Distances traveled on foot?

[adam_grif]

So I was thinking back on Dragon Age the other day, and I realized that Fereldon can be traversed on foot in 2 days. That seemed a bit small, but I thought I'd run it by you folks to get some more definite answers:

- How large would that make it, approximately?
- Historically, how long did it take to cross somewhere like Great Britain or China on foot?

[Dave]

Human walking speed can be approximated as 3 miles per hour. Given, say, 10 hours a day of walking, we get 3*20 = 60 miles.

[CaptainChewbacca]

On a good road it would only take a medieval traveller about 2 weeks to get from London to Scotland on foot. Horse and cart could probably do it in a week, and with a good horse you could get a message anywhere very fast.

On the flipside, when Russia had colonies in north america, you went by horse from Moscow to Vladivstok and then by boat, and that took three years.

[Marcus Aurelius]

On a good road it would only take a medieval traveller about 2 weeks to get from London to Scotland on foot. Horse and cart could probably do it in a week, and with a good horse you could get a message anywhere very fast.

On the flipside, when Russia had colonies in north america, you went by horse from Moscow to Vladivstok and then by boat, and that took three years.

When was this? It would be much faster to take a boat from St. Petersburg or Archangel, probably even if you had to wait for the summer, since those ports are ice-bound during winter.

[Twigler]

Human walking speed can be approximated as 3 miles per hour. Given, say, 10 hours a day of walking, we get 3*20 = 60 miles.

That's if you're really pushing yourself and the roads are good. If you manage 40km a day, you're doing well, especially if we're talking about longer trips like mentioned in the OP.

[The Spartan]

Another standard you can consider is soldiers during the US Civil War: during Sherman's March to the Sea his men were expected to make 15 miles a day. Note, though, that they were also expected to be able to fight, to pillage, and forage in addition to those 15 miles. They would also have been carrying about 50 pounds of equipment between their rifle and ammunition, canteen, haversack, spare shirt and underwear, mess kit, personal effects, etc.

Similarly, at the end of the war, a Confederate Cavalry unit was trying to escape a Union encirclement and the officers were begging their commander to abandon their wagon train. According to the program I was watching yesterday or the day before, they felt they could make 50 miles a day without it. I'm not sure how long you can maintain that, since horses need rest, but there you are.

I've also heard it said that a medieval peasant could reasonably expect to walk 25 miles a day between working on the farm, gathering water, etc. Admittedly, though, I don't remember where I heard that.

[Simon_Jester]

One thing to remember is that long-distance walking is not free, energy-wise. You're going to burn quite a lot of calories just covering 20 or 30 miles a day, even if you're not doing anything else and if conditions are ideal.

When was this? It would be much faster to take a boat from St. Petersburg or Archangel, probably even if you had to wait for the summer, since those ports are ice-bound during winter.

Even in summer, the Northeast Passage "over" Russia isn't safe without a modern icebreaker clearing a path for you, so you can't sail directly. And since this was before the Suez Canal, a ship would have to sail clear around Africa, Europe, and Asia to get there. It might be less than three years for all I know, but it sure wouldn't be fast.

I've also heard it said that a medieval peasant could reasonably expect to walk 25 miles a day between working on the farm, gathering water, etc. Admittedly, though, I don't remember where I heard that.

...As in, that's the amount of walking involved in his daily labor? I'm a bit skeptical, because that would take most of the day in walking, leaving very little time for tasks that must be performed while standing still.

[Broomstick]

When I was in condition for it I could walk 15-20 miles per day, that's 25-32 km per day. Of course, terrain and weather will have an impact. But if the "average person" could cross a territory in 2 days on foot, well, 50-60 km, probably. Assuming good conditions.

[The Spartan]

I've also heard it said that a medieval peasant could reasonably expect to walk 25 miles a day between working on the farm, gathering water, etc. Admittedly, though, I don't remember where I heard that.

...As in, that's the amount of walking involved in his daily labor? I'm a bit skeptical, because that would take most of the day in walking, leaving very little time for tasks that must be performed while standing still.

Sitting here going over this, I'm starting to think it may have been a book I read that said that, but not a history book of some kind.

So with that in mind, I'd be skeptical of the claim. Even though I made it...

[Ziggy Stardust]

During the phase of the Lewis & Clark expedition when they were travelling on foot, they were making around 20-30 miles a day, IIRC (at best, there were days where they were <15 miles, or even <10). Of course, that expedition is more complicated then just a couple of guy walking, as they had all sorts of equipment and whatnot.

[salm]

When I was in condition for it I could walk 15-20 miles per day, that's 25-32 km per day. Of course, terrain and weather will have an impact. But if the "average person" could cross a territory in 2 days on foot, well, 50-60 km, probably. Assuming good conditions.

That sounds very little. I went on a 30km hike last summer which took about eight hours. I wasn´t in any particular good condition, nor am i particularily athletic. Furthermore i had my parents and a friend with me who are all in their mid 60s and don´t train or go walking frequently. We didn´t walk all that fast either and could have went faster had there been any need.

I think a well trained person could do quite a bit more than 30km/day.

[Kodiak]

As an LDS missionary in the Amazon basin I did a TON of walking for 2 years (no bikes or cars for missionaries). On a typical day we would walk 20 miles and not think much of it (I had a pedometer for a while and made some notes) whereas a day where we had appointments that were far-flung would see us putting in about 30-40 miles of walking. This was in tropical weather conditions (read: high heat and humidity) and over uneven terrain and dirt roads. I'd imagine that a messenger or foot-courier (if such things existed) in medieval times could conceiveably do 40 miles a day over roads on foot.

[Sky Captain]

Longest hike I've had is about 50 km in one day. That was along the coast of Gulf of Riga in less than ideal conditions like sometimes soft sand and rocks. On a good road I think I could do some 70 - 80 km in one day. So in two days ~150 km might be the max distance an average fit person can go on foot.

[Serafina]

I'd imagine that a messenger or foot-courier (if such things existed) in medieval times could conceiveably do 40 miles a day over roads on foot.

Professional messengers typically used a relay system - the individual messengers would cover several miles in a rapid pace and then pass on the message to another runner/rider (or change horses in the case of riders.)
This typically allowed them to maintain speeds that would be impossible over longer distances - say, they could cover 5-10 kilometers at a speed of about 15 km/h (considering the quality of the roads) on foot.
That way, the message could traverse 150 kilometers within a day (on foot, in summer and with good weather).

[GC13]

I hate to totally destroy the purpose of this thread, but in Dragon Age it takes more than a week just to get from Orzammar to the Circle of Magi, and that has about as much road as half the width/height of Ferelden. What gave you the idea that it was only two days' travel across?

[Broomstick]

When I was in condition for it I could walk 15-20 miles per day, that's 25-32 km per day. Of course, terrain and weather will have an impact. But if the "average person" could cross a territory in 2 days on foot, well, 50-60 km, probably. Assuming good conditions.

That sounds very little. I went on a 30km hike last summer which took about eight hours. I wasn´t in any particular good condition, nor am i particularily athletic. Furthermore i had my parents and a friend with me who are all in their mid 60s and don´t train or go walking frequently. We didn´t walk all that fast either and could have went faster had there been any need.

I think a well trained person could do quite a bit more than 30km/day.

It's not a matter of what you can do in a single day - it's a matter of what you can do day after day.

It was also hiking on trails, not roads or nicely manicured paths, with about 32 kg on my back. That is more comparable to medieval era travel, where the roads were not the nice things we think of as roads and you had to carry a lot of crap with you.

So... I could keep that pace up for 2 weeks, day after day. If all I had to do was one day of walking and I was unencumbered, on a smooth, level surface, sure, I could have gone farther... but I'm not sure that's the conditions the OP was talking about.

[adam_grif]

I hate to totally destroy the purpose of this thread, but in Dragon Age it takes more than a week just to get from Orzammar to the Circle of Magi, and that has about as much road as half the width/height of Ferelden. What gave you the idea that it was only two days' travel across?

Did I go senile or did not they explicitly state that it would take 2 days forced march to reach Denerim from the Arl of Redcliffe's estate at the end of the game?

[GC13]

Ah, why so they did as well. At another part in the game you're given a very specific minimum time for a round trip between Orzammar and the Circle which suggests 4x the distance.

Well, I suppose you can reconcile the two speeds, one being general travelling the other being... Well... A forced march. >.>

Considering how the soldiers are not particularly heavily armed or armored and probably aren't bringing much more than the bare essentials on their wagon train I wouldn't put thirty miles a day as being out of their reach. I know Jackson was known for marching his troops fast in the Civil War (Valley Campaign).

[adam_grif]

Well, Orzammar is also carved into a mountain and the circle has a huge river blocking it (increased travel time may mean they had to go around). The two locations are unlikely to have a single, relatively flat and straight path between them like Redcliffe and Denerim did.

[Darth Wong]

People are putting up some impressive numbers for walking speed here. On the other hand, it can be startling how quickly you get tired and sore if you're trying to traverse broken terrain, especially in the calves and ankles. Having roads helps, especially if they're level.

[Broomstick]

Indeed, I think some people are underestimating terrain. I can keep up a 8 kph pace for hours on end when I'm in condition on ideal terrain, even carrying significant weight, but I've been on some hikes in terrain so rugged that, even unencumbered, it's taken me two entire hours to travel a single kilometer.

[dragon]

However these expeditions and walking armies are carrying a lot more weight in the form of food, armor, weapons and more. Hiking I can easliy cover over 30km in a 8 hour stretch but thats with no extra gear. You slap on 60 extra pounds and then lets see how fast I can move. Which for me is slow, as when I did ruck marches in the Army with a full combat load we covered 20km in the same lenght of time.

[GC13]

The road between Redcliffe and Denerim is one of the two major routes through the middle of the kingdom (the other being parallel to it but a ways north), so I don't think terrain would be a great difficulty. As I said before, the troops aren't particularly heavily armored (no packs either), and I rather doubt their baggage train is much more than the minimum you'd need for a two day march.

[Seydlitz_k]

If we are talking about armies marching, Gary Brueggeman's site about the Roman Army has a whole section covering the Army on the march (Be warned, site has annoying pop ups): http://www.garyb.0catch.com/march1/march_intro.html

The Roman Army, marching at a standard pace across normal terrain would cover about 10 miles a day. It's worth remembering that the more people you have in a marching column, the larger your baggage train will be, and the slower the overall speed of the army. You also have to factor in the legth of the column, etc. While it only took 3 1/2 hours for a roman soldier to cover 10 miles, if the column itself is 10 miles long (Which it generally was, easily) the last guy in the column is going to be setting out 3 1/2 hours after the first guy left! So it would take 7 hours from when the first guy left the camp in the morning, for the last guy to arrive at the camp at night.

A lone person, or a small group of people can overcome terrain a lot faster than a whole army.

So I don't think Ferelden would be much more than 40 kilometers across, if it took an army 2 days to march across it. If the march is forced, and the army dosn't stop to sleep, maybe 60 kilometers. But I think people would quickly start collapsing from exhaustion if they walk for two days straight, with equipment without sleeping.

[Seydlitz_k]

EDIT: I just remembered, a better example of a force marching ancient army would be King Harold's army in 1066, which covered nearly 250 miles from York to Pevensey in about 4 days to face William the Conqueror and the Normans at Hastings. That's 60+ miles a day, which is pretty damn impressive. Especially considering Harold's army had just fought two major battles!

Of course, this was over friendly ground and England had a fairly sophisticated road network. Don't know how Ferelden compares at this point. With those figures though, it means Ferelden could be nearly 200km across.