Marching

[Stacy Clifford]

I just got back from a really long hike in the woods yesterday to enjoy the weather and escape my computer for a day, and as I sit here moving like a 90 year-old today, I'm reminded that soldiers in all ages past did a tremendous amount of walking. We occasionally discuss fighting fitness around here and often mention things like farming, chopping wood, and all the other physical labor they had to do just to survive, as well as the dedicated exercise fighting men did in service of their craft. Commoners especially walked most of the places they went, and I know I've lost as much as 15 pounds in a two-week vacation from walking before. I'm wondering more about the burden of the soldier on the march though.

While we know that soldiers would wear their full armor and gear on the morning of battle, what did they wear on an average day of marching toward a target, say, 150 miles away? Did they dress lighter to save their strength, or armor up in case of ambush? "Average" is probably tough to pin down in this case, I suppose, since it would somewhat depend on circumstances, but for the sake of argument let's assume a low, but not unthinkable, chance of ambush on any given day.

And just to add to the discussion, how do you think the march itself sharpened or dulled combat readiness? Examples?

[Tim Ingersoll]

I have to ask, if they did not wear their Armor how did it get to the field of Battle?

Tim

[Joshua Welsh]

I have to ask, if they did not wear their Armor how did it get to the field of Battle?

Tim

My guess would be that a squire would tend to it. It would likely be packed along on a horse or mule. Though I have no reference to verify my suspicions.

[Benjamin Parker]

The baggage train, also the romans carried their armour on a pack and in the renn the gens d' armes carried it on their palfrey.

As an aside most of them didn't march one hundred and fifty miles there's a great deal of debate but ten-fifteen miles on a good day is the general consensus

[Stacy Clifford]

I didn't mean they would walk 150 miles in a day, only one army in history even accomplished 100 miles/day on horseback (Genghis Khan's). I just picked a distance that would require several days of marching even under ideal conditions.

For comparison, I walked close to 30 miles yesterday in 10 hours alone with a light day pack plus water over relatively flat woodland terrain on packed trails and rarely stopping for long. Large groups tend to move slower, and armies have more to carry, so 10-15 miles/day in favorable terrain for healthy troops sounds like a reasonable number. I've heard as little as 5 miles/day for difficult terrain or poor weather conditions.

[CalebChow]

I'm sure they'd get plenty of training to do what they need to, although isn't it true that people with flatfoot are usually not accepted into the marching ranks?
I have a pretty severe case of flatfoot, and I noticed that walking for as little as an hour can get me massive shin cramps--even after putting up with it and training in walking for months at a time.

Not sure where the source for this comes from (altho I think it's pretty obvious), but some military treatises say to always put the slowest soldiers in the front so the ranks don't get scattered.

[s_taillebois]

As M. Parker noted, the baggage train. And the armor plated aristocracy were quite touchy about the people and equipage their status allowed them to bring along.
Often several horses (a riding stock and a fighting horse) however many henches they had, grooms and etc.

Medieval armies on the march were something like a portable village.

And at times, either by surprise or by lassitude they did find themselves without armor. The Vikings at Stamford Bridge for example.

Some have argued the Angle-Saxons lost at Hastings because the forced march across the country may have fatigued them critically before the battle on Senlac hill.

At Hattin the crusaders were in such poor condition from their march and then isolation without water that virtually none could break out once when they were surrounded.

And the British on the Agincourt campaign were in pretty bad shape, dysentery from bad shellfish, and greatly fatigued by the race to the fords before they could get cut off by the French. It provided them some impetus/adrenaline to fight hard, because they all knew they did not have much left. Henry's speech (whatever it actually was) may have been a attempt to rally exhausted men in addition to the usual pre-battle bravado. If Agincourt had gone into another day on the pitch the British might have lost.

Another march of a later period, the forced retreat on the night of sorrows put Cortez's men in pretty poor condition.

Stragglers in medieval/Renn armies usually ended up in serious trouble. Often killed by scouts from the opposing force or by enraged peasantry from the villages they'd passed through. And sometimes by their own troops who'd gone rogue-that was a major problem during the wars of the reformation. Especially in Germany. Unless it was someone who could be ransomed, these people were not exactly enraptured by the concept of taking prisoners, especially enemy troops caught unaware and alone.

[Tom Reynolds]

s. taillebois wrote:

As M. Parker noted, the baggage train. And the armor plated aristocracy were quite touchy about the people and equipage their status allowed them to bring along.
Often several horses (a riding stock and a fighting horse) however many henches they had, grooms and etc.

Medieval armies on the march were something like a portable village.

And at times, either by surprise or by lassitude they did find themselves without armor. The Vikings at Stamford Bridge for example.

Some have argued the Angle-Saxons lost at Hastings because the forced march across the country may have fatigued them critically before the battle on Senlac hill.

At Hattin the crusaders were in such poor condition from their march and then isolation without water that virtually none could break out once when they were surrounded.

And the British on the Agincourt campaign were in pretty bad shape, dysentery from bad shellfish, and greatly fatigued by the race to the fords before they could get cut off by the French. It provided them some impetus/adrenaline to fight hard, because they all knew they did not have much left. Henry's speech (whatever it actually was) may have been a attempt to rally exhausted men in addition to the usual pre-battle bravado. If Agincourt had gone into another day on the pitch the British might have lost.

Another march of a later period, the forced retreat on the night of sorrows put Cortez's men in pretty poor condition.

Stragglers in medieval/Renn armies usually ended up in serious trouble. Often killed by scouts from the opposing force or by enraged peasantry from the villages they'd passed through. And sometimes by their own troops who'd gone rogue-that was a major problem during the wars of the reformation. Especially in Germany. Unless it was someone who could be ransomed, these people were not exactly enraptured by the concept of taking prisoners, especially enemy troops caught unaware and alone.

Tom Reynolds wrote:

All excellent examples, showing that what soldiers wore to march varied a lot throughout history.

Just to be difficult, I will only add that HOW they marched should be considered as well. For example, most pre-modern armies that I've ever read about employed skirmishers or light auxiliaries as flankers when marching in hostile territory. Those light auxiliaries would have been fully equipped, but their equipment would be different (lighter) than the typical line soldier.

Lately I've been reading Stephen Dando Collins' book on Julius Caesar's 10th legion. The specific place names escape me at the moment (I can find them if anyone is interested), but I remember reading that Caesar's normal order of marching was to have each legion immediately followed by it's own baggage train. He changed that on one particular march, putting all the legions together, because he got information on a potential ambush. Which did in fact happen, and he was able to achieve a great victory because his legions were not separated by baggage trains. If I remember correctly, the book said an individual legion on the march took up something like two miles of road.

Interesting question. Thanks!

[s_taillebois]

"Just to be difficult, I will only add that HOW they marched should be considered as well. For example, most pre-modern armies that I've ever read about employed skirmishers or light auxiliaries as flankers when marching in hostile territory"

Well Mike Loades (the BBC presenter) seemed to indicate the longbow archers who could afford (or steal, capture) riding stock served as a form of scouts, vedettes or flankers. Some archers may have been high status (having a horse) but it seems their kit was quite minimal. Bow, quiver, maul or a war hammer, dagger or falchion, food and some manner of flexible armour.

And Godwinson must have had some type of order of march to get as many men as he did, as far as he did in such a short time. He was at Stamford Bridge on the 25th of September, and at Hastings by October 13-14th. The distance was about 250 some miles, so about 12-15 miles a day. Given these men had mustered and moved to Stamford fought there, then turned about and went to Hastings already tired and possibly with some wounded-some pretty impressive marching on their part. And some impressive logistics on Godwinson's part. Especially given that the countryside he moved across had little that would be considered a proper road until he got to old roman passageways (and those had to have been in pretty bad shape). Don't know how he organized it, except the housekarls and ealderman must have really kept the spearmen moving. Especially since the upper class Saxons did use horses as transport, but many in the fyrds probably did not have horses.

Sad he lost and was killed in such a ignoble manner, a leader of Godwinson's caliber deserved better.

[Benjamin Parker]

Well Mike Loades (the BBC presenter) seemed to indicate the longbow archers who could afford (or steal, capture) riding stock served as a form of scouts, vedettes or flankers. Some archers may have been high status (having a horse) but it seems their kit was quite minimal. Bow, quiver, maul or a war hammer, dagger or falchion, food and some manner of flexible armour.

That's debatable, I'd argue that they were actually pretty heavily armoured, (pieces of plate on their legs, head, neck, arms, mail, plackarct, brigandine, etc.)

Of course even that didn't help them much as the french aristocracy even though they were fighting without order or disipline still wreaked a lot of casualties on them.

[s_taillebois]

Well I should have clarified what was meant about flexible armor. Problem is archers being part of the masses tended not to be closely written about-although many who later died at Towton were identified as such men by physical traits. And some of that crew died from head injuries, so either soft tissue injuries took them down to be killed later, or their kit was better than expected.

However being members of the yeomanry, and the new middle classes they could not have had that much money for plate armor. One of the reasons Henry's small professional army was so archer heavy was he could no longer afford more expensive troops. The exchequer had been drained fairly heavy by previous campaigns. And even stuff like fletching for arrows costs money and time-apparently they killed every goose within 50 miles of London to prep for that campaign. Probably the big cost for the archers, and the people bringing them was those arrows. 50,000+ arrows would take a substantial amount of time to make, bundle and move.

Problem with archers is that being of the lower orders they largely escaped the attention of the chroniclers. So what they had, and who they were is often a bit ambiguous. Even higher status people like William Jodrell and Dafydd Gam could be a bit hard to pin down. Gam for example doesn't show up on the Agincourt role, but the legends about him were there from which Shakespeare drew.

Obviously after a campaign the archers would be better kitted, if they had won. But how much looting they could get from the higher status dead and prisoners is another question.

[Jonathan Hill]

Lately I've been reading Stephen Dando Collins' book on Julius Caesar's 10th legion. The specific place names escape me at the moment (I can find them if anyone is interested), but I remember reading that Caesar's normal order of marching was to have each legion immediately followed by it's own baggage train. He changed that on one particular march, putting all the legions together, because he got information on a potential ambush. Which did in fact happen, and he was able to achieve a great victory because his legions were not separated by baggage trains. If I remember correctly, the book said an individual legion on the march took up something like two miles of road.

Interesting question. Thanks!

Galic Wars book 2 chapter 17- 28, I was reading that a few weeks ago. I was surprised how much Caeser relied on the slingers and archers for quick fighting, relief work and just the fact he wrote about them. It does makes sense as the heavy infantry do much better in an organized open fight where they don’t have to run great distances then fight.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... apter%3D17

It does of course make sense, you harass an army as it moves and do your best to draw off men, or slow it. Much of the victory in those battles was deciding when and where to fight, and forcing your enemy to fight at his disadvantage. Essentially marching would be a skill your men would need that would be equal or second to fighting itself. Heavy infantry really needs to be more disciplined to hold the line rather than be offensive in the fight. This also applies to movement so they do not get separated and destroyed.

[s_taillebois]

"It does of course make sense, you harass an army as it moves and do your best to draw off men, or slow it. Much of the victory in those battles was deciding when and where to fight, and forcing your enemy to fight at his disadvantage."

Both Crecy and Agincourt being examples of that concept when it worked. Apparently the distinction being how much the marches to these advantageous places drained off the energy or ability to think clearly of those who took part. Senlac/Hastings would be the example of when it all went wrong regarding the effect of these marches to advantageous places.


Godwinson and the Saxons for example, won against the Vikings out at Stamford Bridge. But broke discipline at Senlac Hill, and therefore lost. Would wonder if the people who broke the shield wall to go off after the Bretons had been so fatigued that what would have normally been perceived as a ruse was not perceived so...Plus the Saxons took their mead oath quite seriously and so breaking a shield wall in itself was exceptional.

[Keith Culbertson]

great thread everyone, thank you for reminding me of some interesting facts I have seen, but may have let slip away over the years---

back to stacy's hiking experience and the soreness after, it shows a need to balance between intense, explosive training and endurance training; one way I get extra miles in is to read while walking for hours at a time, or more likely nowadays, walking and lifting things alternately at work

no doubt, mass movement was a very strategic and also tactical skill, just as individual movement is key to actual fighting as we have seen stressed in recent articles

[Jaron Bernstein]

great thread everyone, thank you for reminding me of some interesting facts I have seen, but may have let slip away over the years---

back to stacy's hiking experience and the soreness after, it shows a need to balance between intense, explosive training and endurance training; one way I get extra miles in is to read while walking for hours at a time, or more likely nowadays, walking and lifting things alternately at work

no doubt, mass movement was a very strategic and also tactical skill, just as individual movement is key to actual fighting as we have seen stressed in recent articles

One modern example might shed some light. Read about the British-Argentine Falklands war back in the 1980's. British Paras and Royal Marines did a great deal of long distance field marches with quite heavy kit, often with combat mixed in to that process. A look at that might give you a sense of what is feasible.