09-24-2004, 08:45 AM
I'm aware of the Junkelmann quote, but this is exactly why I primarily commented on the ability of the <strong>horse</strong>. Because Doctrine (how often they change horses, how far they attempt to march, how willing they are to walk rather than ride, etc) would have a huge effect on the marching ability of any cavalry force. The supply situation would have a big impact as well. Thus you would not expect a US cavalry force to have the same movement rates asa Red Indian force, a Mongol force or even a Roman one. Each would move at very different average speeds, due to the different doctrines they would follow.<br>
<br>
This is why I am <strong>very</strong> wary of applying the preconceptions/maxims of 19th century soldiers to issues like march rates and logistics. There are so many external factors that would influence march speeds which would be different for these guys. Another reason is that the maxim's may just be plain wrong. One needs just to look back to the discussions about motorization of armies in the 1930s, to see just how devoid of proof military maxims can be. More on period, remember how it was a maxim that a horse could not be yoked effectively using ancient harnesses - until someone actually demonstrated how it could be done.<br>
<br>
No snobbery intended by the reference to "scientific" evidence. Just that I'm not convinced the recollections of 19th century officers - interesting though they be - are relevant as evidence for the mobility of ancient cavalry armies.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>I'm sure horses vs. people would possibly favour the horse, but we are comparing cavalry vs. infantry here so the former comparison is not valid.<hr><br>
<br>
Actually it is, because if a horse alone can outlast a man over a long period, then in theory at least, a mixed force of men and horses can too, simply because the horse can alleviate the load of the man (this is, after all, why mules were used by Roman infantry).<br>
<br>
Your figures are all impressive, but its really fairly uninteresting whether a horseman could do 120 or 300 km a day. I think it is fairly well established that a cavalry force will outpace an infantry force over short distances any day of the week.<br>
<br>
The top speed of cavalry is also irrelevant to a discussion about whether a cavalry force would outpace an infantry ditto in the long run. All the cavalry would need to do is around 40km/day at a sustainable pace, and it would be able to trump regular march speeds for infantry. Mongol forces - the cavalry equivalent of the Roman army in terms of march doctrine - were regularly said to move some 50-60 <strong>miles</strong> a day in their campaigns over long periods of time.<br>
<br>
(Where do you have the Scipio figure from, btw...? Sounds very strange to me, as it's nothing I've ever read.<br>
<br>
I can say that in Imperium, I follow the principle that cavalry and infantry move at the same speed strategically, which I believe is what the sources basically indicate (though the Mongols might be worth an exception, if I was to do them). <p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i></i>
<br>
This is why I am <strong>very</strong> wary of applying the preconceptions/maxims of 19th century soldiers to issues like march rates and logistics. There are so many external factors that would influence march speeds which would be different for these guys. Another reason is that the maxim's may just be plain wrong. One needs just to look back to the discussions about motorization of armies in the 1930s, to see just how devoid of proof military maxims can be. More on period, remember how it was a maxim that a horse could not be yoked effectively using ancient harnesses - until someone actually demonstrated how it could be done.<br>
<br>
No snobbery intended by the reference to "scientific" evidence. Just that I'm not convinced the recollections of 19th century officers - interesting though they be - are relevant as evidence for the mobility of ancient cavalry armies.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>I'm sure horses vs. people would possibly favour the horse, but we are comparing cavalry vs. infantry here so the former comparison is not valid.<hr><br>
<br>
Actually it is, because if a horse alone can outlast a man over a long period, then in theory at least, a mixed force of men and horses can too, simply because the horse can alleviate the load of the man (this is, after all, why mules were used by Roman infantry).<br>
<br>
Your figures are all impressive, but its really fairly uninteresting whether a horseman could do 120 or 300 km a day. I think it is fairly well established that a cavalry force will outpace an infantry force over short distances any day of the week.<br>
<br>
The top speed of cavalry is also irrelevant to a discussion about whether a cavalry force would outpace an infantry ditto in the long run. All the cavalry would need to do is around 40km/day at a sustainable pace, and it would be able to trump regular march speeds for infantry. Mongol forces - the cavalry equivalent of the Roman army in terms of march doctrine - were regularly said to move some 50-60 <strong>miles</strong> a day in their campaigns over long periods of time.<br>
<br>
(Where do you have the Scipio figure from, btw...? Sounds very strange to me, as it's nothing I've ever read.<br>
<br>
I can say that in Imperium, I follow the principle that cavalry and infantry move at the same speed strategically, which I believe is what the sources basically indicate (though the Mongols might be worth an exception, if I was to do them). <p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i></i>
