Figure it out. That would average between 50 and 60 miles a day which is hardly anything I would personally consider impossible for a good horse and rider even for a lengthy period. Averaging 5 miles an hour (quite typical for a saddle horse) we're talking about 10 hours or so in the saddle and ample time for feeding, watering, and grooming as well as resting both horse and rider. And novelist or not, there is little doubt he was an experienced rider.

Also in those days the roads wouldn't have been asphalt as they are now and would have been much easier traveling for a horse. They were made FOR horses at the time.

While I agree that we have to not OVER estimate what a horse can do, it's equally as wrong to UNDER estimate what they can do. There was a reason why people spent a lot of time and money on saddle horses. In those days they weren't just expensive pets. They can travel further per day than people can.

I find nothing unbelievable in someone traveling that distance in the time cited. Some of Hopkin's tales do stretch the credibility, but I don't really think that's one of them.

Edit: Take a look at the reference in his list after that one:

1920: The first U.S. Cavalry Mounted Service Cup race averaged 60 miles/day for five days, carrying up to 245 lb. of rider and gear.

This one I know is documented and was a substantially more difficult feat since the horses were carrying a heavy weight which really increases the difficulty as you well know.

As for Hopkins; I do believe he did make some rides over distance but I do know the one he's the most famous for was false. It was just a story he wrote and nothing more. Too bad that Disney made it seem like it was true.

It's my turn to want to drop this subject, and my last post wasn't even about how far a horse can travel in one day. I was just warning other Hatrackers that not all the stories about Frank Hopkins are true. The majority of them are not.

I know horses. I've spent almost my entire life with them. I've shown on the national levels, trained all the horses I showed myself, and have even beaten some of the pros in the field. I've been a riding instructor for years, and spent time as secretary of an international horse registry. I've trail ridden almost all my life, too, and have been in association with two of the top distance riders in the country. So, if anything about horses comes up, again. You can just bet that I'll be there to offer advice.

[Edited to add: Oops, I posted just when the argument was being ended. I hope this doesn't start things up again, but I'd hate to delete the post after taking the time to write it.]

JeanneT wrote,

quote:

---

But people used to do that kind of thing regularly. We forget how much people rode.

---

I'll admit up front that it depends on the time period and where you lived, but this statement isn't true. It might generally be true for the rich, but the rich aren't most people.

In fact, for much of history, most people didn't travel very far at all. Most people who had a horse used it to do farm work. It was poorly fed compared to today or to rich people's horses. These horses primarily worked in harness, but probably were also ocassionally ridden bareback (or, if you had the money and the need, they used a saddle). But most lowerclass people generally walked or rode in wagons rather than rode horses. These farm horses wouldn't be up to long travel at fast paces, though they could pull a loaded wagon about ten miles a day (I need to double-check that number) every day for months. Yet this is the horse that was the most common in number until cars and trains started to replace them.

Freight merchants would have had horses, but those horses were used in harness to pull heavy loads slowly over distance every day.

Rich people had horses that were generally well-fed, well-rested, and fit for the type of riding rich people did: riding to hunt, for pleasure, to oversee their estate, to visit other estates, etc. Again, many of these horses would be trained for harness and used for farm work or to pull carriages. Not all would be trained or used for riding long distances at fast paces, though some would be.

As we've already discovered in a previous post, military cavalry horses where probably the fittest horses for long distance riding, though they were not necessarily the best fed. Those in the cavalry often had more than one horse and would switch off between them when riding hard. This allowed them to go long distances at fast paces for short periods of time with somewhat heavy loads. An individual horse at the top of its game might do the 60 miles per day while carrying the rider and equipment, but he wouldn't be able to keep it up for long (i.e. probably around 5 days) without a good rest and feeding afterwards. On the whole, though, unless you were a Mongol, even cavalry mounts weren't pushed that hard because they stayed attached to a slowly moving infantry column.

So your typical fantasy adventurer might own a "fifty miles a day on a dirt road for a week, then rest" horse. After all, they can afford more armor and weapons of higher quality than is historically accurate. However, if your adventurer lost his horse in the country and needs a new one, an endurance horse isn't going to be easily available. He'll have to ask the local gentry to sell him a hunter or hope a military detachment is nearby, has some cavalry, and is willing to sell one of their remounts.

Keep in mind that these are all generalities, so exceptions can always be found (and I'm sure JeanneT will find them). However, this is just an overview of the subject for those interested.

Of course, most people didn't have riding horses. Most people didn't have horses at all. Most plowing wasn't done by horses, for that matter. Oxen would be more likely to be used or even human beings at times.

Horses were expensive to buy and maintain which is why they wouldn't have kept them if they couldn't travel further in a day than a person could.

Edit: At no time did I discuss exceptions. A fit and well maintained horse can pretty easily travel 5 miles an hour, in fact can probably go faster than that. 5 miles an hour is a fairly conservative figure.

Crystal, sorry that I misunderstood what you were saying about Hopkins. I've also read that he made up that story that was made into a movie which I don't even remember the title to. I just misunderstood your point. I don't know whether the trip from Galveston took place for sure, but the figures involved aren't outrageous at all in my opinion. Mind you I wouldn't care to take a 30 day riding trip, but I've never ridden for days at a time.

My point which Debbie seems to want to argue for some reason, is that many people did make extensive riding trips at one time. No, not peasants and not even a lot of upper class. But it was hardly uncommon. Traveling by horseback was a practical way to travel if you were traveling light and could afford a horse or even better two horses.

Yes, horses were expensive to buy and maintain. However, are you saying that no one would possibly buy a tractor since it's not useful for driving long distances at fast speeds? One of the things I was trying to point out was that different horses were used for, trained for, and suited for different tasks. Your above statement seems to say that a farmer wouldn't buy a horse if it wasn't fast, but it wasn't speed he was desiring in his horse. He'd look for its ability to plow more or haul more than a human could.

Also, a well-fed and fit plow horse isn't going to be that quick when compared to a well-fed and fit hunter or racer. It's somewhat like you wouldn't ask a body builder to suddenly run a marathon: he's not built up his body for that task.

At no time did I discuss exceptions. A fit and well maintained horse can pretty easily travel 5 miles an hour, in fact can probably go faster than that. 5 miles an hour is a fairly conservative figure.

The Frank Hopkins tales were the exception I was referring to. His tales wouldn't be very impressive if every rider and horse was capable of doing those feats, true? Yet you used them to illustrate what an average horse was capable of doing. The examples on Elan's list all show what a fit horse trained for that specific use was capable of, but you use those examples to support your statement of what an average horse is capable of.

Like others have said, I agree that a well-conditioned riding horse can handle going 50 to 60 miles per day for several days. But most average horses couldn't do it without risking their health.

My point...is that many people did make extensive riding trips at one time. No, not peasants and not even a lot of upper class. But it was hardly uncommon. Traveling by horseback was a practical way to travel if you were traveling light and could afford a horse or even better two horses.