The thing is, he has to ride hard for four days straight. What would this do to him? Would he seriously not be able to do it? Would he get used to it after four days?

Anyone with horse experience?

P.S. I don't know if this makes a difference, but he is traveling on a paved road.

Thanks
 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "ride hard" but please be aware that horses can't gallop for hours at a stretch. The most even a well-conditioned horse can gallop is normally a mile and a half or so. A horse can cover many miles in a day, but not at a gallop. A horse can cover more ground, faster, at a trot but an inexperienced rider would probably have a rought time with that since a trot is (to put it mildly) not a smooth gait. A horse would be exhausted after a three mile gallop. The same horse could trot, with walk and rest breaks, for many miles.

And they have to be watered, fed, rested and cared for. This would be more of an issue than the condition of the rider, actually.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 19, 2008).]
 

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 19, 2008).]
 

I think soreness would be a huge issue. After just one hour of horseback riding (my first time, as a kid) I remember my butt and thighs were really sore.
 

So, if someone wanted to cover as much distance as possible, and say they were traveling on messenger horses, or some kind of horse specially trained to do so (if such a thing exists,) they would just mix up trotting and walking?
 

I was thinking of on one horse but if you can change horses about every fifteen miles you could make really good time. That way you don't have to take to groom and would have to do minimal resting. But I can't even imagine the misery that would be for an inexperienced rider.

But you still couldn't GALLOP. Keep that in mind. It's a myth that the pony express used to gallop their horses unless they had to. But yes, trotting and walking rest will keep your horse in the best condition and give you good time.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 19, 2008).]
 

Endurance riding equestrian events on average range 100 miles through rough back country routes. Riders take a minimum of 10-12 hours to complete a 100-mile course, which is about the distance a cavalry troop could be expected to travel in one day in the same time frame.

Sore? Chafed inner thighs and shins and backside, four days of hard riding for an unaccustomed rider is likely to raise bruises and welts about like what rubbing beach sand on bare skin for hours will do. I'd be worried it might cause gangrene. Charley horse cramps will tie the quadriceps and tiabialis muscles into knots, to name a few of the leg muscle groups, then there's the toe, arm, and back muscles, the butt muscles, neck muscles. The eyelid muscles with be as sore as the forehead muscles. An unaccustomed rider riding a horse for long distances is like standing for days on a sawhorse with the arches of the feet cupping the buckboard and holding a beer barrel between the thighs.

On the other hand, being born into the saddle, most lifelong riders hardly notice the effort horseback riding takes. My favorite horse anecdote comes from The William Byrd Diaries. In one pithy passage, the colonel relates the story of the young cavalier who spent four hours rounding up his steed for a journey he could have walked in fifteen minutes. However, the poor young man was ever aware of his social standing. Arriving on foot would have diminished his status among his peers.
 

I would probably assume less than 100 miles a day unless I knew the condition of the horse. That can be done, absolutely, and more. But without knowing that the horse was in good condition and the rider experienced, I'd cut that figure.

Edit: On the other hand, I wouldn't SWEAR that it was possible. extrinsic might be right that it would be too dangerous. What would be chaffing in one day would be sores in four days. I don't think many readers would question it though if you said he was so sore he couldn't move, had had sores from chafing, etc. But believe me, it would be one tough way to go.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 19, 2008).]
 

quote:

---

Kayti is our horse expert.

---

Eh? Since when?

Lynda is an expert, she raises horses--I think for competition--and does fabulous sculptures of them.

Crystal Stevens is: "Maybe I should add that I’m in my mid-fifties, have been married to the same man for almost thirty-two years, and have always had horses for the better part of my life including the two we own at this time."

And I know kings_falcon has/has had horses, too.

I have had a couple, but I was a kid then, and didn't do as much riding as feeding, grooming and changing the hay.
 

Oops! my bad. I scanned back through Wouldbe's experts page and it was DebbieKW. Mea culpa, oh groovy, inarticulate one. You still rule cool.

[This message has been edited by debhoag (edited June 20, 2008).]
 

However, Deb, the others I listed are accurate, too.
 

Of course, people who don't travel far are not likely running long distances. They may walk distances, though. They might never have been more than twenty miles from their home, the normal distance a wagon can travel in a day and the normal distance between towns, but they might do this often. The caracter may well be in condition to keep up with the horses over the distances if he is not carrying a load.

Just a thought.

But have had horses and ridden for my entire life. I no longer have them but still ride pretty regularly. My parents and grandparents had horses when I was growing up.

I wouldn't think a person can keep up with a horse. I might be wrong but I wouldn't think someone could travel 8 miles an hour as a horse easily can. But if I had a choice of another way for someone inexperienced on horses to travel, I'd use it.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 20, 2008).]
 

Also, if you are planning to have the character ride into the night, the serious injury will happen when he falls off from exhaustion. Even if he can manage to sleep in the saddle, it's not restful and very disjointed so fatigue is going to be a big issue.

After that abuse, his muscles may tighten so much that he can't physically mount without assistance (a handy fence will do). Dismounting can send bolts of pain through his legs, legs will crumple under him and he'll fall. If the weather is cold, he'll have to worry about frostbite in his toes too.

The "best pace" is a combination of a gallop, walk and trot. A horse can trot for long periods of time but nothing faster. Trotting is hard on the rider unless you know what you are doing and the horse has a reasonably smooth gate. Men have a bit more difficulty with this in the begining because the chance of smashing some fairly delicate bits against the pommel are high. So, an inexperienced male rider is likely to straighten his legs to push off the stirrups to avoid hitting the front of the saddle, which is going to result in more muscle pain and fatigue.

After the first day, he's going to have saddle sores (blisters, usually broken and rubbed raw on his inner calf) from the stirrup strap rubbing against his clothes and leg. Depending on how he's dressed there may be other rub marks too.

He's going to be miserable and in poor physical shape when he gets where he's going even if he's changing horses regularly.

So what was the distance question?

I'm impressed that there are so many people here with horse know how. I'm a city gal (suberb gal, to be more accurate,) so I doubt I could even get into a saddle without hurting myself.

Now if you have spares and are switching horses, you can increase mileage substantially if the rider is up to it.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 20, 2008).]
 

http://www.wwwestra.com/horses/history_travel.htm

This is another interesting one since it talks about speeds of other animals as well:

http://www.americanbible.org/brcpages/CommonTransportation

If the horses and riders are well conditioned, I'd agree they can travel the 75 miles in a day but it might be a long day depending on how hilly and such.

 

Your main character, if he's never ridden before, might have trouble getting the horse to "go" where he wants at all---I'm told that if you don't establish the master-servent paradigm over the horse right away, the horse will take advantage of you. (Not expressed that way.)

I think a paved road would be hard on the horse's hooves---here's where my limited knowledge fails me, though.

Also, after four days of riding-when-one-has-never-ridden-before...think saddlesores. I concur with the others on this.
 

The horse farms near where I live are fun to look at, though, particularly in late spring when the foals arrive. There were at least 3-4 on my regular carpooling route in May.

Good luck with your story, wren.

[This message has been edited by KayTi (edited June 20, 2008).]
 

quote:

---

He better be wearing jockies or longjohns -- boxers will give him a permanent Melvin.

---

For instance, the Paul example sites a military escort. Now you have to know whether the entire escort was mounted, whether Paul was mounted and whether they had a supply wagon or whatever to slow them down. Also it is frequently a good idea to cut normal movement rates in half for a moving army.

Movement rates can get amazingly complicated.

The history site had some very good information. Thanks for that link. I'm adding it to my collection since it's information people frequently ask and it's good to have a source to site. I'm going to have to see if it's possible to get that book it mentions.

Edit: Kings_falcon is right that a 75 mile trip could make for a long day. Depending on a lot of factors that would could easily be a 12 hour day or something in that range. However an experienced rider could do that. If you're riding during a time of year when days are short, you probably aren't going to want to risk laming your horse in an accident so you'd make it a two day trip. There are a LOT of variables involved.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 20, 2008).]
 

Also for horses, you need to take into account breeds. Some can reach 55 miles per hour nomt for hours at a time but if someone is on a pasa fino (I think that's the breed at least and am too lazy to check) they're going to escape from someone on a slower horse breed.

But 50-60 miles a day is probably a good guideline.
 

And distance traveled depends on so many variables: breed, experience, supplies and available water, season, road or country side and its condition the best you can do is a very rough estimate. And in a group, the group will always end up traveling the speed of the slowest member or they cease to be a group.
 

Melvin -- When ones trousers become caught up between one's buttocks.

I found it here:
http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/m.htm

Quite why it's a melvin is a mystery to me. I'm not afraid to ask, I just don't know who'd know.

Cheers,
Pat

P.S. Above are many of the reasons I'd put the character on a motorcycle.

[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited June 21, 2008).]
 

As for:
the distance question was how long would it take a party of five, all experienced riders, to cross seventy-five miles or so of open country (dirt road, up and down hills, fording creeks) if they were traveling at a reasonable, but not desperate, pace?

Again, it depends on how fit and well-fed the horses and riders are, how rough the terrain is, weather conditions, etc., but I'd say about one-and-a-half to two days.

Hope this helps.

[This message has been edited by DebbieKW (edited June 21, 2008).]
 

One thing I just have to say is that if you have a horse that can do 50 to 100 miles in one day, he better be a very well conditioned horse. Even your top notch endurance horses don't usually do more than 50 miles a day, and most of it is at a trot. Your 100 mile endurance races are usually split over 2 days, and there are vet checks done to make sure the horse and rider can continue the race without harm to either of them. An average horse going cross country won't cover more than 20 or 30 miles in one day if the horse is to be ridden for several days in a row. This is how the pioneers made it out west if they weren't in wagons or the horses weren't pulling heavy loads. Of course if you can switch horses and ride 3 or 4 instead of one, you might be able to cover more ground.

Hard riding over a four day period would leave a non-horse rider with the inside of their legs looking like raw meat. I'm not kidding. And if the rider is in somewhat good condition, they wouldn't be able to get off the horse without a whole lot of help. Those muscle would be so stove up the rider wouldn't be able to move let alone walk once they got off the horse. Trust me on this.

Other factors to condsider is how much weight the horse will be carrying in proportion to the horse's size and conditioning. I was on a 5 hour ride with my friend Beth just last Saturday. We were riding through forest, some open areas, and some very long hills to climb up and down. Beth outweighs me by 50 to 75 lbs. I'm a fairly small person. We traveled approximately 16 miles. Our mares are about even when it came to their conditioning, conformation, and endurance levels. Beth's mare was more tired than mine by the time we made it back to camp, but the reason was the weight difference.

Terrain will play a large part too. Is the route over rocks, through deep mud, over mountains, or through a desert? All these will play a factor as to how far a horse can travel in one day. I should add that we were taking our time and enjoying the view. We were trail riding and not endurance racing.

You do not ever want to go faster than a walk for any length of time on a hard packed surface on a horse. This will cause the horse permanent damage to their legs. It can fracture bones and break them depending on the age of the horse. A prime example of that would be Eight Bells, the filly that had to be euthanized after she broke both front legs in this year's Kentucky Derby.

These are just a few things that come to mind, and I guess I should add that I've shown horses for over 35 years, showed Appaloosas on regional and national levels. I trained a reserve national champion, put a Register of Merit on one of my horses, and placed him 2nd in the nation in the Appaloosa Horse Club. I've given riding lessons for the last 7 years, and been secretary of the Foundation Appaloosa Horse Registry for 6 years. So, yes, I do know my way around the block when it comes to horses.
 

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 24, 2008).]
 

Again, it depends on the terrain, the weather, and the condition of the horse and the rider. 100 miles in one day would take a lot out of almost any horse let alone an average riding horse that gets moderate exercise. I'm going with what I've been told by veteran endurance and combined trail ride competitors. One of these has put ApHC medallions on more distance horses than anyone else in the history of the association.

I might add that I went for time just for fun over distance with my mare who is definitely endurance type (This is what the gentleman who put the madallions on all those endurance horses has told me and has been demanding that I put her into distance competition.). We covered 24 miles in a little over 3 hours, but I wasn't planning to ride like that for several days in a row. This very same ride usually takes about 6 hours at a ground covering walk.

It takes at least 3 months of continuous training to get a horse ready for serious distance competition, and I wasn't talking about endurance racers when I said 20 to 30 miles a day. This is every day type horses like the kind used by the pioneers heading west. I doubt very much if there were very many long distance type horses among them. Most of them were ranch horses or heavy horses bred to pull their heavy wagons and were on the move for months. These horses had to last. 75 to 100 miles a day wouldn've killed a lot of them over that period of time.

[This message has been edited by Crystal Stevens (edited June 24, 2008).]
 

Let me put it this way, if the best my horse can do is 20 miles a day, I might as well walk. I can go that far and I don't have to be curried.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 24, 2008).]
 

Endurance horses are as different from regular horses as marathon runners are from regular joggers, right?
 

But there are two questions in the thread - the first one - hard ride for 4 days straight - didn't have a distance factor.
The second- how long to cover 75 miles.

Related but slightly different. The first one is probably answered by - he can't do it because of the physical toll on him.

The second - depends on lots including if the rider is willing to push the horse to death and risk serious injury herself.

Sure 75+ miles a day can be done if you're not planning on riding that horse tomorrow. Assuming you are stuck with the one horse, you're probably limited to 50 -60 miles per day even on good ground AND if nothing unexpected happens ex - Eight Belles.
 

I kept Morgans for most of my life until about three years ago and rode in pretty hilly country in Colorado where I lived at the time. I made numerous recreational rides in the 40 to 50 mile a day range but both my horse and I were in good condition. We could have done more if I'd felt that I had to, but you don't punish a horse without good reason.

I'll drop the subject. I think that Crystal and I do disagree, but that's fine. People disagree. And that's all I have to say about that. Take it for what it's worth. LOL
 

Also, many pioneers walked most of the way west .

I'd just like to add that Kathleen hit the nail on the head with the comparison of endurance horses to marathon runners. Thank you, Kathleen for your comments.

[This message has been edited by Crystal Stevens (edited June 24, 2008).]
 

Edit: Oops, I said I was off this subject. Sorry. I really have said all I have to contribute.

Ok one more edit: kings_falcon, you have an excellent point and I rarely argue for more distance in what you assume a horse can do. People watch the LotR movie or similar and assume that a horse can travel at a gallop for hours at a time for days on end. Yikes. No. Yes, a horse can travel faster than most of us can walk, but they can NOT do that. Shadowfax was magical not a real horse!

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 24, 2008).]
 

quote:

---

“The average horse can travel 25 to 30 miles in one day. This will NOT be done at a run. Most of the distance will be covered in a trot, a gait that your rider will probably not enjoy. Endurance horses are trained to make 50, 75 even 100 mile trail rides in one day. However, this requires special diets and extensive training for horse and rider.”

---

from "Using Horses in Fiction"
http://fantasy.fictionfactor.com/articles/horses.html

Ultimate riding distance & speed:
http://www.ultimatehorsesite.com/info/farandfast.html

quote:

---

• 1808: The Marquis of Huntley rode from Aberdeen, Scotland, to Inverness (105 miles) in seven hours on eight relays of horses. (Each horse averaged 15 mph for about 13 miles.)
• 1860's: The Pony Express averaged nine mph over 25 mile stages.
• 1880's, England: The Book of the Horse describes a good hunter as a horse which can ‘after a hard day which ends at dark, ten or fifteen miles from home . . . walk and shog (sic) for ten or twelve miles at about five mph
• 1886: Frank Hopkins (of Hidalgo movie fame) a military dispatch rider, rode a stallion named Joe 1800 miles from Galveston, Texas, to Rutland, Vermont, in 31 days (average 58 miles/day). Joe finished in excellent condition, after traveling no more than 10 hours/day.
• 1892: Prussian and Austro-Hungarian soldiers raced from Berlin to Vienna. The winner rode 350 miles in 72 hours. The horse died, as did 25 others out of 199 who started.
• 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.
• 1988, extreme terrain, regular Western saddle: A stable owner rode 100 miles through the San Juan Mountains in Western Colorado, crossing several 12,000+ ft. passes, in 17 hours, 20 minutes.
• Modern Endurance Rides: The 100-mile rides are run by the same horse and rider in under 24 hours-- but there are usually 8 vet checks, where the horse is required to rest for 30 minutes, as well as pass a health check. That's 4 hours spent resting; also, the rider may get off and jog with their horse partway. These horses are also in top condition, and must pass many vet exams.
• Today, in the Middle East, 26 mile marathons are won in just over an hour.
• One horse and rider, during the Cross-Country day of the modern Three-Day Event, might achieve something like this: Two miles of 'roads and tracks' at 10 mph (brisk trot and canter); 2.5 mile steeplechase over 10 jumps at almost 26 mph (full gallop); 10 more miles of roads and tracks at 9 mph; 10 minute rest; 4.5-5 miles over 30 or more large and challenging fixed obstacles in natural rolling terrain at about 21 mph (gallop); and be fit enough to show-jump the next day. In other words, around 20 miles in less than two hours, with major jumping efforts involved.

---

Now Frank Hopkins and Joe are a great example of well trained and conditioned rider and horse making an amazing journey.

Can do you 100 miles in a day on horseback? Sure with the right breed as JeanneT points out.

Can you do 100 miles a day every day for 4 days with the same horse? Probably not.

Can you do 100 miles per day every day for 4 days trading out mounts? Possibly, but it's going to take a HUGE physcial toll on you. I would think 60 miles per day is probably a more realistic number.

But people used to do that kind of thing regularly. We forget how much people rode. An easy example is a trail drive when they spent weeks in the saddle day after day. People rode across country fairly often. So I think finding people who were used to extended rides would be common. Incidentally during the middle ages women did not ride side saddle, myth to the contrary. They sometimes rode postillion, but side saddles wheren't even known in most of Europe until the 15th century and most women weren't eager to adopt them for good reason.
 

[This message has been edited by debhoag (edited June 24, 2008).]
 

[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited June 24, 2008).]
 

I guess I should add that I believed them, too, until I read the evidence stacked against it.
 

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.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 25, 2008).]
 

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.

I wish you well, and hope you have many more years enjoying horses. I'm sorry that you took what I had to say the wrong way. All in all, I think the whole thing was one big misunderstanding. Truce? Here's my hand held out for you to shake.
 

[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.

[This message has been edited by DebbieKW (edited June 25, 2008).]
 

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.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 25, 2008).]
 

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.

Ah. That wasn't what I was getting as your main point. Anyway, in most cases, I'm not arguing your point but your wording. Here, you say, "many people did..." and in the next sentences agree that "most people" didn't. To me, "many" means a very large number, like more than half. In this context, however, your "many" seems to mean "it wasn't uncommon." Yes, traveling on horseback--or by walking or in a wagon or carriage drawn by horses--was not uncommon. I agree with that.