Time consumed

Hi everyone - one thing I'm struggling with is the time consumed in getting things to happen. It appears some characters' orders or gifts (such as give $2m to the Treasury, new cradles) can be immediate, but if I send cash, it ends up taking months via a trade caravan.

Letters sent via messenger can take a month to reach Rome, yet we hear about events in Edessa or Britannia (and further) the same month they happen.

I understand the impracticality of timing things to reflect how long news and cash travels, and we want a workable game so may I ask for tips on how to make things happen faster?

Johntindall wrote:Hi everyone - one thing I'm struggling with is the time consumed in getting things to happen. It appears some characters' orders or gifts (such as give $2m to the Treasury, new cradles) can be immediate, but if I send cash, it ends up taking months via a trade caravan.

Letters sent via messenger can take a month to reach Rome, yet we hear about events in Edessa or Britannia (and further) the same month they happen.

I understand the impracticality of timing things to reflect how long news and cash travels, and we want a workable game so may I ask for tips on how to make things happen faster?

I am not convinced but it seems that messages and gifts sent via riders using Roman Roads and the postal re-mount system arrive a lot quicker than items sent by Sea which if not delayed by storms get becalmed.

Have not really explored any of these thoughts but I do wonder:

a) How much cash can one rider carry at speed before turning into a pack horse and guy walking speed? It it worth having a Roman Cavalry Unit to basically provide you with lots of messengers/money carriers?

- Suspect that if large sums start being moved by riders, the game could develop a problem with bandits and highway robbery.

b) Most of us seem to be using normal merchant ships which basically need wind to move and also take time loading other goods etc.
To obtain greater speed and priority is it worth having having a couple of personal Hermiola or Biremes. Basically something much faster than your normal merchant ship and able to use oars if becalmed.

- Probably less seaworthy in a storm than a merchant ship if it can not out run the storm and also a charge of Piracy waiting to happen.

c) Since most of us will need to spend cash in Rome or somewhere else at some stage or the other. Is it worth while having a supply of cash already in place with faction Senators or agents rather than having orders delayed for months waiting for cash to arrive?

- Agents etc will probably over spend if cash is there.

Hi everyone - I hope you are well and (relatively) cool.

In the November Newsletter, Richard was kind enough to share some timelines.

On page 6, Geminus left Sirmium on 6th November, to get to Siscia some 375km away. The route involved no military roads and weather was late spring. By 24/11 only his "advance guard" (2/3 cavalry) had arrived, covering the 375km in 18 days = 20km/day, or up to 600km/month.

His infantry had seemingly not yet arrived by 30/11 (24 days after leaving) so their rate of march must be less than 15km/day = 450km/month.

Saturninus was reported as leaving Sirmium for Siscia a day or so after 6th November. He had an all-cavalry force and was in Siscia a day or so before Geminus's advance guard. So they must have covered the 375km in about 15 days = 25km/day = up to 700km/month.

These hints suggest that an all-cavalry force should make at least 650km/month and infantry maybe 450km/month (weather and terrain permitting of course).


Also on page 6, Saturninus hired a boat to "take him downstream", presumably to Singidunum. This is about 120km by river and maybe took two days (?). Downstream river movement might therefore be 60km/day.


Finally on page 7, Nero apparently left Sirmium on 1st or 2nd November, rode to Rome, then turned for Traquinii where he ended the month (and his horse died). This was a distance of 1300km = 40km/day. This suggests that a mounted messenger (who doesn't want to kill his horse) might make 30km/day or 900km/month.


I have no idea if this is about right in "real life" or in Richard's other games. Would anyone care to comment or share their insights?

Johntindall wrote:Hi everyone - I hope you are well and (relatively) cool.

In the November Newsletter, Richard was kind enough to share some timelines.

On page 6, Geminus left Sirmium on 6th November, to get to Siscia some 375km away. The route involved no military roads and weather was late spring. By 24/11 only his "advance guard" (2/3 cavalry) had arrived, covering the 375km in 18 days = 20km/day, or up to 600km/month.

His infantry had seemingly not yet arrived by 30/11 (24 days after leaving) so their rate of march must be less than 15km/day = 450km/month.

Saturninus was reported as leaving Sirmium for Siscia a day or so after 6th November. He had an all-cavalry force and was in Siscia a day or so before Geminus's advance guard. So they must have covered the 375km in about 15 days = 25km/day = up to 700km/month.

These hints suggest that an all-cavalry force should make at least 650km/month and infantry maybe 450km/month (weather and terrain permitting of course).


Also on page 6, Saturninus hired a boat to "take him downstream", presumably to Singidunum. This is about 120km by river and maybe took two days (?). Downstream river movement might therefore be 60km/day.


Finally on page 7, Nero apparently left Sirmium on 1st or 2nd November, rode to Rome, then turned for Traquinii where he ended the month (and his horse died). This was a distance of 1300km = 40km/day. This suggests that a mounted messenger (who doesn't want to kill his horse) might make 30km/day or 900km/month.


I have no idea if this is about right in "real life" or in Richard's other games. Would anyone care to comment or share their insights?

Adrian Goldsworthy book on the Roman Army quotes from Vegetius on basic training for the Legions.

According to the above as well and drill and marching in formation and in step (which speeded by movement of formations) Roman basic training put emphasis on physical fitness and route marches with equipment to improve stamia.

Vegetius claims that on completion of training new recruits were expected to be able to complete a march of 20 Roman miles in five hours at normal pace and 24 miles in the same time at the quick step. I assume the 20/24 miles in a fairly short five hours was based on daylight time left over to break camp and also then build a Roman marching camp?

Note sure how a Roman mile compares too the UK mile or how often Legions stopped too rest and bake bread etc. Also if 24 miles in five hours was on good Roman Roads or cross country etc. However on basis that a Legion could cover 24 miles a day at its max normal pace it is perhaps reasonable to use half this distance or 12 miles for a monthly average 30 X 12 = 360 miles in a month.

For players of other Agema games such as Glori du Roi with its lumbering siege trains of heavy artillery doing average 80 miles a month this is a shocking and scary speed !! Possible reasons for this would seem to include:-

a) Roman roads being a lot better than most C18 ones even before they got churned up by the advance of heavy artillery.

b) Roman Legions marching in step and in formation. While not unknown in the C18 it was pretty rare for most of the period.

c) Legions Officers, NCO's and Men being better trained in logistics and other support functions than C18 armies and backed up by superior civil service.
Note saying the Legions did not drink or did not include useless officiers appointed for political reasons or that C18 armies did not include professional craftsmen of high ability.

However, one only has to look at accounts of the amount of Beer and Strong spirits drunk compared to the numbers in a population to conclude that the average C18 unit was probably a bit slow on getting started in the morning. And read John Churchill accounts about the quality of his engineers to decide that a C18 Army could be delayed for days by a burnt down bridge or a landslide which would have hardly caused a Legion of troops who the C18 would have classed as combat engineers to hardly break step.

Speeds given by John for Infantry/Cavalry/Messengers seem about right for movement inside the Empire. But the big question would seem to be what about speeds outside the Empire in say the forests of Germany (No roads at all? Not even bad ones) and in the middle East and on the Steppe?

One suspects problems may not be with movement speeds so much as sickness levels due to shortage of water and animal fodder.

Seems to me that in order to help spread civilization to the Barbarians members of "Team Rome" will need to look at rules for supply trains and build a river Navy to control the great rivers of the middle East.

An interesting discussion. Firstly apols in advance but doing all of this from memory so might make mistakes. It's Saturday evening so doing the research to confirm all I say is 100% accurate feels a bit too much hard work plus on looking at the site I got adverts for "senior apartments" in Aberdeen...I'm only 52 FFS! I'm not senior yet...ok maybe if I lived in Glasgow I would be...

As apols if any of this is stating the obvious but maybe with this it's worth doing so.

I think its easy to forget that a mile has often been an emotional measurement. In the UK, esp if you drive (and I guess the same applies in the USA), you think you know how long a mile is-road signs tell you its X miles to the next town, your car speedometer will measure your drive in miles, and there are laws saying exactly how long a mile is. But throughout history the definition has changed, as Stuart mentioned in passing. The mile today, what you might call the "international mile" I guess, is based on the English mile and that was laid down in law in (I think) 13th C. Even in the British Isles that has varied, in Scotland a mile was about 10% longer than an English mile while a Welsh mile (as laid down by laws going back to Hwyel Dda if not before) was at least three times as long as an English mile-and having spent 3 years at Carmarthen, SW Wales, in the late 1990s this makes sense as the drive into Wales once over the Bristol Channel always took 3 times as long as the miles suggested it should.

The Roman mile was roughly 90% of an English mile but I am not sure when that was codified in law, would have thought by the time of the game but can't be sure. I do know in earlier times Romans considered a mile to be 5,000 footsteps (I want to say at one time a Legion numbered 5,000 and that was the link but could well be wrong on that). However I also remember that even when the Empire had laws on what a mile was there were regional variations, so in Greece they had a different measurement (sorry, can't remember how different).

I used to work at a museum in West Sussex that had the remains of a Mansio in its collection so got to know the theory behind them. They were said to be 20 miles apart, a days march for a man on foot. By todays mileage the sites tend to be 18 miles so that would be Roman 20 miles and not modern 20 miles (as an aside, this simple difference has led to a lot of mistakes on supposed locations of "missing" mansios). That distance also seems to have been the distance a messenger could cover before changing horses. One thing I think in the games we forget is that throughout history a horse has often been a valuable animal, a good quality horse even more so, and more valuable than your average human. The fact Nero in this turn rode his horse to death shows how desperate his situation was (and yes, him being emperor meant he could afford to lose such an expensive resource).
There has been a lot of discussion over the years about mansios and how far mounted messengers might cover in a day and I don't think anyone has ever come up with a definitive answer but have known quite a few horse-y types (the ex-Mrs-Jason2 was one) and from conversations with them about how fast and hard you can safely push a horse, and including time you need off a horse to recover, my personal view is in one day a messenger could leave one mansio early morning, get to the next late morning, change horses, do what you need to do to stop some of your bits to stop aching, then ride to the next mansio and rest overnight, so 40 Roman miles in a day If a message was passed between riders you might get a message travelling three mansios in a day, so 60 Roman miles. I guess if you were willing to ride the horses to death, and the riders didn't want kids, you could get this to four mansios a day. I have seen some claim messages could travel greater distances with what is effectively a 24 hour messenger service but honestly on a personal level, having done enough night hikes in my younger days, using only star and moon light on good paths (ok maybe not the same as roman roads) I am not sure I'd have gone any faster on horseback overnight than I would on foot.

Speed is an interesting one. I used to do medieval historical re-enactment (still do but due to age and injuries, more decorative on the sidelines) and got use to wearing historically accurate "chain mail" and walking quite some distance in it. Also got to know a few Roman re-enactors (the good ones, not the "TV" types), plus a few either recently ex or even still serving British army types who did it. Yes you can wear chain mail (the armour of a civilised man) or that horrible stuff the Legions wore for a bit, and march 20 miles in a day but would you want to fight at the end of it or the next day? Add in how tiring waving a sword around is-yes I know the Romans trained with weapons heavier than their "real" ones" but honestly let me assure you, after 20 minutes of spear-throwing and sword-waving you need a break. With modern warfare we forget how tiring fighting was in the past, add in a couple of days marching beforehand, you ain't doing a lot

So I feel Richard is using travel times that seem roughly "historically accurate" with maybe a bit extra to allow for the fact that game months are longer than real months

One point I want to address is Stuart's comparisons between Roman armies and those of 18th C. I'm always suspicious of a lot of sources and modern works who seem to make out the Legions were some ancient version of an ideal 21st C military force, but then I'm not really a lover of the "Glory that was men in bedsheets". Yes the best of the 1st C Roman forces were most probably more professional than the worst of those of 18th C but the reverse applies. I strongly suspect that the best of the 1st C Legions or Churchill's 18th C army we would see as being far more professional than some of 21st C militaries in parts of Africa, the far East or even some parts of Europe, but that doesn't mean all Roman forces were that good. My feeling is the Roman military is a bit more like 19th C Chinese forces or (dare I say it) 21st C Russian forces-a core of high quality units with a lot of other units of varying quality, the worst of which are little more than heavily armed police forces or even cos-players.
For me I think we have an issue that despite we thinking we have lots of records from the Roman period we really have only a handful so our understanding of the Legions is based on what has survived. I always feel we are left with the official records, the ones less likely to reflect the reality and the screw-ups of the Legions whereas for 18th C (for example) we have a lot more surviving records and personal accounts (that tend to mention the screwups). I am sure some of you will disagree with this comparison but think about how 1960s Hollywood films used to portray the late 19th C US Cavalry (a professional force akin to that which fought at the end of WW2) compared with the US army in "Dances with Wolves" (a rather different quality of military). When it comes to the Romans we are left with the 1960s films but I suspect a lot of the lost records are more "Dances with Wolves"

Stuart Bailey wrote:Not sure how a Roman mile compares too the UK mile or how often Legions stopped too rest and bake bread etc.  Also if 24 miles in five hours was on good Roman Roads or cross country etc.  However on basis that a Legion could cover 24 miles a day at its max normal pace it is perhaps reasonable to use half this distance or 12 miles for a monthly average 30 X 12 = 360 miles in a month.

Jason2 wrote:my personal view is in one day a messenger could leave one mansio early morning, get to the next late morning, change horses, do what you need to do to stop some of your bits to stop aching, then ride to the next mansio and rest overnight, so 40 Roman miles in a day

According to the Oracle Google, a Roman mile was equivalent to 1.48 km. So Stuart's 360 Roman miles/month for infantry would equal 533 kilometres/month = 20% higher than my estimate.

Jason2's estimate of mounted messenger's speed of 40 Roman miles/day or 1200/month = nearly 1800 kilometres a month, or nearly twice my estimate.

What this tells me is that my numbers appear to be very conservative and more sampling is required.

If anyone else has some point-to-point, date-to-date data (especially if it is an all-cav force, an all-inf force or a messenger), I'll happily have a go at refining the estimates.

Jason2 wrote:I used to work at a museum in West Sussex that had the remains of a Mansio in its collection so got to know the theory behind them.  They were said to be 20 miles apart, a days march for a man on foot.  By todays mileage the sites tend to be 18 miles so that would be Roman 20 miles and not modern 20 miles (as an aside, this simple difference has led to a lot of mistakes on supposed locations of "missing" mansios).  That distance also seems to have been the distance a messenger could cover before changing horses.  One thing I think in the games we forget is that throughout history a horse has often been a valuable animal, a good quality horse even more so, and more valuable than your average human.  The fact Nero in this turn rode his horse to death shows how desperate his situation was (and yes, him being emperor meant he could afford to lose such an expensive resource).  
There has been a lot of discussion over the years about mansios and how far mounted messengers might cover in a day and I don't think anyone has ever come up with a definitive answer but have known quite a few horse-y types (the ex-Mrs-Jason2 was one) and from conversations with them about how fast and hard you can safely push a horse, and including time you need off a horse to recover, my personal view is in one day a messenger could leave one mansio early morning, get to the next late morning, change horses, do what you need to do to stop some of your bits to stop aching, then ride to the next mansio and rest overnight, so 40 Roman miles in a day  If a message was passed between riders you might get a message travelling three mansios in a day, so 60 Roman miles.  I guess if you were willing to ride the horses to death, and the riders didn't want kids, you could get this to four mansios a day.  I have seen some claim messages could travel greater distances with what is effectively a 24 hour messenger service but honestly on a personal level, having done enough night hikes in my younger days, using only star and moon light on good paths (ok maybe not the same as roman roads) I am not sure I'd have gone any faster on horseback overnight than I would on foot.

Speed is an interesting one.  I used to do medieval historical re-enactment (still do but due to age and injuries, more decorative  on the sidelines) and got use to wearing historically accurate "chain mail" and walking quite some distance in it.  Also got to know a few Roman re-enactors (the good ones, not the "TV" types), plus a few either recently ex or even still serving British army types who did it.  Yes you can wear chain mail (the armour of a civilised man) or that horrible stuff the Legions wore for a bit, and march 20 miles in a day but would you  want to fight at the end of it or the next day? Add in how tiring waving a sword around is-yes I know the Romans trained with weapons heavier than their "real" ones" but honestly let me assure you, after 20 minutes of spear-throwing and sword-waving you need a break.  With modern warfare we forget how tiring fighting was in the past, add in a couple of days marching beforehand, you ain't doing a lot

So I feel Richard is using travel times that seem roughly "historically accurate" with maybe a bit extra to allow for the fact that game months are longer than real months.

I'm not in the Rome game, but agree that this is an interesting discussion.  Notwithstanding the complications of the precise distance a mile is and the theory of mansios, perhaps the following observations might help:

1. Aside from the obvious characteristics of the terrain, I suspect that the ease of covering distances could also depend upon how well used the route was.  If there was normally plenty of merchant traffic (which would include farmers driving their animals to market, etc), then it is perhaps likely that a network of resting points (inns, stables, blacksmiths) would have naturally been built along the route, if not by the landless, then by enterprising farmers.  Such places may well have kept a riding horse (rather than a farm horse) precisely for urgent messengers to hire or use.  I don't have the historical knowledge of Stuart or Jason2, but I would be surprised if there was not a Roman law which empowered any messenger on official business to requisition such horses from anyone if they needed it to complete their mission, so an individual messenger may well have been able to cover distances very quickly.

2. I take the point about being tired after a long ride, but any experienced horseman knows that to push the horse (and yourself) it is necessary to vary the gait at intervals so different muscles are being used.  The Romans were practical, and if they weren't then couriers probably would be irrespective of regulations, so I suspect they would have done what they could to minimize weight.  Another way of looking at possible speeds is to restate the measure not in terms of miles/hour, but its inverse.

At the walk, a horse ambles along in a rather lazy way doing itself and rider no favours, and travelling at about the same as our walking pace of 4mph, i.e. it takes 15 minutes to cover a mile.  I think we can accept that couriers would not tend to saunter along like this, and if they did the horse would actually tire itself out much more than if it was moving faster.

At the trot a horse covers around twice this speed, so it would cover a mile in around 8 minutes.  Admittedly this is not the most comfortable pace for either horse or rider, but if we assume trot for a mile, walk for a mile, then to get to Jason2's 40 miles/day it would only take 460minutes (c.7 1/2 hours).

At the canter (which is the ideal gait - the natural gait for a horse in flight), 15mph seems average, so it would cover a mile in around 4 minutes.  To get to Jason2's 40 miles/day would therefore take 160 minutes (2 1/2 hours).  Now of course a courier would not canter for all this time, but vary the gait to preserve the horse's strength.  If we assume 1/2 of the time (not the distance) was at the canter, with the rest at the trot or walk, then the 40 miles would be covered in about 300 minutes (5 hours).  This would then allow time for the horse and rider to have a short rest/feed before continuing.  

Just for completeness, the gallop is around 30-35mph so a mile could be covered in 2 minutes, but of course the horse would be ridden into the ground very quickly so in practical terms this gait can be ignored for couriers.

My conclusion is that 40 miles/day seems a bit low.  There would be no need to travel at night, and frankly any courier who only travelled for 5 hours a day carrying an urgent message would not impress me.

3. This is more speculative, but did the Romans have some kind of horse shoe?  This is where Stuart/Jason2 may be able to use their superior knowledge.  I know that iron horse shoes were gradually introduced in the Middle Ages and certainly the norm by C18 - they were needed as roads improved.  I would be surprised, though, if the Romans did not have some kind of horse shoe (perhaps made of bronze) since they must have realised the impact on their horses of riding on good quality roads.  Or did Roman horses ride on the softer ground not on the road itself?  There are, of course different shoes for different purposes - farm horses use shoes to help them pull loads more easily, whereas racing shoes are there to protect the hoof and allow for longer training without eroding the  nail (a horse's hoof is basically the same as our finger nails).  There is an added benefit to slightly raising the softer inner part of the hoof (known as the frog) from the ground to give some protection from stones, but this is not the primary function.  Without shoes, when the horse is ridden on roads, its hoof will wear much more quickly than if it is ridden on grass.  The Romans must have realised this so I would be surprised if they didn't have some kind of solution.  Of course it is possible that horses had tougher hooves before shoeing became the norm, but shoes would still be of benefit even if they were made of leather.

Ref Jason comments on how professional or otherwise the Roman Army was compared to say the armies of the Glori period. Think any consideration of the Roman Army must consider "which Roman Army?" since by the RIB period the Roman Army was already may hundreds of years old and had gone from being a tribal warband, to Greek City state style Hoplites who may or may not have fought in Phalanx, to the early ad-hoc Legions then into a permanent force of Legions supported by specialists aand allies/Auxilliary formations.

It is quite clear that in their earlier days the Romans encountered foes like the forces of Pyrrhos of Epeiros and Hannibal who were better trained, better equiped and often much better lead at a senior level than they were. However, they won these wars due to the sheer savagery of their rank and file even in defeat and the the fact that the when the Romans fought a war, they fought to win, pursuing total victory with a ruthlessness and relentlessness that was unparalleled and was shown in particular by their dogged ability to keep going at siege warfare.

This uber aggression at both a tactical and a stragetic level which can be compared to the Swedes of the Great Northern War period and the Prussians of Frederick the Great did lead various Roman forces too disaster (as also happened to the Swedes and the Prussians) but it normally worked well and intimidated many lesser foes. Esp as unlike the Swedes and Prussians the Roman Republic and its armies showed a unrivaled ability to recover from a defeat. Defeats at the hands of Gauls, Germans, Samnites, Carthage and Greek armies which would have caused many states to collapse and most others to sue for peace just seems to have annoyed the Senate and caused them fight harder.

Republican Roman Armies which often started off a campaign rather raw and poorly trained also showed a marked ability to improve the longer the war lasted as the Legions picked up training, experience and learnt things from their foes. The classic example of this is the Roman Army in Spain which won the 2nd Punic War but the Pontic forces which had done very well against Roman allies forces often with Roman style training and equipment got a very nasty shock when they ran into Sulla veterans of the social war and the Selucid Army which should have won Magensia were equally unlucky that this particular Roman Army included so many veterans of the 2nd Punic War.

While it is not to be denied that Roman Armies could be mixed ability. Think its fair to say that due to how they were raised on a ah-hoc basis due to their traditions of training lead by experienced Centurians they all got better after the first year or years and that compared to say C18 armies and Hellanistic armies fighting in the style of Alaxander they were a lot more forgiving of poor to average commanders of limited ability and experience (often political appointees).

By the RIB period of the 1st Century AD and the fully Professional Army of the Emperors. Probably fair to say that the Army has lost its formerly unrivaled power to ignore defeats, its also no longer seems to produce the heroic and inspirational battle captains of the Republican Army. Perhaps because the last thing the Emperors wanted was someone like Sulla, Marius or Julies Caesar in charge of the Legions!

But against its mostly tribal foes of this period the Roman Army is vastly better equiped, trained and organized. In particular is ranks contain large numbers of specialist Engineers and Craftsmen able to build roads, bridges and fortifications as well as provide everything from new weapons to medical and vetinary support to the Legions which gave the Legions unrivaled ability to campaign in all areas and climates from Eastern Deserts to the wild Woods of Northern Europe.

Hi folks - I reviewed a number of articles and "it depends" is the most common answer. Focussing on 1st Century analyses, "normal" infantry and cav could achieve comparable speeds, with cav being slightly faster. I'm going to go with 20km/day (600 km/month) for infantry, 25km/day (750km/month) for cavalry, 40km/day (1200km/month) for mounted mesengers. I'll be able to test and revise these as the game progresses.

Johntindall wrote:Hi folks - I reviewed a number of articles and "it depends" is the most common answer. Focussing on 1st Century analyses, "normal" infantry and cav could achieve comparable speeds, with cav being slightly faster. I'm going to go with 20km/day (600 km/month) for infantry, 25km/day (750km/month) for cavalry, 40km/day (1200km/month) for mounted mesengers. I'll be able to test and revise these as the game progresses.

In the "all depends" class I think the five main areas to look at movement speeds in would be:-

1) In the Roman Empire. On basis that most movement in the Empire is using its road system does using the recently re-surfaced and repaired sections of road listed in the paper give a bonus? And is there a difference between the different types of road?

- Gut feeling is that for armies if not for messengers a major difference should be if bridges exist or not, since a messanger can use a ferry and suffer hardly any delay but if a bridge does not exist an Army is probably going to either have to build a temporary wood bridge or be joined by a fleet to cross in a reasonable amoount of time.

2) Forests in Germany etc - rather slow?

3) Steppe lands and Deserts - Fast esp for Nomadic Cavalry but non natives can get lost and large rivers with no bridges and few boats could be a problem. Guess some could be crossed on the ice in winter or horses and riders could swim them in summer.

Deserts and Steppe may offer no particular problems apart from lack of water and fodder may impact health of troops very badly and units with high sickness levels likely to be very slow.

4) Mountains such as Alps, Dacia and Armenia. - Suspect may be real problem in Winter when passes blocked by Snow. Not so bad rest of the year is using known and well travelled routes provided the locals are friendly and not dropping rocks on your head.

5) Movement "outside the Roman Empire" but in fairly civilized areas with roads, known trade routes and towns/villages. Might not be case in game but assume speeds on old Persian/Hellanistic roads should match speeds in parts of Roman Empire lacking keen and active Governors who have busy road teams. Of course if the locals are riding round your column shooting arrows this may slow things down.

Finally it should be noted that much Roman Transport was by Sea. Distance shown in rules for different types of ships but how much slower for loading/unloading movement as a fleet? Or feeding the Gov of Germania Minor his knock out drops and prizing his fingers off the door frame so you can actually get him on anything which might (?) sink.

What do you mean might sink! They all flipping sink!

Just because I got sea sick feeding the ducks.

Fairly sure The Gods on Mount Agema have a special set of naval dice just for for me, Paranoid maybe , but not getting on the flipping boat.
G2 The Prussian Yacht club had a few problems staying afloat
G7 seems my lucky dice just carried on rolling the Russian Boating Association, sank itself all in one night. Is there a pattern emerging here?
RIB Ships went on the Rhine for a jolly & a picnic. Came back from & needed a total refit & six months rest

Need to wait 12 months until Vitellius has completed his training to Excellent swimmer.



As a German friend of mine put it:

"God Gave the English the Island to keep them out of the way, Problem is the Devil taught the buggers how to swim."

Just to try and pick up on some of the questions

On Papa's query on horsehoes...it can be a bit of a challenge to give a straight-forward answer. There are some claims that something like modern horseshoes were in Western Europe in the RIB period, in particular in Britain and somehow invented by the Druids (I am sure Stuart is now on the verge of outrage at that idea!). My personal view is what we think of as a horseshoe is a lot later and not something you would find in RIB.
The Romans did have something called a "hippo sandal" (doing this from memory, can't remember if it was one word or two, but two feels more sensible,,,but this is Rome and when did sense ever appear there?). It was literally a shoe or maybe boot is a better description. Metal base with a leather upper and tied on? Think TimeTeam or a Mike Loades documentary tried to recreate them about 10 years ago and they were less than perfect shall we say.

Stuart and which Roman army...well lets be honest yes he's right but if I factored in every disclaimer on the Roman army, I'd be writing War and Peace! Still feel at any time period, some forces (e.g. border forces, garrison units in unimportant parts of the empire like Britain) ain't going to be the quality of the core units.

Travel speeds. Think end of the day we are all right and it depends on who is travelling, how and for what reason. What's that bit in "Zulu" when the Natal Mounted Policeman asks the Welsh red coats how far they can travel in a day, the Welsh we can march X miles r, the Natal Peeler says well the Zulus would run X miles and then fight a battle...and the Welshman says that's stupid, who would run to fight a battle. I wonder if the Legions were a bit like that...afterall if your CO says "come on chaps, move faster, you need to fight a battle"...would you start running...or would you suddenly take a lot of time to tie your shoe laces?

Oh, forests and the Romans...my personal theory is by RIB, show a Legionary a tree and he is convinced 10,000 barbarians are hiding behind it (Btw, have you any idea how complicated it is to legally define what "woodland" is in Scotland? It needs a lot more trees per Hectare than you'd think!)

As to sinking ships, I am concerned that it is Jason Flower who is causing the ships to sink...why am I allied to this man so often? Any time one of my ships sink, it's going to be his fault!

J Flower wrote:What do you mean might sink! They all flipping sink!

Just because I got sea sick feeding the ducks.

Fairly sure The Gods on Mount Agema have a special set of naval dice just for for me, Paranoid maybe , but not getting on the flipping boat.
G2 The Prussian Yacht club had a few problems staying afloat
G7 seems my lucky dice just carried on rolling the Russian Boating Association, sank itself all in one night. Is there a pattern emerging here?
RIB Ships went on the Rhine for a jolly & a picnic. Came back from & needed a total refit & six months rest

Need to wait 12 months until Vitellius has completed his training to Excellent swimmer.

Out of respect to the noble Senator and famous chariot racer Vitellius I think its fair to point out that the health and safety record of the Roman Navy was with the exception of a couple of decades in the first Punic War not that bad.

Its famous Maritime disasters were mostly limited too an infamously bad area of coast along the South Coast of Sicily and were mostly the result of a) The Navy being given risky orders to support land operations late in the year such as the picking up of a defeated Roman Army in North Africa and its transport to Sicily and b) Being top heavy and overloaded with military equipment like the Corvus and troops.

So it would seem the wise Roman Naval commander should i) Only sail in summer ii) Do not allow the Army on his ships esp if they have been reading the bit in the rules about how many Elephants you can load and iii) Avoid equipment like the Corvus and artillery which may give a advantage in battle but increase risk of turning over due to being top heavy.

In that respect Governors who have no concerns about getting into a Naval fight and are more worried about drowning rather than looking good may elect to sail on a fast seaworthy Liburnian or even a sturdy merchant ship able to outsail a storm and get into cover ahead of something slower and perhaps lumbering and top heavy like a Hexareme.  

As for how fast ancient period ships go - modern built copies of an Ancient Galley got up too 20 miles an hour but this was just for a short period of time and most Ancient period shipping did not sail at night and needed to stay close to the shore were it could obtain water and fire wood for cooking.  Plus they needed to dry out on a fairly regular basis.  Thus a fleet's average speed is probably no faster than the 300 miles shown in glori for for galleys and barges........only due to effect of wind, tide etc the band width round this average is probably higher than for land forces.

For very fast individual ships with very well trained crews used as messengers and the like perhaps 500 miles in a month average?

Jason2 wrote:Just to try and pick up on some of the questions

On Papa's query on horseshoes...it can be  a bit of a challenge  to give a straight-forward answer.  There are some claims that something like modern horseshoes were in Western Europe in the RIB period, in particular in Britain and somehow invented by the Druids (I am sure Stuart is now on the verge of outrage at that idea!).  My personal view is what we think of as a horseshoe is a lot later and not something you would find in RIB.  
The Romans did have something called a "hippo sandal" (doing this from memory, can't remember if it was one word or two, but two feels more sensible,,,but this is Rome and when did sense ever appear there?).  It was literally a shoe or maybe boot is a better description.   Metal base with a leather upper and tied on?  Think TimeTeam or a Mike Loades documentary tried to recreate them about 10 years ago and they were less than perfect shall we say.

Thanks for looking into this Jason2 - I did try to do some research after my post, but didn't get very far, certainly nothing definitive enough to post.

But, I have found a few other interesting oddments which might give some clues as to how the Romans used their horses.  The Roman bridle was very similar to the modern bridle.   The Assyrians introduced the saddlecloth and later the girth, so both of these would have been available in Rome.  The saddle, however, was not - that was only introduced in 3rd-4th century AD, so the saddlecloth was effectively the saddle.  Without a saddle, there were no stirrups.  Where the Romans were more advanced than some earlier peoples was in the bit which they kept simple, equivalent to a broken snaffle type, kinder for the horse than either Assyrian or Greek bits.  This sort of setup would make it much harder to ride at faster gaits even if the horses were much smaller than modern horses.  When I checked the size of the horses used in Roman times, they were about the same size as a pony.

A different source makes reference to a Roman saddle, which was in use from 1st century BC, but I'm not sure about this because if you look at evidence from sculptures and other surviving artworks, most cavalry is depicted without saddles.  It is possible that it was only available to higher ranks or for training purposes.  What the source does agree on is that the Roman saddle did not include stirrups.  Perhaps reports of how Roman cavalry was used in battle may give some idea of how widespread the Roman saddle was used and when?

I agree that what we think of as a horseshoe (iron or equivalent) is almost certainly not available in Roman times.  If a bronze shoe was used then perhaps once worn they would have been recycled.  I have looked up a hippo sandal - there is a wikipedia entry on it.  From the pictures, they do look rather odd - a thick plate with rings to attach straps which tied the sandal to the foot.  I can imagine that this was rather uncomfortable and put a strain on the muscles, probably a bit like trying to run in an iron clog.  Where they may have been of more use is in to help horses pull heavy loads, where traction rather than speed is important.  It was not just the weight and design of the hipposandal that was clumsy, but the method of attachment.  The Romans clearly did look at the horse's foot and realize which part of the foot actually touched the ground and then design an open shoe which is light enough to nail onto the horse's hoof.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if messengers simply rode on the softer grass by the side of Roman roads rather than on the hard surface which would have been of more benefit for infantry and carts.

Not my period, but it does raise some interesting questions.

Jason2 wrote:Just to try and pick up on some of the questions

On Papa's query on horsehoes...it can be  a bit of a challenge  to give a straight-forward answer.  There are some claims that something like modern horseshoes were in Western Europe in the RIB period, in particular in Britain and somehow invented by the Druids (I am sure Stuart is now on the verge of outrage at that idea!).  My personal view is what we think of as a horseshoe is a lot later and not something you would find in RIB.  
The Romans did have something called a "hippo sandal" (doing this from memory, can't remember if it was one word or two, but two feels more sensible,,,but this is Rome and when did sense ever appear there?).  It was literally a shoe or maybe boot is a better description.   Metal base with a leather upper and tied on?  Think TimeTeam or a Mike Loades documentary tried to recreate them about 10 years ago and they were less than perfect shall we say.

Stuart and which  Roman army...well lets be honest yes he's right but if I factored in every disclaimer on the Roman army,  I'd be writing War and Peace!  Still feel at any time period, some forces (e.g. border forces, garrison units in unimportant parts of the empire like Britain) ain't going to be the quality of the core units.

Travel speeds.  Think end of the day we are all right and it depends on who is travelling, how and for what reason.  What's that bit in "Zulu" when the Natal Mounted Policeman asks the Welsh red coats how far they can travel in a day, the Welsh we can march X miles r, the Natal Peeler says well the Zulus would run X miles and then fight a battle...and the Welshman says that's stupid, who would run to  fight a battle.  I wonder if the Legions were a bit like that...afterall if your CO says "come on chaps, move faster, you need to fight a battle"...would you start running...or would you suddenly take a lot of time to tie your shoe laces?

Oh, forests and the Romans...my personal theory is by RIB, show a Legionary a tree and he is convinced 10,000 barbarians are hiding behind it (Btw, have you any idea how complicated it is to legally define what "woodland" is in Scotland?  It needs a lot more trees per Hectare than you'd think!)

As to sinking ships, I am concerned that it is Jason Flower who is causing the ships to sink...why am I allied to this man so often?  Any time one of my ships sink, it's going to be his fault!

Modern horse shoes are designed to protect a horses hoof from damage caused by hard surfaces and heavy loads on the hoof which includes the weight of the horse which have been slowly getting larger over the years.  They are not needed by say steppe ponies which spend their lives on grass and are fairly light.

It is believed that Roman horses being smaller than many modern ones and being riden on the grassy side of the road part would not benefit as much as modern horses from horse shoes or boots and these were only worn in special conditions.  Bit like modern Husky and other sledge dogs wearing doggie boots in slush to stop it being into their paws and then turning to ice (ouch!).  Perhaps of value to heavier Cavalry on hard surfaces in middle east and north africa who could split a hoof?

Being a non horseman I am not sure if this is true or not but I did hear a theory that horses are like humans with shoes.  Your C19 Zulu and other types who were brought up bare foot can run, jump, kick a ball etc, etc with no problem.  But if Human who has lived all his life in shoes tried to do same he or she would be lame after a day & same goes for horses?  

Having viewed the effects of Army boots on new recruits makes you wonder if the same applies too horses?  If you suddenly fit horse shoes to horses which have never worn them before do you end up with lame cavalry?

Unlike the the later Roman Army with its elite mobile formations and small garrison units which slowly declined in combat value the first century AD Army was almost all a professional frontier army stationed in frontier garrisons.  Common view was that its best units were the Western Units in Britain and on  the Rhine and Danube where like the British India North West Frontier forces, French Foreign Legion etc you did it properly or you died.

The other common view at the time was that units stationed away from the frontier esp in the flesh pots of Syria and Egypt declined rapidly and got soft.  Apart from this being a common view of Roman writers who viewed the East and anything from it as probably soft and decadant as a matter of course both Vespasian and other Roman commanders from our period had to undertake heavy re-training of Eastern Legions before they went into battle in the East.

James would however point out that all of the Legions in question had suffered heavy losses and some defeats in prior actions.  So working up these units and getting them used to working with their new commanders and bedding in new recuits was actually evidence of sound professionalism rather than a basic weakness in the Eastern Half of the Roman Army compared too the Western Half.  His view was that fact that the Imperial Army suffered defeats in the east and not the west was actually down too the quality of the opponents it faced in the East compared too the west.

For example you may not believe that the Legion which faced the Icini and allied rebels just before the start of RIB faced 100,000 Barbarians but it was certainly badly outnumbered and slaughtered them.  Likewise at Strasbourg a Roman Force of 13,000 faced 35,000 according to Roman sources and killed 6,000 for a loss of 4 Roman Officers and 243 men.  The 35,000 probably a guess but the losses would seem to be close too the mark.

Fairly sure no Roman force in the East would have willingly given battle too a hostile Parthian, Alan or Persian force which outnumbered it 2 to 1.  But is this evidence of inferior Eastern Legions or tougher opponents?  Or even both?

Of course if the Roman theory that Legions declined and got soft if stationed in cities is correct were does this leave the Guard in Nero time?  

Finally ref woods - unlike the Greeks and Cavalry armies their problems with rough terrain both Roman's and German's favourd infantry slugging it out toe to toe and while the defeat in 9AD may have been in a area of forest and swamp the greatest German victories in which the Cimbri and Teutones with Gallic allies wiped out no less than four Roman Armies (at least 8 Legions) was in the open and outside Germany.

Would also say that the most effective German leaders like Maroboduus and Civilis who lead the revolt in 69AD to 70AD were often ex-members of the Roman Army and tried to base their forces on Roman normes.  So the Batavian and their allies in 69 AD used artillery and one of their Naval flotilla's captured the Flagship of the Rhine Fleet, fortunately being a true follower of Vitellus the Roman General/Admiral was not on his flagship but on shore. Roman flabased i were often ex-members of the Roman tried and

Horseshoes are a fascinating one Papa, esp if you're interested in historical rabbit holes. You're bound to know all the ins and outs of the Piltdown man hoax, one of the most likely suspects for that is Charles Dawson who seems to be fixated on frauds that are half-way houses as it were. He produced a half-way horseshoe design...basically a modern-ish horseshoe that he claimed was Roman but was tied onto a horse like a hippo sandal rather than nailed on

Roman saddles are another fascinating area of research. Some have produced replicas of Roman saddles that seem to suggest by using knees and applying pressure on the saddle a rider can have an amount of control not that much less than a modern rider. If it wasn't for the fact that Mike Loades is one of those who has made and tried out such saddles I would be cynical but given his skill and experience, if he says its possible I believe him.

Now, your comment on riders using the grass verges is interesting. In Lord of the Rings-The return of the King, when there is a short bit of a chapter talking about the evacuation of Minas Tirith, the civilian population are said to use the made road but official messengers use the grass verge. I've always felt that its an idea that makes more sense than people give it credit

Looking at Stuart's post

It's fair to say that pre-modern horses were a lot smaller than modern ones.  Now in "medieval" terms it  generally said they were more like Shetland Ponies...ok that might be a little bit of an exaggeration but based on bones found, etc, not too far from the truth and applies to the Romans too,

Horses and how they are brought up-yes that is true...also horses are bloody minded stupid creatures..expect no logic or common sense from them...we are talking about a creature that can walk pass a leaf and decide it is the greatest terror in the universe and run for the hills
I have had a lot of bad experiences with these beasts, most of whom think  I am a giant sugar lump

As to Forests, look we are talking about an empire that viewed the woods in the Sussex weald as a terror..now unless you are saying the 1st C Romans ended up in what is now called St Leonards Forest in Sussex, ran into the dragon and ran away like a bunch of school girls screaming for their mummy, the Romans were a bit worried by trees...

On subject of Cavalry equipment it is an idea encountered in older books on ancient warfare that lack of Stirrups (probably first introduced by the Avars and then taken up by Eastern Roman forces etc) prevented ancient cavalry from delivering any form of effective charge and limited them too skirmishing.

It should be noted that this view is not reflected in ancient sources and would seem to be totally at odds with the combat record of heavy cavalry like Alaxanders Companions, Hannibals elite Spanish and Gallic Heavy Cavalry and fully armoured cataphracts of various nations and tribes.

The recconstruction of the four horned Roman saddle by Peter Connolly and its subsequent testing has demonstrated that it gives the rider a stable enough seat to allow a rider to thrust or throw a spear and weld a sword effectively, even leaning to one side and recover.

The four horned saddle was employed by the Romans, Gauls, Parthians, Sassanids and probably by other races.  Horse armour found in Armenia for instance has a gap for the saddle but no saddle was found.  It is not known who invented the four horned saddle but the Gauls seem to be candidates and it seems likely the Romans copied this type of saddle from them as they did with so much other Roman military equipment.

Actually never ceases to surprise me about the amount of stuff we think of as Roman which is actually not Roman in origin.  If it was not nailed down they would pinch it and to judge from recent shipwrecks of Greek statues being taken to Rome having it nailed down did not work either.

Jason2 wrote:Looking at Stuart's post

It's fair to say that pre-modern horses were a lot smaller than modern ones.  Now in "medieval" terms it  generally said they were more like Shetland Ponies...ok that might be a little bit of an exaggeration but based on bones found, etc, not too far from the truth and applies to the Romans too,

Horses and how they are brought up-yes that is true...also horses are bloody minded stupid creatures..expect no logic or common sense from them...we are talking about a creature that can walk pass a leaf and decide it is the greatest terror in the universe and run for the hills
I have had a lot of bad experiences with these beasts, most of whom think  I am a giant sugar lump

As to Forests, look we are talking about an empire that viewed the woods in the Sussex weald as a terror..now unless you are saying the 1st C Romans ended up in what is now called St Leonards Forest in Sussex, ran into the dragon and ran away like a bunch of school girls screaming for their mummy, the Romans were a bit worried by trees...

The problem with many modern horses esp modern racehorses is that they are inbreed and basically nuts. So feeding a beastie which is so highly strung sugar lumps or in my case a full packet of polo mints (only offered it one!) is probably not a good move. Unfortunately, have no evidence to say that Trajans horses in RIB are all perfectly calm and sane.

Ancient period horses were undoubtedly smaller than the 18 hand monsters riden side ways through by home village by 13 year old girls who would not be given a licence for a 49cc mo-ped put can ride something which would splat your average human without even breaking step. However like modern horses they do seem to have come in a mix of different types and sizes for different uses.

For military purposes in the RIB period we seem to have:-

- Small and cheap horses like modern Steppe Ponies used by Horse archers and Numidian Light Cavalry (and most civilian riders). Major advantage looked for in these breeds are they are tough, cheap and can live on rough grazing. As their riders have little or no armour and skirmish these horses do not have too support large weights or be large to give advantage in a charge/close combat.

All Roman light cavalry and specialist missile users in the 1st Century AD were recruited from peoples with a light cavalry or missile tradition to make up for a weakness in these arms in the actual Roman population.

- Actual Roman Cavalry plus a lot of other Cavalry recruited inside the Empire were either in mixed infantry/cavalry units called cohortes equitatae who got worse quality horses. Basically nags but grain feed in winter and strong enough for a armoured rider. This units seem to have been used like later Dragoons for patrols, scouting, police work, guarding supply convoys and all the vital dogs body stuff.

- The best quality horses, grain feed in winter and in theory carefully selected and puchased or breed on Imperial stud farms by the Emperors re-mount serice went to the all Cavalry Ala. With the very best going to the Guard. View of writers was that the best horses came from Spain but sources could vary. Still fairly short by modern standards (normally 12 to 14 hands high) horses for these units had to be strong enough for a mounted rider and able to mix it in battle and would be larger, stronger and a lot more expensive than your average horse or Infantryman of the period.

Roman cavalry probably best viewed as medium cavalry in that they rarely seem to be a battle winning force in terms of Alaxander the Great direct style charges but they could protect a flank and were expert are riding down and pursuit of foes broken by the legions.....most losses in ancient battles actually happened after a side broke and ran rather than in actual battle. Also expert in laying waste to hostile areas and they seem to have been fairly expert at crossing rivers and outflanking.

- Finally we come to the really heavy horses of the period breed only in the middle east and on the steppe too the north and the rare and pampered pets of the nobility. The Nisaean Charges first breed by the Medes but then (with related breeds) spreading too Parthians, Samatians, Armenians seem to be no more than 15 or at max 16 hands in height which is a good size but short up against modern police horses, cart horses and the favoured riding
horses of 12 year old girls in my village. But their main advantage was the strength to carry a fully armoured rider with a two handed 13 foot lance and horse armour - example of which from Dura Europos consisted of 1,300 scales and with rest of the horses equipment weighed 88 pounds.

With this weight the Cataphracts did not charge at the gallop but attacked in close order at a slow trot counting on weight rather than speed. It should probably be noted that French Napoleonic Cavalry, Cromwells Ironsides and many other Cavalry forces through history have favoured the well ordered Trot over the gallop and the combined weight & speed of a Cataphract was reported as being enough to drive a Kontos style lance through a shield and two or three men if they did not break and run out of the way first.

Roman's did introduce their own units of these super heavy cavalry but they were always rare and expensive and a feature of Eastern armies only. Perhaps the Nisaean breed did not like either the cold or trees ?!

PS Not convinced that Romans were bothered by trees in particular since they lived in a world with a lot more trees and also lived closer to nature and the hunt than most modern people so their field craft would be good. However even compared to other ancient peoples they do seem to have been a very superstitious bunch. This is actually different from saying they were very religious - yes they had religions (lots) but a Roman could basically believe the Gods played no part in human life but we still scared to death of curses and bad Omens etc. I like how Jason 1 is getting into the spirit of the age convinced that the water spirits have got it in for him and he is cursed in some way linked to drowning. Fortunately my Character knows he has the favour of Mars, Apollo, and the Spirits of Olive Trees.

Jason2 wrote:Horseshoes are a fascinating one Papa, esp if you're interested in historical rabbit holes.  You're bound to know all the ins and outs of the Piltdown man hoax, one of the most likely suspects for that is Charles Dawson who seems to be fixated on frauds that are half-way houses as it were.  He produced a half-way horseshoe design...basically a modern-ish horseshoe that he claimed was Roman but was tied onto a horse like a hippo sandal rather than nailed on.

Historical rabbit holes indeed!  This is all way out of period for my normal reading, so I approached the question mainly from what I recall when I used to ride.

I would be skeptical of the half-way house type 'missing links' as based on what I know of how technology develops, the basic design can go through incremental improvements, but then there is usually a step change where the whole concept changes and becomes the new standard design which in turn is incrementally improved, and so it starts again.  The hippo sandal follows the same pattern: as a closed shoe design it was flawed by design, and the method of attachment was also impractical.  I started looking at pictures breeds of horse known to be around in Roman times and one interesting characteristic is that they had much more pronounced feathers on their legs, which would have made it even harder for the sandals to remain tied.  The modern horse shoe (or its medieval equivalent) needed these 2 technological improvements: a shoe that followed the line of the hoof and the realisation that it could be nailed rather than tied in place.  If you tried to nail a closed shoe then that wouldn't work (although things may have slightly changed now, for a long time vets would work with blacksmiths to prepare a closed shoe to help keep a poultice in place while a wound in the foot healed, but of course a horse in that condition would not have been using the shoe to go galloping around delivering messages!)  So in purely practical terms the open shoe probably had to be invented before it could be attached using nails.  In turn this required a completely different approach to looking after horses' feet.  And that came later than the Roman period.  

Jason2 wrote:
Roman saddles are another fascinating area of research.  Some have produced replicas of Roman saddles that seem to suggest by using knees and applying pressure on the saddle a rider can have an amount of control not that much less than a modern rider.  If it wasn't for the fact that Mike Loades is one of those who has made and tried out such saddles I would be cynical but given his skill and experience, if he says its possible I believe him.

Stuart Bailey wrote:On subject of Cavalry equipment it is an idea encountered in older books on ancient warfare that lack of Stirrups (probably first introduced by the Avars and then taken up by Eastern Roman forces etc) prevented ancient cavalry from delivering any form of effective charge and limited them too skirmishing.

It should be noted that this view is not reflected in ancient sources and would seem to be totally at odds with the combat record of heavy cavalry like Alaxanders Companions, Hannibals elite Spanish and Gallic Heavy Cavalry and fully armoured cataphracts of various nations and tribes.

The reconstruction of the four horned Roman saddle by Peter Connolly and its subsequent testing has demonstrated that it gives the rider a stable enough seat to allow a rider to thrust or throw a spear and weld a sword effectively, even leaning to one side and recover.

The four horned saddle was employed by the Romans, Gauls, Parthians, Sassanids and probably by other races.  Horse armour found in Armenia for instance has a gap for the saddle but no saddle was found.  It is not known who invented the four horned saddle but the Gauls seem to be candidates and it seems likely the Romans copied this type of saddle from them as they did with so much other Roman military equipment.

Actually never ceases to surprise me about the amount of stuff we think of as Roman which is actually not Roman in origin.  If it was not nailed down they would pinch it and to judge from recent shipwrecks of Greek statues being taken to Rome having it nailed down did not work either.

On saddles/stirrups, I agree with both of you that it is still a bit of a mystery.  Stirrups were a major technological upgrade which also led to developments in saddle design.  You cannot (for example) attempt rising trot without stirrups, and if ancient sources are really suggesting that you could go into combat being shaken about at sitting trot, I suggest you try it for yourself.  You would be shaken all over, it would be impossible for any group of horses to retain any kind of formation in combat.  You could of course canter, but I doubt you could fight at that pace, so the canter would mainly be used as intimidation to get enemy infantry to break and run.  I don't know, but I suspect ancient accounts of battles are perhaps over-dramatized, so accounts of massed charges sound impressive and flatter the vanity of the commanders more so than "several thousand horse charged at the walk" or "walked into the enemy" (or equivalent).  Sort of loses its dramatic edge?

I would like to think that the 4 horned Roman saddle was widely used - it would make sense since the saddle would allow for better weight distribution which would then allow the rider more flexibility to lean and recover in combat as Stuart observes.  But we still have the question why the saddle is not generally seen in Roman art, and as Stuart points out there was a gap for the saddle, but no saddle was found.

Jason2's observation about riding through pressure rather than relying on a saddle is not as strange as it may sound.  When I was retaught to ride, it was at a specialist dressage stable where they also trained dressage horses to International standard.  The whole philosophy behind dressage training is very different from more traditional methods because the horse needs to learn how to respond to very subtle changes.  The early training is very much with a blanket and akin to bareback riding, where the rider needs to learn how his posture causes difficulties for the horse. You become an extension of the horse's body.  I'm probably not explaining it very well, but the horse is rewarded for doing the right move by the rider relieving pressure on that particular part of his back.  
In a sense it is counter-intuitive: you make things happen by not doing what you expect (i.e. you don't add pressure (which makes the horse less comfortable), but relieve pressure from a certain area which helps the horse move in the way you want (thereby making the horse more comfortable).  It has the added benefit that the horse quickly realises that he has someone on his back who understands him; you are always working with the horse and encouraging him to do what is natural even though he doesn't necessarily understand why.  As a rider you won't learn this if you start off with a saddle, and neither will the horse.  Once you've mastered that, you can control the horse by varying pressure and it becomes instinctive when you then ride with a saddle.  When you want the horse to change down a pace, you change your posture (which changes the pressure) and it happens without having to pull on the reins.  The same applies to leg pressure (squeezing, not kicking), and how far forward or back you apply that pressure.  The series Thinking Riding by Molly Sivewright takes this to the next level and is really a new approach to training instructors (which is probably using older knowledge, but turned into a 'system' for today's riders).  I suppose it is a bit like driving a car without using the brakes, by anticipating the road and knowing how your vehicle responds.  It is much easier to explain than to put into practice, but it does work, and if you are with your horse all day (as Roman riders would have been) then I can see how you would build up that bond and the horse would be consistently trained.

I will freely admit that despite understanding the principles, I was never very good when I tried dressage - I'm hopeless at learning things by rote, so after a few practice runs with the instructor telling me where to turn, the horse knew far more of the course than I could ever remember and made it quite clear he resented my attempts to mess it up.  But that doesn't mean I couldn't appreciate the skill of the trainers.  Dressage does tend to attract those who want to show off their rosettes, but have no idea how to bring the best from their horse.  Contrast this with the skill of the trainers, who could buy a horse 'with potential' for £8K, train it for 6 months, match it to the right rider and sell it for £100K.

So I'm not saying that saddles are totally unnecessary, but for messengers or perhaps for skirmish cavalry/horse archers, it may be that saddles were not as much use as they would be for spear/sword/charging?

Jason2 wrote:
Now, your comment on riders using the grass verges is interesting.  In Lord of the Rings-The return of the King, when there is a short bit of a chapter talking about the evacuation of Minas Tirith, the civilian population are said to use the made road but official messengers use the grass verge.  I've always felt that its an idea that makes more sense than people give it credit

I haven't read Lord of the Rings (haven't even seen the films) - again, not particularly interested in the fictional side.  I just remembered something I was taught when hacking (the general principle being that the horse is far more important than the rider): you think ahead and put yourself in the horse's position - no jumping over a hedge when you can't see what is on the other side, being aware of bin liners caught in hedges (nothing scares horses quite like bin liners), cooling horses feet in a stream on hot days, and avoiding stony paths or lanes torn up by tractors by riding on the softer ground at the side.  And, of course, as tempting as it may be to walk through cowpats, you're the one who has to pick his feet out afterwards.

I was lucky in that the stables was run by practical and highly skilled staff, who appreciated that I wanted to learn the real skills rather than just spend a lot of money to ride around winning rosettes while paying someone else to do the real work of looking after the horses and training them!  Not thought about this for ages, but it is interesting what sticks in the memory.

I have avoided the forum for a while, and won’t be posting again after this but there were so many points I wanted to join in the discussion on.
Shoeless hooves are more flexible, which enables the frog to pump blood better in the leg avoiding the strains and pressures modern horses experience, in particular with tendons. I have been able to ride my current horse for three hour rides on mountain paths in Wales without any incident and no shoes. When I used to have shod horses, they would inevitably go lame in the hoof or leg and lose three or four months with the required rest. So shoeless cavalry are viable and effective. Especially if there are no modern roads to ride on.
The Achaemenid Persians had the four horn saddle, as probably did the Medes before them. This was added to a leg role which protected the leg and also enabled the ability to brace on impact. Added to the Nisean horse bred on alfalfa and using the Scythian breeding techniques the Medes and Persians were able to employ a heavy cavalry. At least in comparison to their time.
Final point, and no insult to anyone else’s riding skills. The sitting trot is a perfectly viable secure seat if used with a long leg and deep seat as was used in the ancient world. There is a world of difference between riding once week for an hour to riding every day for six to eight hours a day - such as various steppe peoples/ Persian nobles were ordered by Cyrus the Great never to travel anywhere apart from on the foot/ Frederick the Great retained his Prussian cavalry to ride without stirrups for six months and thus made them decent cavalry men.
The sitting trot requires moving with the horse, as does any other gait. Do it all the time without stirrups and it becomes the norm.

Should have said Persian nobles were instructed to ride everywhere if travelling by Cyrus the Great.

Basileus wrote:Shoeless hooves are more flexible, which enables the frog to pump blood better in the leg avoiding the strains and pressures modern horses experience, in particular with tendons. I have been able to ride my current horse for three hour rides on mountain paths in Wales without any incident and no shoes. When I used to have shod horses, they would inevitably go lame in the hoof or leg and lose three or four months with the required rest. So shoeless cavalry are viable and effective. Especially if there are no modern roads to ride on.

The last sentence really underlines the point I was making - if you are riding on the road (whether modern or paved Roman roads), a horse will benefit from shoes.  Hence my suggestion that it was possible that messengers would ride on the softer ground at the side of the road.

One thing we don't know is how different horses from the Roman period were to modern breeds.  It may be that the hooves were tougher and/or circulation better - I don't know.  I have heard that some riders do go shoeless as Basileus, so for once I don't doubt your experience or first hand knowledge on this, but I suspect your horse is a hardy enough breed to cope with it and in the transition between wearing shoes and giving them up it took some time for the hooves to get used to it.

Basileus wrote:The Achaemenid Persians had the four horn saddle, as probably did the Medes before them. This was added to a leg role which protected the leg and also enabled the ability to brace on impact. Added to the Nisean horse bred on alfalfa and using the Scythian breeding techniques the Medes and Persians were able to employ a heavy cavalry. At least in comparison to their time.  Final point, and no insult to anyone else’s riding skills. The sitting trot is a perfectly viable secure seat if used with a long leg and deep seat as was used in the ancient world. There is a world of difference between riding once week for an hour to riding every day for six to eight hours a day - such as various steppe peoples/ Persian nobles were ordered by Cyrus the Great never to travel anywhere apart from on the foot/ Frederick the Great retained his Prussian cavalry to ride without stirrups for six months and thus made them decent cavalry men.
The sitting trot requires moving with the horse, as does any other gait. Do it all the time without stirrups and it becomes the norm.

As I said before, the Ancient period is not really something I know much about.  The horses did tend to be smaller back then, and looking at pictures from Roman art the rider did seem much larger than the horse so the position Basileus describes is possible.  I also made the point earlier that a rider who rides every day will develop a different relationship with his horse, so almost any riding technique can become the norm.  I'm sure there have been plenty of 'training' techniques over the years which show results irrespective of the strain they put on horse and rider, but that doesn't mean there are not better, kinder ways to achieve the same results.  If you look at some Medieval bits, for example, they were effectively instruments of torture for the horse - totally unnecessary and cruel.  The horse was seen as being there simply to make its rider look good and the more senior the social rank of the rider, often the more wacky ideas were introduced.   The comment that Persian nobles were instructed to ride everywhere by Cyrus the Great typifies this - the command was certainly not given for the good of the horse or to improve their riding skill, merely because Cyrus wanted the nobility to demonstrate their rank to the lower orders.  I seem to remember that after a long ride it was good practice to dismount and walk the horse for a while, but perhaps the Persian nobility gave their horses to an underling to do that for them?

I am still very skeptical about the sitting trot being a viable gait for any significant period of time, both for the horse and the rider.  Rising trot may be more tiring for the rider, but it does relieve pressure on the horse's back which is why it is preferred.  In addition I have yet to find any rider who at some point has not developed back trouble themselves which may not be entirely due to sitting trot, but I trust you will agree it makes it doubly uncomfortable!

Returning to the original point about how far a messenger would be able to travel per day in Roman times, I would be interested in Basileus' estimate.  I still think that 40 miles is a very conservative estimate and that the distance should be longer.

Mixing periods of riding with periods of riders getting off their horses and "walking" alongside them to give the horse a rest was fairly normal for European Cavalry formations with only one horse per rider.

Steppe Nomadic armies like the Huns, Alans, Tartars, Mongols etc could a lot faster than that by each rider having three to six horses each and swapping their horses on a regular basis so each horse remained fresh. Have read a suggestion that during the Mongol invasion of Europe some of the Mongol formations moved sixty miles in a day (If they were the same troops and the dates of panicing eastern European accounts were correct?!).

While this seems to be an unbelievable speed for any military formation prior to mechanized formations it should perhaps be noted that we are talking about a campaign waged by veteran Imperial Toumans under outstanding commanders with the elite riders and horses in the whole of Asia. To while a 60 miles in a day may (?) be possible for say Individual messangers with access to the Imperial Roman Remount service and Elite Imperial Mongol troops doing a force march. Perhaps comparing speeds of a Tribal Alan or Feudal Parthian force to the Imperial Mongol forces at their peak is a bit like comparing a 10 Year old Fiat Panda to a modern F1 car.

Ref the speed of all steppe armies with loads and loads of remounts to other all mounted forces from Persia and Arabia is tricky esp with people like the Parthians who started out as Steppe Nomads then moved off the Steppe. My feeling is that lack of grazing would have limited the number of horses per rider. However, early Arab conquest troops often rode on camels and saved their horses for battle. While you would assume that the Iranian Nobles who formed the Heavy Cavalry and via intermediaries passed on much of the traditions of later Western Knights would have a riding horse, a pack horse(s) to carry armour/horse armour and would only have mounted their heavy battle horses and loaded them with heavy (and very hot) armour as late as possible.

A point has already been made that if I (100%) and most readers get on a horse and ride for more than 20 miles in a day let alone 30/40 miles we will not be able to walk for a week !! In my case it may be even longer. While the same trip for someone who has lived all their life in a saddle its more like a gentle hack in the countrysides.

I wonder if after a lifetime of cars, buses and lorries the same point can be said about humans and walking. These days most people walk 20 miles and its a big effort which will lame a lot of them. But say my Grandfathers generation would think nothing of walking 5 miles or more to work or even school working all day and then doing the same trip home. So perhaps for Romans esp in the countryside brought up to a life of hard manual labour and walking everywhere from an early age.........the 20 mile route march's of the Legions was normal.

And same can be said about horses brought up without horse shoes and humans brought up barefoot. Its just normal and not an issue while if you ask a tenderfoot like me or many modern horses to do even do five miles barefoort across hard and rocky ground we are probably lame.