[MUD-Dev] Walking

[John W Pierce]

Philip Loguinov, Draymoor:

 > Does anyone know about how far an average person can wak in a day?
 > How about forced march? How about a horse?

Depends vastly on the terrain, weight carried, etc (and, obviously,
individual fitness). A lot depends on the condition they need to be end at
the end of the day. There's a very big difference between "maximum distance
a person can walk in a day" and "maximum sustainable rate of march". A lot
depends, also, on whether you're talking about a single person (horse), or
some group of them. Also, "average" only has meaning in context.

I think (don't remember for certain) that the world's record for 50 km race
walking (bout 31 miles) is well under four hours, and that anything under
five hours is considered very good.  I don't know how long it takes them to
recover enough to, say, be able to do it again (I vaguely remember being
told that it takes marathoners a couple of weeks to fully recover from a
race). Quite a lot of people have walked 100 mile in 24 hours, though I
think these are all on tracks, or at least very well prepared trails. The
world's record for six days of *running* is around 625 miles, I believe.

A couple of years ago some guy walked across Australia alone, using camels
to carry his provisions. It was around 4500 km and took him something like
seven months. That'd be 20-25 km/day, but I don't know if he took any
lengthy breaks, etc. I do remember that he was an ex-Legionnaire and that he
lost 40 or 50 pounds on the trip. In the early 1970s somebody walked around
the world (just the land masses, not the ocean :) - 14-15000 miles - in
around four years. That's only about ten miles/day, but I don't think the
idea was to do it fast, and I do remember that there were several months of
time lost while he recovered from being shot by bandits in Afghanistan (I
think there were originally two of them and one died).

On the whole, I think that you can take 25 miles/day as about the best pace
an "average" fit person can sustain for any length of time. The Blackfeet
used to raid the Shoshone for horses over one-way distances of 200-300
miles, and they typically covered 20-25 miles/day on foot on the out-bound
portion. Raiding was generally a spring and summer sport, so it would have
been mostly fairly decent weather and plains-type terrain - high grass and
such, but not a lot of heavy brush, forest or steep areas. While there was
no fixed number, raiding parties were rarely more than 12 people, and
usually included one or two 14-15 year old boys who did chores in return
for learning the trade, and sometimes included a woman or two.

With respect to larger groups, US Army field manual FM 21-26 "Map Reading
and Land Navigation" (1993) states that the normal rate for an eight hour
foot march is 4 kmh (about 2.5mph - 20 miles/day), though it can vary a
great deal depending on terrain, how far *must* be travelled, etc. It also
notes that "Soldiers must get to the right place, at the right time, and in
good fighting condition." From personal experience (USMC, Vietnam) I can
tell you that keeping up that pace for very many days in heavy terrain,
carrying 40-50 pounds, and digging in every night, would be very difficult.

The standard (US) military parade marching rate ("quick time") is 120
paces/minute, with a 30 inch pace. That's about 3.4 miles/hour (5.67 kmh).
"Double time" uses a 36 inch pace length and 180 paces/minute - 6.1 mph
(about 10 kmh). Neither of those is actually used in the field, of course;
they're mostly used for moving small units around base. "Route step" is the
USCM term (don't know if anybody else uses it) for moving in formation but
not marching in step; there's probably some precise definition that I don't
remember, but it's generally somewhat slower than "quick time".

Interestingly, Judson ("Caesar's Army", 1888) cites Vegetius as giving the
regular march cadence - "militari gradu" - as 100 paces/minute, and the
quick
march cadence as 120 paces/minute. The length of a pace was almost the same
(2.5 Roman feet, but the Roman foot was very slightly shorter than ours).
The 100 paces/minute rate is about 2.8 mph (4.5 kmh) which corresponds well
with the 2.5 mph given by FM 21-26. However, Roman armies only moved 10 to
12
miles per day under normal conditions. They built fortified camps every
night,
even in friendly areas. That seems to have taken three to four hours, and it
probably took an hour or two to break camp in the morning, depending on how
much effort they put into slighting the defenses. That gives a normal "work
day" of 10-12 hours, not counting guard duty, which feels about right for
a sustained march. There's an excellent analysis on all of this at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6622/index.html.

Caesar is supposed to have once moved his army something like 800 miles in
10 days. I've never seen a definition of what "army" meant in this case. It
certainly didn't include any cavalry, field engines, or baggage, as the
animals couldn't have moved that fast. I've also never seen any commentary
on the condition of the troops at the end of the march. I suspect that he
simply needed to get a fairly large number of troops somewhere, knew that
there'd be some time for rest prior to any battle that might occur, and was
willing to accept a high drop out rate in return for speed.

S. Patrick Gallaty:

 > I believe a single unburdened horseman is expected to do 200m/day.
 > The difference is that the horse is not affected as much by
 > inclination and terrain, and can sustain a 20m/hr pace for long
durations.
 > Horse do not gain as much from roads, however - but they also are
 > not penalized for plains/brush.

That may be how war gamers play it, but it has nothing to do with reality.
I've never understood why gamers choose to make up this sort of nonsense
when they could about as easily find out the truth.

Try to maintain 20 mph on a horse for an hour and you'll kill it. And they
can't maintain 10 mph for 20 hours, either. Horses don't have much stamina.
They can't do 50 miles per day, day after day (and most riders can't handle
that, either). Given enough food and water, very fit horses might manage 30
miles or so per day for several days, but that's about the limit. (And
that's
grain feed, not grazing, and 20 gallons or more of water per day per horse.)
A very fit horse *might* be able to manage two consecutive 50 mile days
(again,
given enough food and water) but it isn't very likely, and it's going to be
useless after that second day.

As an example of real world usage when speed on horseback practical
importance, the Pony Express took 10 days from St Joseph to Sacremento -
about 190 miles per day. Riders rode 30 to 60 mile segments, and changed
horses every 10-15 miles.
Carey's ride from London to Glasgow (a little under 400 miles) in 60 hours
was considered quite noteworthy. That's an average of only 6.5 mph, and he
had great incentive to move as fast as absolutely possible - he was riding
to tell James VI that Elizabeth I had named him as her heir just before her
death. I can't remember if he'd planned this and stationed remounts along
the way or if he simply picked them up as he needed them. I also can't
remember how many horses he used; I'd guess it was at least 10 and possibly
as many as 20. Can a horse do 100 miles in single day (24 hour period)? Yes,
but they have to be very fit, trained for it, and have a lot of food and
water along the way. And they won't do that again (or much of anything else)
for quite a while.

The Tevis Cup race is an annual 100 mile race in open country in fairly
rough terrain. "Finishing" is defined as completing the course in less than
24 hours. Since 1955, there have been a little over 7000 total entries, with
just under 4000 finishers (56%). The course has moved around a bit over the
years due to the encroachment of "civilization" on the wilderness area they
use, so it's a little hard to directly compare the times for individual
races; however, the long term statistics are interesting:

	Shortest winning time: 10:46 (9.3 mph, 15 kmh; in 1981)
	Longest winning time:  15:56 (6.3 mph, 10.1 kmh; in 1990)
	Average winning time:  13:25 (7.5 mph, 12 kmh)

Almost 90% of the horses are Arabian or Arabian crosses, and there are
always
a few mules. I think the highest a mule has finished is seventh (out of
250).
The same course is also used for a 100 mile race for runners. The fastest
runner's time is 15:40:41 (1997), which is a just under 6.4 mph (10.3 kmh).

I don't believe a runner has yet beaten the horses in the 22 mile "horse vs
man" race in Wales, though I think a runner fairly recently finished within
15 minutes of the first horse, so he certainly beat the vast majority of the
horses (the runners do get a 15 minute head start). I don't know the times
for this, but the fastest runners should do it in the 2:15 to 2:45 range.
Since it's considered a difficult but fair race for the runners (given the
head start), that means that the fastest horses aren't much under two hours.
The longer the distance, the better the chance for the runner. For instance,
in
a 50 mile cross country race in Arizona last year, a runner finished about
15
minutes ahead of the first horse.

-- John W Pierce, R2 Systems, San Diego
   jwp at r2systems.com





_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev