Fastest general

Hey all,

So I was browsing lazily through the Monastery, and bumped into several topics about who is the "greatest" general. Since I consider that to be a silly point, as "greatness" is nothing but propaganda passed on, I wish to compile and cross check generals with more tangible qualities.

So my first one is speed. Feel free to suggest generals that moved the greatest amount of troops, on foot (and pre 1915, as cars, tanks, and other witchcraft began massproducing), through the greatest distance in the shortest time.

If there is enough of a push, maybe I will consider a cavalry section too.

We need: Name, year, Rank, amount of men under command, distance travelled, and geographical location.

Ready.


Go!

Well to start I would like to nominate Stonewall Jackson,

Lt. General, 17,000 men in Northern Virgina. 646 miles in 48 days.

Harold Godwinson, King of Wessex, London to Stamford Bridge, 3,000 men, 180 miles, 4 days.

They were probably mounted though, even though they fought on foot. I assume by 'on foot' you mean no used of horses wagons, railroads or boats by any of the troops for even part of the journey. Which actually writes off most rapid troops movements particualry as most armies included cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

Hey all,

So I was browsing lazily through the Monastery, and bumped into several topics about who is the "greatest" general. Since I consider that to be a silly point, as "greatness" is nothing but propaganda passed on, I wish to compile and cross check generals with more tangible qualities.

So my first one is speed. Feel free to suggest generals that moved the greatest amount of troops, on foot (and pre 1915, as cars, tanks, and other witchcraft began massproducing), through the greatest distance in the shortest time.

If there is enough of a push, maybe I will consider a cavalry section too.

We need: Name, year, Rank, amount of men under command, distance travelled, and geographical location.

Ready.


Go!

---

Genghis Khan of course! His armies moved at speeds and distances comparable only to motorized armies of ww2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Genghis Khan of course! His armies moved at speeds and distances comparable only to motorized armies of ww2.

---

Which is another reason why I was questioning whether the use of horses mattered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

Harold Godwinson, King of Wessex, London to Stamford Bridge, 3,000 men, 180 miles, 4 days.

They were probably mounted though, even though they fought on foot. I assume by 'on foot' you mean no used of horses wagons, railroads or boats by any of the troops for even part of the journey. Which actually writes off most rapid troops movements particualry as most armies included cavalry.

---

Well, it's ok if a part of te army has cavalry units, as long as they move at infantry speed. Railroads, boats, baloons, Mary Poppins' umbrellas are out.

As of Gengis Khan, can you provide numbers? How much distance, how many men, where, and who lead them?

Batu chan (called Batu too), grandson of Genghis-Khan. During his invasion on Hunguary Mongols were even faster than Germans into 1941.

yeah... but the mongols were an all cavalry force... even though some may have fought on foot they all rode horses... and thats not it... every rider had more horses so if one got tired they just switched to another. they ate lived slept on a horse... there were more horses than men in that army... so i doubt it would count since swordsmaster said no horses.

they had between 50.000-100.000 men i think

True about the Mongols likely being out as they moved on horseback, but they weren't as many as 50 000 when they invaded, I think 20-30 000 at most, they were often severly outnumbered.

hmm, but they divided their forces, one to poland (decoy) and one to hungaria (main attack). so the entire force prolly was around 50000 if im not mistaken.

Ok, ok, since everyone is so thrilled about the mongols, let's include them...

Let's do it scientifically though. Numbers is the name of the game, names, numbers, try and provide their exact route, terrain, number of men, groups, commanders that actually led the forces, opposition, etc..

The whole point of this thread and the ones that will follow is to determine what factors make generals stand out, so repeating schoolbook myths is not a good enough approach. Numbers people! this is a historian forum dammit!

well... they will be the fastest probably... still i think you cant compare very long distances with very short... i can march an army very quick by just charging them for 30 miles and be the fastest... but it can be done over 300 miles... over long distances foodsupplie, fatigue and moral start to play a much larger role.

The time also matters, Malaghbroughs march into baveria was considered a lightinging stroke for the time but he only averaged around 5-10 miles aday.

Maybe we should consider Napoleon, too. Wasn't his Grand Army moving faster to Moscow than the germans did later?

yeah, but napoleon was virtually unopposed... while germans did encounter some fighting, besides that many tanks got stuck in the mud...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope

The time also matters, Malaghbroughs march into baveria was considered a lightinging stroke for the time but he only averaged around 5-10 miles aday.

---

Well, nowadays your average infantry division walks about 12 miles a day...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

Well, nowadays your average infantry division walks about 12 miles a day...

---

I imagine the baggage train of the modern infantry division is rather easier to handle and transport than back then.

+I doubt that's forced marching... they could march a lot faster.

For long marches the average distance seem to have been around 15 miles/day for most armies. Some cavalry raids did like 5-600 miles in around 14 days IIRC but was smaller units and with the loss of horses to fatigue etc.

40+ miles/day for infantry was possible but such forced marches was done for just a few days only.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/...t/m/march2.asc


CBR

I've heard Julius Caesar force-marched his army over eighty kilometers in a single day while countering either the Nervii Belgae or Vercingetorix. This is long before trains, trucks, and APCs, mind you.

OK. Enough with those bloody Mongols.



I have found two interesting examples from history of Poland - namely XVIIth century.

Sobieski's army marching towards Vienna - 27 kilometers per day which was considered a great speed at that time.

Chodkiewicz before battle at Kircholm - 125 kilometers in TWO days.

In both cases these armies included a large number of supply wagons and infantry.

All cavalry forces were much faster of course, but it is not a point to talk about these, I will only add that many armies were capable to achive similar speed to those of Mongol forces.

Given that a man can only walk at a speed of about 4 miles per hour there is a physical limit to how far an army on foot could travel in one day.

The actual distance tends to vary according to how many hours the army is forced to march over a 24 hour period. The maximum obviously being twenty four with no breaks for rest or food, so theoretically the maximum distance an army can march in one day must be around 96 miles. Any distance greater than that would have to be explained.

In practice most armies marched for 2 to 3 hours twice a day with a one or two hour break around midday for lunch, giving an average daily march rate of between 8 and 14 miles per day. A forced march merely involves marching for longer not faster.

Incidently, I read the other day that Crawford increased the daily marching distance covered by the Light Division in the Peninsula not by making them march faster but by ordering that no man was to step out of the ranks to avoid a puddle or other obstruction in their path. He reasoned that men stepping out of ranks to avoid such obsticals caused a small delay which triggered an ever increasing ripple of lost impetus down the column costing the division the equivalent of over one hours march. The men hated him for it, but were punished if they stepped around of over a puddle and in doing so earned the reputation for being the fastest division in the British army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

Incidently, I read the other day that Crawford increased the daily marching distance covered by the Light Division in the Peninsula not by making them march faster but by ordering that no man was to step out of the ranks to avoid a puddle or other obstruction in their path. He reasoned that men stepping out of ranks to avoid such obsticals caused a small delay which triggered an ever increasing ripple of lost impetus done the column costing the division the equivalent of over one hours march. The men hated him for it, but were punished if they stepped around of over a puddle and in doing so earned the reputation for being the fastest division in the British army.

---

After his death in battle, his body was carried on a pall (presumably to the nearest port). His pallbearers came across a large puddle, and pointedly marched straight through. He'd have been proud of that.

:laugh4:

Ok. I like this getting more scientific. I have read somewhere that Suvorov? marched a russian army across the Alps in record time. Can anybody illuminate this some more for me?

in which war was that...? just curious

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

in which war was that...? just curious

---

No war. From what I heard he just marched them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

Ok. I like this getting more scientific. I have read somewhere that Suvorov? marched a russian army across the Alps in record time. Can anybody illuminate this some more for me?

---

It was during 1799 campaign of the French Revolutionary wars. He was trying to invade Switzerland I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_...paigns_of_1799

'Taking command on 19 April, Suvorov moved his army westwards, in a rapid march towards the Adda River, covering over 300 miles in just eighteen days.'

What the hell were the russians doing in the alps then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

What the hell were the russians doing in the alps then?

---

You never heard of the Swiss Alps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Alps

Right!! I've done a bit more reading and it appears that I was slightly wrong in my earlier statement. Suvorov was not trying to invade Switzerland it seems he had already done that and was trying to get out again. The main Russian Army under Rimsky-Korsakov had been defeated by the French already and Massena with 80,000 French troops had invaded Switzerland and was advancing on Suvorov's army of 18,000 regulars and 5,000 cossacks.

Quote:

---

Suvorov could either retreat or be destroyed.

Avoiding Massena, the Russian commander withdrew on 6 October through the Panixer Pass, and then upwards into the 9,000 foot mountains of the Berner Oberland, by then deep in snow. Massena was convinced that he would be trapped there and forced to surrender. Desperately ill-equipped and short of supplies, Suvorov neverthless pushed on, finally reaching Chur on the Rhine with the bulk of his army intact. As he watched his ragged and starving soldiers march into camp the old soldier declared that "The Russian eagles outflew the Roman eagles," referring to his Hannibal-like crossing of the snow-capped Alps.

---

Note: that 300 miles in 18 days (16 miles per day) was considered at the time to be quite an achievement. Though it is not directly related to the Alpine incident. It was however from the same campaign.

sorry, i was talking about the post before you :P when i was making the post you hadnt posted yet...

Marshal Davout at the Battle of Austerlitz with 7,000 men 70 miles / 110Km in 48 hours

They then bore the brunt of a Russian/Austrian attack for the remainder of the day.