that is in good weather, with modern roads. Of course if they are mechanized, it's a whole different matter.

Again, a minor point - modern infantry are supposed to be able to cover 20 miles a day with all their gear (not that different from 2000 years ago!) - and if in good shape and forced marching, can do more. A good example of this was the 42 Commando of the Royal Marines during the Falklands war. The Commandos landed at San Carlos carrying approximately 120-145 pounds of equipment per man. A typical load consisted of two mortar rounds (26 lbs.), personal weapon and ammunition (50 lbs.), 2 water bottles, food for 48 hours, sleeping bag, shelter, spare clothing and other special equipment required by the individual or his squad. With this load, 42 Commando made a "Big Yomp" (forced march) of 80 miles in three days across boggy, wet, hilly ground during freezing cold weather.

Just to qualify to enter the NZ army, you need to be able to do a 10 mile march cross country with the standard 62 lb kit in less than 2 hours, then immediately do a 18 ft rope climb, up and over a 6ft wall, cross a 9ft ditch and finish with a 700 ft fireman’s carry. After that lot, doing 10 miles in a day on roads would be a doddle.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Oh and if you've ever wondered what the air/speed velocity of a swallow carrying a coconut is...

or at least the metabolic requirements of a marching Roman legionary were, here's more information than you probably ever wanted
http://bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/32/3/261.pdf

Cheers, Mark

OK, I lied about the swallows

[Lawnmower Boy]

Marching armies is _very_ complicated. The bigger the army, the more you have to know, and execute on the landscape in order to move quickly. One of the reasons the Romans got around so well is that their infrastructural costs were so low. Low cavalry strenghs will be punished harshly by a well endowed enemy, but not having it has its advantages.
A well-organised army is actually going to cope with the landscape pretty well.
Here's what an organised army looks like as it marches through your countryside.
i) a screen of light cavalry, often a herdsman militia that might be anything from Romanian mercenaries to Volga Kalmycks moves through. Probably organised in "hundreds" that are actually closer to 20--60 men, they ride light, nimble horses with range-trained digestive systems. They're not the animals of choice for mounted combat, but they stay out of trouble well. The idea is that these guys generate intelligence for you and trouble for your enemies. Don't approach these guys and offer to sell intelligence. Wait for....
ii) A formal vanguard consisting of a mixture of staff dragoons (a guard of experienced country men, probably on good horses, accompanying a staff officer who is going to draw/survey the countryside and regular cavalry, probably carabiniers and mounted grenadiers if available, who will take local fortified points at first shock.
iii) the first dismounted element consists of crack infantry (probably the army's grenadier companies grouped into a "corps", light infantry if you've got'em) and probably the army's pioneer corps, as grenadiers above. The first general will appear on the scene, the Major-General of the Day, who will be tasked with organising the army's camp at the end of this stage of the march --usually, but _not necessarily_ at the end of a day's march. (Marches requiring men to sleep one or more nights in the open are not that uncommon.) This unit will build minor bridges.
iv) the main body of the army.
v) the "artillery" train; probably a more accurate rendering of the traditional language than "baggage train." The latter implies that the army has packed more books and clothes than it really needs for the trip. The former suggests that even if it isn't dragging along guns, it needs what it has in the waggons/pack animals. A typical escort is more dragoons, because you then have lots of organic horsepower to move the wagons through the countryside when things bog, ditch, break wheels and so on. There will be a workshop, too. A century of corporate records going back from 1820 are available for Russell's Flying Waggons of London (thank heavens for the early nineteenth century civil trial records, found and used by Dorian Gerhold ); they suggest 6 breakdowns/1000 waggons/hour, if I recall correctly. This unit will launch major bridges and do much of the work of building a major fortified camp/road, since any of the army's specialised equipment, such as block tackles, felling saws, shovels and picks (and assorted stuff up to and including a horse-powered sawmill. The technology, although available, is not mentioned until the 19th century, though.)
Both cited infantry marching speed and march time (per ideal one day stage) is so variable that a 20 mile day is hardy inconceivable. Sometimes you get the impression that Middle Ages people were such sticks in the mud that they had never travelled 20 miles, never mind walk that distance in a day. But even in the day a fit young man could run 100 miles a day, and often did; and, bizarrely enough, jogging for fun and fitness was hardly unknown, at least in the early 1700s.
Something to keep in mind is footwear. In an account of a battle in the 1690s, a British observer describes seeing troops coming up that they thought were Dutch, because bare-footed, but instead they proved to be French dragoons. The implication is that Dutch troops marched in clogs and kicked them off before fighting (like Highlanders) and that dragoon-boots were so awful that they weren't worn in battle. (Robert Parker's memoirs were editted and published by David Chandler).
An army like this is not likely to take the field except when there is fodder, ie standing grass crops, available. Campaigning ideally begins right at the tail-end of the spring freshette when the rivers go down, so that armies are first on the water meadows (first grass being deemed particularly healthy for horses according to a crazy Hungarian whose work is near impossible to find and), with a break at high summer and a resumption in the fall going until the very end of the harvest and a safe bit beyond. After a Christmas break you can begin planning a winter campaign, which will have to be fought out of magazines by a limited force.
(Incidentally, watch your enemies at this time of year. If they close the sluices on their rivers and begin to build up a water supply, they might well be planning a sudden campaign up a river in your territory, which they will backflood with their "waters of manoeuvre." This was a favourite trick of Louis XIV's.

[shadowcat1313]

Kipling talks about marching distances in legion terms in "Rimini" "Its 25 marches to Narbo, 45 more up the Rhone" assuming hes using Rome for a starting point, but how far is a single march?

[Captain Obvious]

Kipling talks about marching distances in legion terms in "Rimini" "Its 25 marches to Narbo, 45 more up the Rhone" assuming hes using Rome for a starting point, but how far is a single march?

A situation like that is probably very specific in regard to days of marching, and not so specific as to miles marched per day. When you're talking about a specified route, the extra time it takes to cross difficult terrain is already added in if you do it that way.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Or, in other words, your mileage may vary.

[Captain Obvious]

Or, in other words, your mileage may vary.

:)

I seem to have repped you recently...

[tkdguy]

www.renaissancesoldier.com

[Comic]

Knowledge of the terrain, too, is important.

Do you have local experts? Spies? Scouts? How much and of what quality.

Are you trying to be unobserved, or intend to be seen?

Are you moving toward a seige, to reinforce an ally, to chase a foe, to meet an oncoming enemy head-on?

Where will meeting them be most advantageous? Typically the force that has the field first has the advantage.

Will there be popular support along the way, or popular resistance?

Or, to save time, I could point you to Sun Tzu's Art of War. It's shorter, and better written.

[Lawnmower Boy]

While we're recommending books, Garnet Wolseley's _Soldier's Pocket Handbook_ sold in the millions in the last century. It is _way_ harder to find than Sun Tzu, but much more crunchy, and it is the one crunchy book on this stuff that you can find. Plus, it has a kicka--s plum pudding recipe.
Information animal, vegetable and mineral, in one easy volume.

[Kristopher]

Oh and if you've ever wondered what the air/speed velocity of a swallow carrying a coconut is...

or at least the metabolic requirements of a marching Roman legionary were, here's more information than you probably ever wanted
http://bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/32/3/261.pdf

Cheers, Mark

OK, I lied about the swallows

Link requires registration before the info can be viewed.

[Markdoc]

Link requires registration before the info can be viewed.

Oops. Sorry about that - since the server verifies admission automatically (and I often am logged into the network even from home) when I click a link, I often go straight to the page without seeing a log-in.

I posted the link mostly as a joke, since the bulk of the article is about the metabolic requirements required to meet roman marching standards and it goes into far more detail than I suspect anyone here would want. However there is one relevant bit:


As the Roman mile was equivalent to 1665 modern Imperial yards, the Roman pound was 0.721 pounds avoirdupois, and the hour was then a flexible unit of one twelfth of the daylight hours (the standard modern hour being a relatively recent—that is, 14th century—development), this corresponds to a march rate of some 3.4 mph at the full step and 2.85 mph at the military step, carrying 43 lb 4 oz avoirdupois.

In short, a legionary was expected to do a bit less than 3 mph in full kit on a standard march and a bit over that if they were in hurry: about the same as modern light infantry.

cheers, Mark

[Kristopher]

And how many calories a day does that come out to?

[Markdoc]

And how many calories a day does that come out to?

No idea - the article is looking at oxygen and glucose requirements to maintain that pace and concludes, based on the measurements of legionary bodies (and comparing it to modern high-performance athletes) that the pace set was just below the threshold of lactic acid accumulation - which would have let them maintain that pace for sustained periods of time without damaging their muscles.

They also say:

But it is also apparent from the equivalence of the metabolic rates of the unladen full step and the laden military step that the ergonomic advisers to the Roman military seem to have had a good understanding of the energy demands of sustained activity. How they established this challenges the imagination.

Knowing the Romans, they probably established it by finding out at what speed troops died or collapsed from marching and then setting it a litle lower than that. :D

cheers,Mark

[MorpheousXO]

...
Knowing the Romans, they probably established it by finding out at what speed troops died or collapsed from marching and then setting it a litle lower than that. :D

cheers,Mark

all I have to say is... LOL

[LordGhee]

Mardok, get into the Spirt!


THAT IS WHAT SLAVES ARE FOR!

Lord Ghee

[The Weapon]

Yeah, what he said.

But as a rough rule of thumb:

Group carrying supplies on wagons or seige gear, 8-10 miles a day.

Group all or most on foot, carrying their own gear, about 20 miles a day (if they are well disciplined)

Group riding and carrying their own gear around 25 miles a day

Group riding carrying their own gear with plenty of remounts, abot 30 miles

Figure than in the short term the last 3 groups can double their mileage, but they start to straggle, lose men who drop out, pile on the LTE loss, etc and that they can triple the distance for a day or tow by pushing themselves to the absolute limit, but will disintegrate as afighting force after a couple of days like that.

cheers, Mark

Being organised enough to supply from a friendly area you go through can nullify the effects of forced marching. Harold Godwinson was particularly good at fast redeployment. Most of his victories were due to the "Where did he come from?" trick.

[Markdoc]

Being organised enough to supply from a friendly area you go through can nullify the effects of forced marching. Harold Godwinson was particularly good at fast redeployment. Most of his victories were due to the "Where did he come from?" trick.

Yeah, Harold made good use of a small elite group of mounted huscarls, but he tried the trick one time too many. His forced march from Stamford bridge to London impressed his contemporaries - he covered 200 miles in only 7 days, for an average speed of nearly 30 miles a day (though he did have the advantages of both being in friendly country and having an excellent road network). But even so, to do that he had to leave most of the northern fyrd behind: they were still trickling into his camp when the battle of Hastings started a week later and thousands probably never arrived. The loss of the fyrd archers in particular is though to have weakened the English army - we know there were many of them at Stamford bridge from the thousands of arrowheads dug up and Harald Hardraada was reputedly killed by an archer: but there is little mention of them at Hastings, where the norman archers seemed to have enjoyed an undisputed field. Even Harold's huscarls who made the trip with him and who were probably pretty much all mounted, were probably exhausted, at any rate, he paused several days in London, before setting out again, allowing William time to consolidate his position.

It was an impressive effort and if William had landed a week later, history might have been very different, but there is a limit to how fast you can go, and Harold's marches, while impressive, fall into the 20-30 miles a day range already outlined.

cheers, Mark

[The Weapon]

Yeah, Harold made good use of a small elite group of mounted huscarls, but he tried the trick one time too many. His forced march from Stamford bridge to London impressed his contemporaries - he covered 200 miles in only 7 days, for an average speed of nearly 30 miles a day (though he did have the advantages of both being in friendly country and having an excellent road network). But even so, to do that he had to leave most of the northern fyrd behind: they were still trickling into his camp when the battle of Hastings started a week later and thousands probably never arrived. The loss of the fyrd archers in particular is though to have weakened the English army - we know there were many of them at Stamford bridge from the thousands of arrowheads dug up and Harald Hardraada was reputedly killed by an archer: but there is little mention of them at Hastings, where the norman archers seemed to have enjoyed an undisputed field. Even Harold's huscarls who made the trip with him and who were probably pretty much all mounted, were probably exhausted, at any rate, he paused several days in London, before setting out again, allowing William time to consolidate his position.

It was an impressive effort and if William had landed a week later, history might have been very different, but there is a limit to how fast you can go, and Harold's marches, while impressive, fall into the 20-30 miles a day range already outlined.

cheers, Mark

I understand most of the ones he lost on the way to Stamford Bridge he got back on the way to Hastings. But of course he lost a lot of people on the way to Hastings. Still he managed to defeat one of the best generals in northern Europe and then fight someone perhaps as good within a week or so and hold him off for 9 hours! Most battles in this period were over in less than half that time. And if the day had ended in stalemate he would have recieved more reinforcements and supplies while Willliam's men were isolated. He damn near won.
I agree though that he tried the trick once too often. He probably would have been better off fortifying a position on the road William HAD to take and waiting. This plus cutting down across the road would have given him time to get his forces up to full strength. Even a small wooden palisade across the march route would have been enough to give him a decided advantage.

[Markdoc]

I agree though that he tried the trick once too often. He probably would have been better off fortifying a position on the road William HAD to take and waiting. This plus cutting down across the road would have given him time to get his forces up to full strength. Even a small wooden palisade across the march route would have been enough to give him a decided advantage.

Exactly. It's not a slam on Harold, who was obviously a very competent general. But as it ended up, his army was stretched out in bits and pieces the length of England - units kept turning up for muster days after Harold's death. Waiting would only have strengthened his position and made Willaim's more tenuous.

We don't know why he decided to push forward. Some historians have hypothesised that William was wasting the countryside to draw him out, but it's equally possible that Harold hoped to repeat his "turn up and catch 'em by surprise" trick, which had worked so well, just a week or so before.

cheers, Mark

[Captain Obvious]

Just think...if William had never conquered England, the Brits would never have started spelling words all weird. All that "theatre" and "humour" crap is 100% French...

[Markdoc]

Just think...if William had never conquered England, the Brits would never have started spelling words all weird. All that "theatre" and "humour" crap is 100% French...

No, we would have gotten weird anglo-scandinavian words instead, like "ubegivenlighed" :D

Although what would have happened if William had been killed is interesting to speculate on: England would probably have stayed much poorer than it was, for longer - it was the French Connection that built up most of England's early trade. There would have been no hundred years war (in fact, the english connection to continental wars would have been weakened a lot), and it's possible that the strong scandinavian family links would have led England to get involved in the long and destructive wars between the three scandinavian countries instead - it's even possible that a Danish/English alliance might have taken control of Norway, leading to a medieval North Sea kingdom (for a while: it's hard to see it hanging together any better than the real triple aliance did).

It's also possible that without the central authority imposed by the Normans that, England would have gone the route of Germany - endless wars between petty princes, leaving France and Spain as the dominant European and eventually, probably world powers.

cheers, Mark

[SableWyvern]

Taken from The Roman War Machine, by John Peddie, in turn borrowing heavily from de Bello Gallico by Ceasar:

Times and distances based on six legions (30,000 men, plus cavalry and baggage), marching 10 miles at 3mph (baggage train moving slightly slower), with a total length of marching column of 22.5 miles.


Time Event Remarks
H Hour Recce Group Departs Camp I -
+10min Vanguard Departs Camp I Followed by Command Group and Main Body
+3h20m Recce Group Arrives Camp II -
+3h30m Vanguard Arrives Camp II Followed by Command Group and Main Body
+3h30m Camp Layout Commenced Tail of Main Body Departs Camp I
+3h30m Head of Baggage Train Departs Camp I -
+4h Protective Screen Deployed After Arrival of First Legion
+4h30m Fortifications Commenced After Arrival of Second Legion
+6h30m Tail of Main Body Arrives Camp II -
+7h Head of Baggage Train Arrives Camp II -
+12h Tail of Baggage Train Arrives Camp II Column Complete at Camp II

[RPMiller]

If your tech level is too low for a mindfield, try caltrops. Better yet, install the mind field in the center of the road, then sew caltrops on the shoulders.
The Japanese used flooded lands quite a bit to good effect. It forced the horses and armor laden soldiers to stick to the roads and levees making them vulnerable and diminishing the front they could attack with. While it didn't directly damage or kill anyone it put them at such a disadvantage that it served as an effective deterrent.

[RPMiller]

Yeah being mounted doesn't really give you a lot of extra distance in a day. The primary benefit is that you can carry more stuff. The horses may be faster but they are constrained by terrain that us primates can scramble over. This often prevents them from taking the most direct route.
I've always heard similar. In fact, from the research I've been doing on the Old West apparently the only real advantage to a horse is that it gets tired instead of you. In addition, there is the 'can carry more stuff' factor and can go faster for a longer period of time, but the trade off is the food and care of them. Interesting also is that the harder you push the horse the shorter the distance you can go if you care about keeping the horse. The Mormons that blazed the trails to Utah discovered this apparently.

[Badger]

Course another Old West advantage to a horse was the fact you had a chance to get away if Indians or bandits got after you. :D

[Sword-dancer]

Excellent point! After you mentioned it I think I remember seeing that somewhere before. But I cannot recall. It does make perfect sense, given the climate and terrain.



German empereors in italian campaigns also preferred often the winter.
I fear nothing except gods wrath and italys burning sky

[LordGhee]

Rereading some mag (S&T's) and Ptolemy IV marched his 61000 infantry and 5000 Cav and 71 elephants 180 km in five days from Gaza to Raphia (modern Sabot in Syria? in order to gain surprise on Antidochus and his army.

that is 36 km in a day (22miles)!

[Goradin]

12-15 Miles per day is a good pace for marching armies. Though I heard of forced marches where 30 miles a day were done but it was not the norm.

Both men and horses will break down if continously marched hard day after day.