Infantry more mobile than cavalry

[Anonymous]

It seems simple: horses are faster than humans, so riding is a faster kind of movement from A to B than marching.<br>
So many argue that with the introduction of a 'mobile field reserve', the comitatenses, in the 3rd century there were used more cavalry forces.<br>
<br>
But:<br>
- Never do we hear of cavalry reserve forces arriving faster than infantry comitatenses. Ammianus several times mentions infantry as first reaction forces - sometimes send with the state poste - probably in ox waggons!<br>
- The Notitia shows that the limitanei had a higher proportion of cavalry than the comitatenses.<br>
- on long marches riders had to dismount to avoid exhausting their animals<br>
<br>
Some time ago I asked a horse expert: When you wanna go as quick as possible a distance of more than 30 km, would u walk or ride?<br>
He said definitely walk. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Genghis Khan sent his army 130 miles over the rough mountain area of Afghanistan in 2 days with but a single halt. Batu rode 180 miles in 3 days. Individual Mongols rode as far a 600 miles on a single pony in nine days. If the Romans had the tough Tarpan pony, yes, they could have been lightning fast. The European horse does not have the endurance of the Mongolian breeds.<br>
Johnny <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

I suspect the mobile cavalry forces "created" in the 3rd century were indeed mobile INSIDE the roman empire (good roads, fortified feeding and changing stations, etc. etc.). During the 3rd century most of fighting took place inside roman territory and in this sense the mounted forces were effective on a strategic level or pre-battle tactical level.<br>
<br>
Outside the LIMES I would tend to agree with you. The advantages of cavalry would quickly vanish if territory cann't sustain adequate feeding or resting or both. I could imagine that if the campaign was not prepared correctly (knowledge of enemy territory) then a cavalry force could easily become useless! (too busy to feed and rest than to fight on little notice).<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 9/20/04 5:35 pm<br></i>

[Anonymous]

Hmm. I believe that the Mongols carried large numbers of remounts with them, which could account for some of the reported speed.<br>
<br>
I too have heard that infantry is faster than cavalry over long er distances. I heard it in the context of the U.S. West, and the breakeven was 50 miles. Whatever.<br>
<br>
Rich K. <p></p><i></i>

[Chariovalda]

There are also additional factors involved, like the size of the men (Mongols aren't very large) and their equipment (most steppe warriors were lightly equipped mounted archers).<br>
<br>
As for the surprisingly slow "strategic" speed of cavalry, as opposed to their tactical speed on the battlefield, it's also a question of logistics I believe. Those horses eat a lot, and drink a lot. Unless there's plenty of grazing and water around, you've got a supply problem. The bigger the amount of cavalry, the bigger the problem... <p></p><i></i>

[Lucius Aurelius Metellus]

Having been an infantryman myself in the "real world", I would definitely choose infantry over cavalry. The cavalry surely has its advantages though, and my opinion is biased! I do know that US infantry can move surprisingly fast on foot, and I would imagine the Romans were similar.<br>
<br>
proud former U.S. 101st Airborne Division "Screaming Eagles" (187th Rakkasans!) Paratrooper, <p>Lucius Aurelius Metellus, miles gregarius, Secunda Brittanica</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Yeah Lucius, but you are nuts. After all, you guys jumped out of perfectly good airplanes <br>
<br>
Seriously though, the baggage train probably slowed down the cavalry a good bit. Plus, if infantry and cavalry were traveling tothe same point from the same place (since the original posts mentions the cavalry never showing up first), then they would have most likely stayed together while traveling. This means, at best speed, the cavalry had to travel at the infantry's speed.<br>
<br>
Also, they wouldn't ride at full gallop, since this will increase the likelihood of a horse being injured as well as being to tired at the end to participate in a battle. They would walk the horses, which isn't much faster than a man. And infantry doesn't have to break camp AND saddle up<br>
<br>
Not that I'm all that certain about any of this. I'm more stirring up the pot than anything<br>
<br>
Cavetus <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Didn't Caesar write that on occasion he sent the cavalry without infantry support to react to incidents because they could move faster? <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Natuspardo,<br>
<br>
I've just been discussing this problem on another forum. This was my first contribution, some figures for horses, mostly coming from the US Indian campaigns or WW1 campaigning in the Middle East.<br>
<br>
It must be stressed though that the figures are about cavalry-only forces and some distances are reached in a one-day journey only. By comparison, a German WW2 infantry unit marched from 30 to 50 km a day for weeks on end while retreating from Russia.<br>
These I dug up from the internet:<br>
<br>
- There’s a 100-mile race held in CA, and one winning time was around 10 hours.<br>
- Quote from Ford, BG William Wallace (1980): Wagon Soldier, Excelsior Printing Company, North Adams, CT, p. 94:<br>
“Our artillery range was at Dona Ana, in New Mexico, some twenty-six miles north of Fort Bliss and the march up there was considered just a modest morning’s exercise. We made it frequently, usually to camp overnight and do some firing. After a long period of toughening horses and men he surprised us one day by giving the order, upon arrival at Dona Ana, not to make camp, not to un-harness or unsaddle, but merely unhitch and tie to the wheels of the carriages for after an hours rest we would march back to Fort Bliss. Fifty-two miles for the day! (Author’s emphasis) At a later time we made an all-day and all-night march of sixty-three miles in twenty-three hours, crossing and re-crossing a low mountain range in the process.â€ÂÂ

[derek forrest]

It was always good practice for British cavalry to walk as much as ride which distinguished them from their french counterparts. I have never read anything of the practice in roman cavalry but they have good footwear and would have as much interest in saving the backs of their horses as British cavalrymen. What did the 7th cav do?? <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>What did the 7th cav do??<hr><br>
<br>
<br>
Wonder where all the Indian's came from<br>
<br>
Cavetus<br>
who just couldn't resist <p></p><i></i>

[StrategyM]

The point to remember in any cavalry/infantry speed debate is that although horses can theoretically move faster than humans over long distances, Cavalry is little use to anyone if the horses are exhausted.<br>
<br>
The mongols, huns and other famous horsemen were able to solve this problem partially by having as many as 10 remounts available (with the result that, once they moved into Europe, they quickly lost their mobility as they lost their horses to lack of grazing). Even then, the advantage gained isn't huge.<br>
<br>
Basically, although top speeds differ, the sustainable pace at which a horse and a man can move without becoming too exhausted are about equal. That is the reason why cavalry armies do not - in fact - possess greater strategical mobility than infantry.<br>
<br>
Cavalry and mounted infantry do have better tactical mobility as well as the <strong>potential</strong> for greater strategical mobility - but at the cost of their ability to maintain this advantage. <p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Strategy,<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>The point to remember in any cavalry/infantry speed debate is that although horses can theoretically move faster than humans over long distances<hr><br>
I disagree. I remember statements to the effect that when a mixed force travels for a certain number of days on end, the cavalry starts out as faster, but after 3 days the infantry catch up, and after 7 days it is always the infantry who reaches the night bivouac first. Remounts or no remounts. Only when you leave the tired horses behind is the cavalry faster.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[StrategyM]

While it may exist, I have never read any "scientific" account where an all-infantry force consciously "competed" with an all-cavalry force on equal footing. So I tend to be a little bit suspicious about the validity of such anecdotes and my gut feeling is that we're dealing with the exception rather than the rule in such anecdotes that may exist.<br>
<br>
Please note that I (deliberately) compared a <strong>Horse</strong> and a Man - not a Horse carrying a man. I'm fairly sure that if a Man had to carry 80 kilos on his back, the horse would beat him carrying that weight hands down over any distance you care to name.<br>
<br>
Once we're dealing with a typical cavalry force, we have all sorts of other complications such as the need for supplies for both man and horse, the need to rest the horses adequately, which reduce the speed of the cavalry. <p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Strategy,<br>
<br>
What would rank as a 'scientific account' for you? Although I'm all for scientific research, we <em>are</em> discussing the past and even if someone would try to recontruct that in an attempt to do some modrern research, could be argued as not valid. For me a report from a historical source (such as from a 19th-c. US cavalry officer, see below) about a direct observation counts as sufficiently scientific. But of course you are free to set different standards.<br>
<br>
But if you want more than 'anecdotes', here are a few additional figures (but of course this is not research either):<br>
<br>
Marcus Junkelmann quotes the US Col. William B. Hazen (187 who said that when a mixed force of cavalry and infantry goes on a march, for the first 3 days it's the cavalry that easily outdistances the footsoldiers. However, from the 4th day both reach camp together and from the 7th day it's the infantry that even needs to slow down to make it possible for the cavalry to reach camp before nightfall.<br>
In modern races, there are figures of two horses doing 192 and 193 km per day in a 1892 race over 578 km from Vienna to Berlin, but both horses died. Another rider did 116 km per day on average, but his horse survived. The next year they did the race on foot, and the winner did 142 km on average, slower than the killed horses but faster than the one that lived.<br>
Junkelmann crossed the Alps as a legionairy, doing 26 km a day in 21 days. Later he crossed half of Europe as a Roman cavalryman, doing 33 km a day in 26 days over less mountainous terrain.<br>
Roman messengers could get to 300 km a day when there were fresh horses every 20 km or so. On campaign Scipio did 120 km in 33hrs. We have other figures for the Roman Empire, but apart from this one none about campaigning, all about runners and other single riders.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>