06-13-2006, 07:25 PM
Another possibility is that we are not separating the concepts of routine march from forced march. A march of 10 miles was considered a fair day's progress in the 18th century. For a legion which was undergoing, say, a non-emergency transfer from one region to another, a regular pace of 10 miles a day might be thought a good thing. It would not stress either the men or the draft animals, and straggling would be minimal.
That isn't much of a pace by the modern standards various people have posted; but since WW II most armies haven't moved large units with draft animals any signifcant distance on foot: say, 5000 men and a few hundred beasts going 300 miles. If the movement is routine, then wastage of men and beasts becomes an issue for the military clerks. If there is a reason to hurry, of course, then the wastage becomes a necessity, and faster speeds could certainly be justified.
That isn't much of a pace by the modern standards various people have posted; but since WW II most armies haven't moved large units with draft animals any signifcant distance on foot: say, 5000 men and a few hundred beasts going 300 miles. If the movement is routine, then wastage of men and beasts becomes an issue for the military clerks. If there is a reason to hurry, of course, then the wastage becomes a necessity, and faster speeds could certainly be justified.
Felix Wang
