Distance marching rates, infantry v cavalry

[TWS]

I think it depends on type of horse, condition, remounts, etc. And of course how hard you're willing to burn through horses. And rider's ability its harder for a horse to carry an inexperienced rider.

I took a long ride moving cows after major surgery as a kid. Both me and my horse were really tired by the end of the day.

[Alanus]

Hello, Moi and All

A very interesting thread, especially the combo of infantry and cavalry. :-D

Perhaps the finest of cavalries moved with no support infantry, making them less restricted especially in extensive grasslands. This is exactly how the Huns terrorized Roman Europe, how the Scythio-Saroumatae frustrated the Persians, and how Timujin almost conquered the known world. With extra mounts, and ready fodder to nibble, these immense cavalry units could travel almost 100 miles a day. Unfortunately... or fortunately for Europe... the eastern invaders ran out of pasturage. :wink:

[Vindex]

Good call Alan

But now you're into the difference of breeds and the differences between horses and ponies (it is more than just categorising by hand height). "Hot blood", cold blood and any potential warm bloods; one would hazard a guess that Timujin's ponies were more closely related to the feral horse than the more domesticated horses in the west.

Good disussion though but now really off the topic!

[Steve Kaye]

Ok. Concensus of opinion is that although a horse CAN physically eat and walk with a nosebag (evidence cited is working draught horses but suprisingly NOT Hackney cab horses) it isn't recommended and does indeed cause colic.

Vindex, thanks for checking. Much appreciated. The idea of the nosebag being used while walking is not critical to the model of infantry and cavalry mutual support but I was worried, if it proved false, that it would damage the whole concept.

As for the colic issue, I imagine the horses would have been trained every bit as much as the legionaries. Any that did "not make the grade" (etymology = horse fails to draw cart up hill??) would have been removed from the cavalry.

As a tidbit, I remember seeing horses pulling light carts in Indonesia while munching in a nosebag. Small, skinny beasts.

Regards, Steve

[Mark Hygate]

The 80km a day (50 miles) is associated with Gallienus' rapid strike force. (Note to self - check if it is Roman miles or standard miles which have been used in the calculation). Furthermore Gallienus' force at Milan was between 50 and 60 alae (Cheesman 1941) so 25,ooo troopers (that's a LOT of fodder and a massive muck heap for the horses!) to be dispatched as required.

I hate to spoil a good discussion, but ... what rapid strike force?!

I have to ask too....

Firstly - which Cheesman in 1941? The Cheesman I was aware of that produced the seminal study on the Roman Auxilia died in 1915 at Gallipoli... His son?

Second, and part of what I've been looking at these last 6 months - does anyone else think that that is a completely incredible amount of military horsepower? And I mean 'beyond credibility'!

On the assumption that a Troop of cavalry takes up the same living space as a Century - and even 60 Ala D are assumed to be 16 Troops strong each - that's 16 Legion-sized camps/fortresses just for somewhere to live!

PS - Should have read to the end before posting:oops:, my apologies - but I'd still appreciate any comment on the total numbers of cavalry attested in various sources.....

[Vindex]

Will you stop shooting the messenger please - it wasn't me who brought this up!! :?

Second, and part of what I've been looking at these last 6 months - does anyone else think that that is a completely incredible amount of military horsepower? And I mean 'beyond credibility'!.....

It is an almost unbelievable amount of horse power to us and as been shown perhaps not an accurate of Cheeseman 1914. But then in 1914 there were much larger cavalry forces known than in our times. (Indeed even now; Her Majesty currently owns more horses than tanks which is a tad worrying!)

On the assumption that a Troop of cavalry takes up the same living space as a Century - and even 60 Ala D are assumed to be 16 Troops strong each - that's 16 Legion-sized camps/fortresses just for somewhere to live!!..

Hence the huge question mark over logistics.

PS - Should have read to the end before posting:oops:, my apologies - but I'd still appreciate any comment on the total numbers of cavalry attested in various sources.....

Have a look at this

[M. Demetrius]

Will you stop shooting the messenger please

But the messenger is always right there, and rarely armed. He's the safest one to take a shot at.

[Q Rutilius]

Please look at Dan Howard's response. There is your answer.

[Flavius Nevitta]

Hi! My first post here after...dunno 6 years? lol Nice to be back

I wouldn't be too sure about Gallienus "cavalry" force. First of all there are doubts concerning the greek text which mentions cavalry units. Junkelmann makes a good point in his Roman Cavalry.

Some years ago, before I had to stop studying until now, I startet to write a paper on dating problems concerning Gallienus reign, which I never managed to finish. Anyway I doubt that there was a pure cavalry force. It might be true that the bulk of his cavalry detachments was stationed at Milan. Aureolus never really appears as a pure cavalry commander however.

We don't know how his "special force" actually was formed. It was stationed in northern Italy out of several reasons. To stop germanic incursions, to block the Gallic empire and to be available quickly at the pannonian and dacian boarder as well.

There were serious incursions during the beginning of his reign in the Pannonian area. They were driven back and the Marcomanni took over some of the boarder defence for the Romans, still the threat continued to exist. The Alemanni had crossed the alps, Goths at the lower Danube and the Gallic Empire to the north.

At least after driving the Alemanni back and recovering Raetia from the Gallic Empire he was in control of the Alpine passes. It seems quite certain that he blocked them. Cavalry is of no use there, so the infantry detachments were probably spread over a wider area as long as they were not actively needed.

The whole distribution of the army and its units was quite a mess during his reign, which makes it hard to find out, which units were actually used and where.

During his earlier reign together with his father he conducted some campaigns on the Gallic Germanian boarder. There were several of the british detachments with him and it seems that some of them actually stayed in the area during the Gallic Empire.

His coinage was discussed in some earlier works. An interesting point there were some coins praising some of the "German" legions, which were by then part of the Gallic Empire. While working at the CIL i stumbled across 2 rather new inscriptions (dunno if they've been published by now and where...as I said, I had no time to do anything concerning ancient history for years). Anyway there are 2 inscriptions which from the context seem to date to his reign. They are from Pannonia and Dacia. Both from soldiers from Legio I Minervia. It seems like he had taken some detachments from the german legions to fight at the Danube, while his father went to the east. These detachments actually seem to have stayed in his field army after the Gallic Empire seceded. There are no permanent camps along the boarders I know of in which they stayed for a longer time and left much traces. So to me it seems likely that part of his field army consisted of the detachments he took from the German provinces and the Decumates. Infantry that is.

But this is just speculation of course...

[D B Campbell]

Junkelmann makes a good point in his Roman Cavalry.

Would you care to elaborate, Micha?

[Nathan Ross]

Will you stop shooting the messenger please - it wasn't me who brought this up!! :?

Actually it was me who mentioned the 'cavalry reserve' in my original post, although in my defence I did say supposed... :-)

Have a look at this

Interesting, but I'd question the figure given for cavalry in the Dacian war. Like many estimating army sizes and units in the Dacian war in particular, the author assumes that every unit attested in the neighbouring provinces would be committed to the campaign, which for logistical reasons alone probably wasn't the case.

[ParthianBow]

Very interesting thread, thank you to all who contributed! :-)