"Movement Speed in Rules" Topic

How much does weight of armor/equipment effect movement speed? I'm specifically thinking about on the battlefield, as opposed to strategic movement.

I would think that the leader of a unit might have better (ie, heavier) armor, but when it came time to charge, his lads wouldn't charge and leave him behind, and that he would strain to keep up with them. I recently read a set of rules that had light infantry (guys with only a shield) moving at one speed, while heavy infantry moved at half that rate, and medium infantry (partially armored) figures had a movement rate midway between the other two. Does anyone have any good sources to point to or even re-enactor examples?

Grelber

Not sure about battlefield examples, but this page has some info on march rates.

link

"Marching Rates p.2 The normal rate of march for the Roman foot soldier was 100 steps per minute. Their usual day's march of seven hours covered 15-20 miles.

See:

Judson, Harry P. Caesar's Army. NY: Biblo & Tannen, 1888.
p. 63. U35J93

Watson, G.R. The Roman Soldier. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1969.
pp. 54-55. U35W352."

************

As understand it, most rules seem to look more at relative rates, eg, light infantry should be able to out-sprint heavily-armed troops, shooters should get x number of shots in before the enemy can charge home, etc.

I would suggest that while very heavily armoured men, eg dismounted knights would move more slowly, for other troop types formation would have more effect than armour.
A hoplite phalanx couldn't catch skirmishing troops and so the idea of the younger men (who would be wearing lighter or no armour) rushing out to chase them off.
And clearly troops in close formation would have to take more care in keeping formation so would tend to move slower as a unit.

The weight of the armor wasn't really an issue. Years ago, I watched an interesting demonstration at the Higgins Museum in massachusetts. It's gone now, but it had an extensive collection or armor at the time. Anyway, a staff member came out in a full set of plate armor, slowly clanking his way towards the audience. Then, he started to do jumping jacks, jogging, summersaults, etc. It was quite an eye opening demonstration.

The thing is, the weight, even at 50-80lbs of armor, was all over the body, and not just suspended upon the shoulders. The armor was built for maneuverability and flexibility so that the wearer could actually fight and survive in battle.

What the more important issue is, is fatigue. That armor, even in Roman times, wasn't so much heavy, as hot. You had a wool or linen tunic on, with a wool or linen scarf about your neck to prevent chafing. Then you had some sort of arming coat over that, to help spread the energy from a blow that reached the armor. Then you had the armor over that. Same thing with a helmet, in that you had some sort of padded cap underneath it.

All of that helped to hold in heat, and on a hot summer's day, without proper hydration, it starts to wear down the soldier and could potentially bring about heat stroke. When the body is unable to use it's heat-extraction system (sweat) to full advantage, then bad things can begin to happen, and happen quickly.

I really suspect that a lot of what we considered to be "unarmored" troops, like Hoplites. Macedonian pike, and even Romans, with perhaps only a pectoral, but all with helmet and shield, were that way on purpose. Being able to tire more slowly would certainly have it's advantages, it seems to me.

Anyway, I have never felt that the weight of the armor should be a limiting factor in the movement rates of either horse or foot on the battlefield. At least not initially. I would rather suggest that movement should be tied to fatigue. That could easily be measured in length of time engaged, and weather.

In our periods, armies drew up within sight of each other. They had plenty of time to get into position, and to rest. The battle itself would, in most cases, be for only a short period of time. Therefore, everyone would start out as fresh, more or less, and then things would start to go downhill from there after the first little while of combat.

The question is not the armor, it's the time your move represents. Does it represent a few seconds, an hour- what?

While not a period with armor in it nevertheless it is more than valid.

Question- What is the length of the Union line, the famous "fishhook" of Gettysburg.

Answer: 3.5 miles.

Question- What is the distance a man can walk (not force march) in an hour at a steady pace?

Answer: 3.5 miles.

Therefore a man could WALK the entire line of the fishhook in about an hour. They can, trust me, I've seen them do it. A re-enactment group tried it too.

So, if you have hourly moves in a game it kind of makes a farce of all this piddily bittily movement we make.

TKindred is on the right track. It's fatigue and not the weight. In an hour there can be long periods of standing around, a movement here, a movement there, and a minute or two of intense combat hand to hand, after which they draw back, glower, make horrible faces at each other and either try again or go away.

For trained units the other issue is keeping formation. Units move at a slower rate than the theoretical maximum because of the need to dress lines. A unit which is trained to fight in a rigid formation (think pike phalanx) will fight at a severe disadvantage if their ranks and files are not neat and tidy. As a result they would want to ensure they stayed or at least tried to stay in formation even if it meant slowing the rate of advance to dress the line.

The weight of armor and equipment on soldiers would slow a unit down. Movement rates are for units so that the rate represents a unit that is fresh and able to deploy in a manner to use assigned gear.
Lightly armed warriors would move faster and enter battle with little delay. The more armor and effeminately with more equipment, the prep. time to enter a conflict takes longer for a unit. So a reduced movement rate would need to reflect this.

And for the 'effeminately' disposed you need to allow at least an extra hour's prep. time for putting on makeup.