Why did armies march so slow?

When we talk about 18th century armies and earlier, we tend to think about how slow those armies march.

Probably for centuries leading up to the 18^th century, most armies throughout Europe marched at rate of 60 steps in a minute.

The rate of the common march only increased at the end of the 18^th century and beginning of the 19^th century as tactics changed and developed; as this occurred, the double quick also saw shifts in the speed. Generally the quickstep shifted to a slightly slower speed than 120, as armies needed to maintain the double quick for longer periods.

60 steps per minute creates a comfortable pace to maintain over long distances and over rough terrain.

Besides that, precisely why was 60 bpm the general rate of march for armies over the centuries?

To answer this question, we should look to the music theory that shaped armies’ understanding of tempo. For this, we’ll look to the changes that altered the relationship between tempo and time signatures.

The Common Step

In the military, most maneuvers and the general march was conducted at the Common Step. This was sometimes referred to as the long step, direct step, or ordinary step.

The earliest reference to the rate of step occurs in Windham (1759). He explains that the Common Step occurs at one step per second, or 60 beats per minute (60).

The French Instruction des Tambours (1754) also notes that the ordinary march occurs at one step per second.

In both cases, one step per second or 60bpm suggest that armies march slow.

Some might attribute that to marching through poor roads, untamed land, etc. or to the primitive equipment they used. But, I would argue, based on music theory, these factors have nothing to do with the prescribed rate of march.

Earlier manuals that deal with marching and military tactics, such as Thomas Fisher’s Warlike Direction (1644) and Thoinot Arbeau’s Orchesographie (1588), do not quantify a marching pace.

Arbeau’s book discusses at length how the beat of the drum regulates the military step. However, he doesn’t discuss tempo or a rate of steps per minute.

Fisher, likewise, is interested in the different types of marches. He discusses a march versus a troop and other regulatory maneuvers in training soldiers to greater discipline; despite this, he also does not specify the rate of step.

Most likely these authors, and others like those publishing fife tutors, understood tempo as a fixed rate and saw no reason to make note of it.

Music Theory: The Tactus

Prior to the early 18^th century, music theory didn’t allow the tempo to vary. Prior to 1600, tempo was understood as:

“the tactus, a unit of time-measurement comparable to a slow to moderate beat which was represented (in integer valor) by the S,”

(Apel, 1953, 191)

The ‘S’ refers to an older note that looks like a modern-day whole note or semibreve. In other words, the S or whole note held the beat. This beat or tactus was considered to be an absolute value. Apel estimates it was about 48 beats per minute and, by the 16^th century, closer to 60-70bpm (191; 193). This means that all music – regardless of the time signature or purpose – was performed at roughly 60bpm.

What does it mean for a beating to be fast or slow?

In modern-day music theory, we alter the tempo by simply increasing or decreasing the speed of play. In other words, we can play a string of quarter notes as the quarter note equals 80bpm. Or we can increase the speed by playing the same phrase as the quarter note equals 120bpm. This was not true in pre-1600s music, what academics call Mensural Notation.

In Mensural Notation, to create a tune that was “fast” or “slow” meant changing the proportions or relative relationship of the notes to one another. In this way, a piece could feel fast or slow without ever changing the tempo (Apel 189-190).

For example, begin by taking a string of quarter notes and performing them at 60bpm. Now, if you want to perform a “faster” beating, continue playing at 60bpm, but double the quarters notes into eighth notes. You are now playing twice as fast, without changing the tempo – or pace of march. Now, double those eighth notes into sixteenth notes but keep playing at 60bpm. You are now playing four times as fast as the original, even though the pace of march hasn’t changed.

Based on this music theory, we can see that armies march slow for centuries. This is not because they couldn’t march faster, but because this was a natural tempo to Europeans.

Shift from Tactus to Modern Tempo

How the tactus functioned began to change during the 16^th century and continued to change into the 17^th century.

By the beginning of the 18^th century, theorists moved away from a strict, implied tactus, and instead believed that pieces could be performed at various tempos. This marked a huge shift in the way music theory operated. The uncertainty brought about the use of words like “swiftly” or “allegro”; such terms, however, were not preferred by some instructors who rightly claimed it gave little idea of the actual tempo or relative length of each note, and this discomfort with ambiguity seemed especially pronounced among the English (Herissone 50).

Desire for quantitative tempo

The ambiguity lead to the invention of primitive metronomes and the use of a clock to beat regular time (51). Notice that the reliance on a household pendulum clock or pocket watch reinforced a natural tempo of 60 beats per minute (one beat per second). This likely explains why early tactical and music manuals use the term “one step per second” or “two seconds to a measure” rather than the modern “beats per minute”. 

This shift away from a strict tactus allowed for greater variety of tempo, but also caused the development of metronomes and methods for quantifying tempo. We see in the use of clocks that musicians were still initially holding onto the older tactus – the 60bpm – that probably felt natural to their ear.

These shifts in how musicians could think about the beat allowed for change in pace of the military step by the end of the 18^th century. The Americans increased their pace from the 60bpm considered natural by most soldiers to a brisker 75bpm (von Steuben 13); this was eventually also adopted by the British. By the 1812-era, the Americans had again increased their slow march pace to 90bpm (Scott, 1814, 14).

---

For an explanation of how Mensural Notation works versus today’s modern tempo, check out this video explanation:

---

Still have questions? Or want to know more about the evolution of time signatures? Read more about how Common Time, Cut Time, and 2/4 evolved from Mensural Notation and how Triple Time and Compound Time evolved from Mensural Notation.

If you’re interested, If you have more questions about why armies march slow or how it’s possible to march at this rate, ask me and I’ll write up a discussion on how to march at 60bpm.

For any specific questions, contact me or comment below.