Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: How many miles per day did ancient armies cover when marching?

  1. #21

    Default Re: How many miles per day did ancient armies cover when marching?

    This thread is becoming weird. There is no evidence that ancient armies or people of those times could march any longer than modern, fit soldiers can. As already hinted at, any distance requirement in ancient sources concerning marching ability cannot be held as a requirement for sustained marching unless it is specifically reported as such. Modern armies have those kinds of high-end requirements as well but only for single efforts in times of great haste.

    I do not know the correct term in English for it, but in my officer training we talked about marching casualties. That means men that either become unable to advance any further or become too exhausted or sore to perform an effective fighting duty at the end of the march. It is a serious matter. If there is no transportation available, the entire unit either has to stop altogether or just abandon their men at the side of the road. The latter will destroy any morale of the troops, because everyone will be thinking whether they are the next one to be abandoned.

    Harold's march south 27 miles a day is based on a calculation of an ancient account that we do not know much about. We do not know if there were marching casualties and how they were dealt with, and we do not know if the account is reliable. What we do know is that they were beaten at the destination. And there is an understanding that the stationary defenders, not having marched, were deliberately making retreats to further wear out the already worn-out attacker after a prolonged forced march.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    This is part of the reason Romans used slaves for mining or professional rowers for galleys (occasionally slaves too) even when they theoretically had the tech to build steam engines.
    I am not sure what you mean by slaves occasionally, but the common perception of Romans employing galley slaves is an early modern fiction from the 17th and 18th centuries. A warship was an extremely expensive and strategically important resource, and its power and steering capability was not supplied by a force of starving and abused slaves with no motivation. In Roman navies, trained marine soldiers took turns to row with set rest periods. It was customary for military officials and officers catching a ride from port to port to participate in rowing together with their personal servants that could be of slave status but not the abused kind. Those were the main instances of slaves participating in rowing Roman navy ships. In addition to that, there were times of shortage of manpower when slaves were employed with the promise of freedom for their services in the navy, but that does not conform to the modern fiction of forced and expendable slave labor manning the oars.

  2. #22
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: How many miles per day did ancient armies cover when marching?

    OT a bit but revisiting the OP

    "most popular ancient armies"

    You I suspect popular really depended on which side of the battlefield you were on.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  3. #23

    Default Re: How many miles per day did ancient armies cover when marching?

    Quote Originally Posted by Septentrionalis View Post
    This thread is becoming weird. There is no evidence that ancient armies or people of those times could march any longer than modern, fit soldiers can. As already hinted at, any distance requirement in ancient sources concerning marching ability cannot be held as a requirement for sustained marching unless it is specifically reported as such. Modern armies have those kinds of high-end requirements as well but only for single efforts in times of great haste.
    Modern armies tend to carry a lot more gear than ancient armies. An Union soldier of the American Civil War might carry 60 lbs, but a WW2 soldier could carrier 75 lbs and current soldiers can carry even more gear.

    https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...oldier-weight/

    Ancient soldiers could march further because they often carried less weight
    I do not know the correct term in English for it, but in my officer training we talked about marching casualties. That means men that either become unable to advance any further or become too exhausted or sore to perform an effective fighting duty at the end of the march. It is a serious matter. If there is no transportation available, the entire unit either has to stop altogether or just abandon their men at the side of the road. The latter will destroy any morale of the troops, because everyone will be thinking whether they are the next one to be abandoned.
    Ancient armies would have more willing to accept losses due to soldiers dropping out on forced marches than modern armies. While not routinely done, forced marches at time are needed - an army that arrives a day after the battle was fought does not do any good

    Harold's march south 27 miles a day is based on a calculation of an ancient account that we do not know much about. We do not know if there were marching casualties and how they were dealt with, and we do not know if the account is reliable. What we do know is that they were beaten at the destination. And there is an understanding that the stationary defenders, not having marched, were deliberately making retreats to further wear out the already worn-out attacker after a prolonged forced march.
    The dating on Harold's march is fairly reliable, because it is between to major battles where the locations were fought. Both when and where the battles were fought as well known, and not in doubt, and we know how how much distance Harold had to travel and how many days he had available to travel it.

    While Harold lost, the battle of Hastings was a hard fought battle that lasted all day. Exhaustion of his troops does not seem to have been a factor in Harold's defeat. Greater use of calvary and bows by his opponents seems to have been of far more importance.

    I am not sure what you mean by slaves occasionally, but the common perception of Romans employing galley slaves is an early modern fiction from the 17th and 18th centuries. A warship was an extremely expensive and strategically important resource, and its power and steering capability was not supplied by a force of starving and abused slaves with no motivation. In Roman navies, trained marine soldiers took turns to row with set rest periods. It was customary for military officials and officers catching a ride from port to port to participate in rowing together with their personal servants that could be of slave status but not the abused kind. Those were the main instances of slaves participating in rowing Roman navy ships. In addition to that, there were times of shortage of manpower when slaves were employed with the promise of freedom for their services in the navy, but that does not conform to the modern fiction of forced and expendable slave labor manning the oars.
    Correct. Ancient galleys used mostly freemen as rowers, and techniques like ramming took skilled oarsmen. In the 16th and 17th century, ramming was no longer practiced and you didn't need as skilled as oarsmen, so slaves could be used.

  4. #24
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    8,451

    Default Re: How many miles per day did ancient armies cover when marching?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Modern armies tend to carry a lot more gear than ancient armies. An Union soldier of the American Civil War might carry 60 lbs, but a WW2 soldier could carrier 75 lbs and current soldiers can carry even more gear.

    https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...oldier-weight/

    Ancient soldiers could march further because they often carried less weight


    Ancient armies would have more willing to accept losses due to soldiers dropping out on forced marches than modern armies. While not routinely done, forced marches at time are needed - an army that arrives a day after the battle was fought does not do any good



    The dating on Harold's march is fairly reliable, because it is between to major battles where the locations were fought. Both when and where the battles were fought as well known, and not in doubt, and we know how how much distance Harold had to travel and how many days he had available to travel it.

    While Harold lost, the battle of Hastings was a hard fought battle that lasted all day. Exhaustion of his troops does not seem to have been a factor in Harold's defeat. Greater use of calvary and bows by his opponents seems to have been of far more importance.



    Correct. Ancient galleys used mostly freemen as rowers, and techniques like ramming took skilled oarsmen. In the 16th and 17th century, ramming was no longer practiced and you didn't need as skilled as oarsmen, so slaves could be used.
    On the soldier's load: the war gear may (or may not) be heavier today than it was in the old days, but the people would then carry all their belongings and supplies with them. There're no efficient supply services, while the risks of losing unattended stuff was always present (we are actually thankful for it - all the coin treasures were deposited because of this). What matters is the overall load for a soldier during march, and it'd think it was higher in the ancient times. However, people are more healthy today due to better nutrition and medicine advances so maybe it balances the numbers?
    On soldiers dropping out - I agree, dropping out was far more acceptable in that times. Mainly because of lack of bureaucracy.
    On Harold march - dates are perhaps reliable but whether exhaustion was a factor in the defeat, we don't know. The chroniclers could have not understand the concept (they're monks, not soldiers), and they'd pick the news that were catching their attention (and, especially, the readers attention).
    On galleys - I don't think the lack of oarsmen was the reason for ending the ramming techniques. If it would be useful, then there'd be soldiers to hire, it's always a question of preferences and prices. Slaves were used in (almost) all times as oarsmen, this is not the issue.

  5. #25

    Default Re: How many miles per day did ancient armies cover when marching?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    On the soldier's load: the war gear may (or may not) be heavier today than it was in the old days, but the people would then carry all their belongings and supplies with them. There're no efficient supply services, while the risks of losing unattended stuff was always present (we are actually thankful for it - all the coin treasures were deposited because of this). What matters is the overall load for a soldier during march, and it'd think it was higher in the ancient times. However, people are more healthy today due to better nutrition and medicine advances so maybe it balances the numbers?
    And people in the past were used to doing hard physical work all their lives, and only the toughest lived to be adults. While modern medicine is better, modern diets are necessarily better. Well off farmers, nobles could eat well, and the average ancient was not as obese as today's American.

    As far as the assertion that ancient soldiers were carry heavier packs, that is just unsupported speculation. We agree the war gear carried by modern soldiers is significantly heavier. Ancient soldiers might not have many personal possessions.

    A Roman legionnaire sandal is likely to weigh less than a modern soldier's combat boots.

    [Quran=]
    On soldiers dropping out - I agree, dropping out was far more acceptable in that times. Mainly because of lack of bureaucracy. [/Quoran]

    Bureaucracy has little to do with it. In Lee's retreat toward Appomattox, many Confederate soldiers fell out or deserted in the retreat, so Lee had only 30,000 men left, yet Civil War armies bureaucracies were good. Ancient people would not be as worried about deaths if ordinary soldiers, they were less sensitive than modern people.

    On Harold march - dates are perhaps reliable but whether exhaustion was a factor in the defeat, we don't know. The chroniclers could have not understand the concept (they're monks, not soldiers), and they'd pick the news that were catching their attention (and, especially, the readers attention).
    If exhaustion was a factor, the battle would not have lasted all day as it did. While the pace of Harold's troops were not typical, and represented the performance of elite troops, it represented what is possible. A walking pace of 9 hours of day would be 27 miles per day, and that will give 15 hours of rest per day. Given a good 10 hours of sleep and rest, that would still leave 5 hours to set up and take down camp per day, entirely feasible in friendly territory. If soldiers did not have to carry supplies, and since in friendly territory they wouldn't need to, they could be lightly loaded. A man in the prime of life not carrying a heavy back could easily sustain a pace of 3 mile per hour all day on roads.


    On galleys - I don't think the lack of oarsmen was the reason for ending the ramming techniques. If it would be useful, then there'd be soldiers to hire, it's always a question of preferences and prices. Slaves were used in (almost) all times as oarsmen, this is not the issue.
    Never said that lack of experienced oarsmen was why ramming was abandoned. But the fact is that when ramming was used, we see that slaves were not used as oarsmen, and and when slaves were used as oarsmen, ramming was not practiced. You assert that this is mere coincidence, but I don't agree. Successfully ramming a ship requires more skill than merely rowing a ship.

    The multi-leveled banks of ours of ancient ships were replaced by single banks of oars with multiple rowers assigned to each oar. This change seems to have come about because of the lesser skill of rowers available in the 16th - 18th century This lesser skill would also affect techniques such as ramming

  6. #26
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    8,451

    Default Re: How many miles per day did ancient armies cover when marching?

    I would say (almost) everything in this thread is an unsupported speculation
    We are trying to compare the speed of soldiers' march in ancient times, and in modern times (ie now).
    I would speculate that:
    - modern diet for soldiers is better that it was in the ancient times (for certain groups in society it may be questionable, but professional soldiers and average Americans are quite different respect to eg. obesity);
    - I think in the ancient times they were carrying heavier packs, as justified before (while I haven't conceded that the war gear is heavier, I've written "may or may not");
    - I think in the ancient times they're sturdier, able to endure more harshness - a factor making long marches more likely;
    - a modern boot is probably the single most important object that enables longer marches today (the weight doesn't matter);
    - bureaucracy has everything to do with allowing drop-outs - as a commander your're being watched if you drop soldiers today, that was not the case in the past. And in comparison to the current war bureaucracy, the one from the US Civil War was mediocre and underdeveloped, while being significatly more intricate than those in the ancient era.
    - well, maybe they were just staying in the battlefield most of the day? A chronicle would never mentioned it, and our battle movies show it neither - would you sit there for 9 hours in a cinema to watch 15 min of action? Same with a chronicle. Sometimes such issues get mentioned when they're considered to be significant, for a reason not disclosed openly (eg. Tannenberg 1410 - Poles would wait in the trees, and we think the author wanted to convey the how cunning the king was).
    - I'm not sure "when ramming was used, we see that slaves were not used as oarsmen" - we see it in some surviving sources, but how would you tell about other areas of the Mediterranean? Or just other century? I also doubt the sentence "The multi-leveled banks of ours of ancient ships were replaced by single banks of oars with multiple rowers assigned to each oar. This change seems to have come about because of the lesser skill of rowers available in the 16th - 18th century This lesser skill would also affect techniques such as ramming" - I think there're other factors in play. Supply of skilled oarsemen would always adjust itself. If the social-political conditions would impact here, it would have impacted in quite different way.
    Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; May 31, 2021 at 01:40 AM.

  7. #27

    Default Re: How many miles per day did ancient armies cover when marching?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    I would say (almost) everything in this thread is an unsupported speculation
    Pretty much everything in your reply is unsupported speculation, with no supporting links or evidence provided.

    ,
    We are trying to compare the speed of soldiers' march in ancient times, and in modern times (ie now).
    I would speculate that:
    - modern diet for soldiers is better that it was in the ancient times (for certain groups in society it may be questionable, but professional soldiers and average Americans are quite different respect to eg. obesity);
    In general, modern people have access to better food, but the ancient soldiers would have been better fed than ordinary persons, and it is speculation that the nutrition of of of a modern soldier is significantly better that of ancient soldiers to the point it made them physically more capable.

    - I think in the ancient times they were carrying heavier packs, as justified before (while I haven't conceded that the war gear is heavier, I've written "may or may not");
    Again, this is speculation. I have provided links to show that the war gear in historic times has increased in weight significantly. Ancient soldiers, if they didn't wear much armor as many did not, would not be carrying a heavy load. A heavily armored Roman legionaire would carry
    * Scutum (shield) - 10 kg
    * Lorca hamata (mail shirt) - 11 kg
    * Helmet - .8 kg
    * Sword - .8 kg
    * 2 pilums - 1 kg + 2.3 kg = 3.3 kg
    * Dagger, axe - 1 kg

    Total would be 26 kg (57 lbs.), Considerably less than the weight of a modern soldier war gear in the links I already provided.

    - I think in the ancient times they're sturdier, able to endure more harshness - a factor making long marches more likely;
    - a modern boot is probably the single most important object that enables longer marches today (the weight doesn't matter);
    Roman legionnaire sandals were well designed, but modern combat boots would be better designed, I will concede. Still, ancients were likely far more use to marching long distances. Modern soldiers only occassionally march long distances, ancient soldiers did it all their lives.

    [Quote]
    - well, maybe they were just staying in the battlefield most of the day? A chronicle would never mentioned it, and our battle movies show it neither - would you sit there for 9 hours in a cinema to watch 15 min of action? Same with a chronicle. Sometimes such issues get mentioned when they're considered to be significant, for a reason not disclosed openly (eg. Tannenberg 1410 - Poles would wait in the trees, and we think the author wanted to convey the how cunning the king was).
    More unsupported speculation on your part. The accounts all indicate it was a hard fought battle, which could not have lasted all day in Harold's soldiers fell over from exhaustion.

    Note, it is not just the account of Harold's troop, but other ancient accounts that clearly state that soldiers could travel 20 miles on foot pwr day. Vegetius also stated that, others as well. That is not unsupported speculation, that is evidence. While Harold's march was unusually, and due to special circumstances, even 27 mikes per day just works out to a normal walking pace of 3 miles per hour for just 9 hours. A walking pace all day is quite sustainable, the soldiers would have 15 hours to recover all day.

    Again, here is a statement that with a full backpack a hiler should be able to maintain 3 miles per hour on flat terrain, Scenario B. https://www.greenbelly.co/pages/average-hiking-speed . Note, elite soldiers would be at their peak physical conditions and do better that the average hiker

    - I'm not sure "when ramming was used, we see that slaves were not used as oarsmen" - we see it in some surviving sources, but how would you tell about other areas of the Mediterranean?
    If you are ignorant, as you admit, then perhaps you should not be making comments as you do. We know what the ancient warships were like from both written sources and some iconography. As far as the Mediterranean, the Romans completely controlled the Mediterranean, so what they did applied to the entire area, so I am not sure what you mean by "other parts of the Mediterranean".

    Or just other century? I also doubt the sentence "The multi-leveled banks of ours of ancient ships were replaced by single banks of oars with multiple rowers assigned to each oar. This change seems to have come about because of the lesser skill of rowers available in the 16th - 18th century This lesser skill would also affect techniques such as ramming" - I think there're other factors in play.
    The statement I made are the opinions of those who have studied the matter, which you have not. Again you have provided just speculation. We know that multi levels of oars were used when ramming was a tactic. We have supporting written and iconography that shows multi-banked oars being used when we know from archaeology and written sources when ramming was being used, and we know that the rowers at this time were largely free men, not slaves. It is logical to assume that the switch to a single row of oars was due to less availability of skilled oarsmen. It is clear that more coordination is needed to operate multi-levels of banks of oars than a single row. Improperly operating the oars could result in oars being tangled, and multiple banks are harder to coordinate than a single row.

    Supply of skilled oarsemen would always adjust itself. If the social-political conditions would impact here, it would have impacted in quite different way.
    Because ramming was not used, skilled oarsmen were not required, and cheaper slaves and convicts could be used. Oared warships were labor intensive, and expensive to operate if paying the wages of free labor. For a society so dependent on slaves as the Romans, that cheaper slaves were not used for the labor intensive task of rowing strongly indicates that greater skill was required for the naval tactics they used, i e., ramming.
    Medieval European ships, largely being sailing ships, were more heavily constructed than the ancient Mediterranean ships, which was a factor in the abandonment of ramming.

  8. #28
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    8,451

    Default Re: How many miles per day did ancient armies cover when marching?

    I will leave to the readers to judge which arguments are more convincing.

  9. #29

    Default Re: How many miles per day did ancient armies cover when marching?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    I will leave to the readers to judge which arguments are more convincing.
    Agreed. One point I don't know if I made clear is that marches of 25 to 27 miles per day like Harold's march were the exception, not the rule. They were possible on flat terrain, on good roads, in friendly territory.

    Marches over uneven terrain, lacking good roads to travel and having fo carry all the supplies for a campaign would be significantly slower. Backpackers in good shape with a full pack can be expected to travel 18 miles a day on flat terrain on a link I previous provided, and oxen hauling heavy loads might travel as slow as 1 mile per hour, or as little as 8 to 12 miles per day.

    25 miles per day represents the upper limit, not the typical distances. Modern armies seldom need to travel at top speed on flat terrain on good roads by foot, because if troops were needed very quickly, it would be faster to have them transported by truck or train, or even by plane.

    There was the famous taxis brigade in WW1 that helped transfer badly needed soldiers to help save Paris. In the old days, these soldiers would had to have been forced marched to the battlefield sight.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; July 15, 2021 at 05:21 PM. Reason: Fix typo

  10. #30
    swabian's Avatar igni ferroque
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,294

    Default Re: How many miles per day did ancient armies cover when marching?

    I think there is little doubt overall that people of the ancient world were generally physically much fitter than the average modern person. Of course, provided that we're comparing individuals without physical impairment.

    Life was much harder all the time in every way. People had to walk all the time, transport heavy weight, etc. Physical exercise was not a distinct part of the day, separated from office work and driving, it was completely integrated in everyday life. If someone wanted to take a bath, they had to go to a well and carry that water over bucket by bucket as one of many thinkable examples. Work was almost always hard physical labor from childhood on! There is no doubt they must have had much more stamina and toughened musculature. The only exception would be bodybuilders with specialized high protein diets in modern times. Of course, ancient people usually weren't as able to develop extremely bulky muscles as some modern extremes.

    The quality footwear also plays into this comparison, which could mean that modern athlete's performances would have to be cut by maybe 10% in order to get an objective comparison.

    As for food: if we exclude starvations and extreme poverty, the food in the ancient world was not worse. In many ways it was actually more healthy than our pre-processed fatty crap. It depends on time and place of course. A Roman soldier would have been well nourished, medieval citizens normally had regular access to all kinds of vegetables, fruit, eggs, milk, chees and even meat was not such a rarity as it is suggested sometimes. Chicken was not a problem for the average joe back then. They usually didn't have to slobber meager porridge all the time (and they did bathe at least once a weak and they did clean their teeth).

    edit:

    Looking at some of Dürers work (16th century), who actually depicted everyday people (peasantry in this case), you can tell that they were rather tough and well muscled.



    Last edited by swabian; July 10, 2021 at 10:39 AM.

  11. #31
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: How many miles per day did ancient armies cover when marching?

    The only exception would be bodybuilders with specialized high protein diets in modern times. Of course, ancient people usually weren't as able to develop extremely bulky muscles as some modern extremes.
    Actually not quite Xenophon (as mercenary commander) has multiple complaints about professional athletes being useless because while they did have impressive oversized physical frames based on huge special diets designed just for short term bouts in whatever their sport was (think boxing even sprinting) but no real long term stamina for day to day survival.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •