I believe that in order to be march long distances consistently an army must be conditioned over time. The weaker men are eliminated and you are left with a remainder that can march great distances to battle and then fight. I believe the French were able to out march their opponents consistently from the 1796 Italian Campaignuntil the latter part of the 1812 campaign because of their system of training recruits on the march to join their units. March and then train becomes march and then fight. After 1812 the raw material simply became to poor for the system to compensate. The men were to young or used up from prior campaigns. Every country could force march troops when required at some cost; but I believe the French under Napoleon emphasized and focused on it. The Russians in 1812 demonstrated an ability to march as well as the French and I believe this was due to hardiness of their men, and the fact they were in their own country. The Austrians were notoriously slow marchers with gigantic supply trains. The English could march well but tended to not out march their supplies, except under certain circumstances such as the 1811 campaign in Portugal\Spain . All the above is a regurgitation of OPINIONS I have formed from reading various sources (sadly Englis only) which include Chandler, Oman, Nafziger and Rothenburg. I believe the Frecnh under Napoleon were consistently the best at long distance marches and I can think of at least two campaigns they won primarily on the strength of their legs, Ulm and Marengo. Kudos to Anton for his study of the subject. I do wish there were more translated sources available from the non-English speaking countries for us to read.
Major General Ed Blackburn
Commanding Second Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards
NWC
Login
FAQ
</center>