05-10-2006, 08:22 PM
These are not simple questions. One basic condition that needs to be specified are road conditions. Travelling on a Roman road in good weather is a lot different from travelling on a Germanic foot-path in the rain. Roman forces moving in safe territory don't need to build nightly camps, which obviously took time when moving into enemy territory.
Second, the size of the force is critical. The larger the force, the slower it moves - since armies move like slinkies (do you know what I mean?) or caterpillars: the front starts moving, the middle only starts when the motion reaches it, and the back-end starts moving last of all. Any long column has this problem.
The total distance to be travelled matters also, since men can't perform forced marches forever. The longer the total distance, the slower the average daily rate is going to be.
Horsemen are a separate subject, since the biology of a horse is different from that of a man. A single man or a few men, with access to lots of horses (i.e. post riders) can move far indeed - I think up to 200 miles in a day. But, horses need time to graze and water, and unlike men they cannot do these things while marching. Furthermore, a horse can be physically broken down by prolonged stress, and will recover its physical condition far more slowly than a man will recover. The result is that over long distances, a force without huge number of spare horses (i.e. 10 horses per rider) may actually move more slowly than a purely infantry force.
That being said, for comparison purposes, I can cite one good example of a forced march off the top of my head: Austerlitz, 1805. Davout's III corps was placed about 70 miles from the rest of Napoleon's army, which caused his Austrian/Russian enemies to discount this corps in their battle-plan. These men marched that distance over 48 hours, and marched straight into battle in time to stop the Allied flanking attack and help win Napoleon a stunning victory.
Second, the size of the force is critical. The larger the force, the slower it moves - since armies move like slinkies (do you know what I mean?) or caterpillars: the front starts moving, the middle only starts when the motion reaches it, and the back-end starts moving last of all. Any long column has this problem.
The total distance to be travelled matters also, since men can't perform forced marches forever. The longer the total distance, the slower the average daily rate is going to be.
Horsemen are a separate subject, since the biology of a horse is different from that of a man. A single man or a few men, with access to lots of horses (i.e. post riders) can move far indeed - I think up to 200 miles in a day. But, horses need time to graze and water, and unlike men they cannot do these things while marching. Furthermore, a horse can be physically broken down by prolonged stress, and will recover its physical condition far more slowly than a man will recover. The result is that over long distances, a force without huge number of spare horses (i.e. 10 horses per rider) may actually move more slowly than a purely infantry force.
That being said, for comparison purposes, I can cite one good example of a forced march off the top of my head: Austerlitz, 1805. Davout's III corps was placed about 70 miles from the rest of Napoleon's army, which caused his Austrian/Russian enemies to discount this corps in their battle-plan. These men marched that distance over 48 hours, and marched straight into battle in time to stop the Allied flanking attack and help win Napoleon a stunning victory.
Felix Wang
