"Mules ranged from dark brown, through light brown or grey to dark grey. The females were preferred as most docile. With a height of about 14.2 hands (4 feet 10 inches) the average mule could carry a total of 200 lb, and a good mule could carry 250 lb, sometimes 300 lb."
"Figures for the establishment of a Royal Artillery Mountain Battery of six guns in the 1880s vary, but the gun handbook of 1888 gives 5 officers and 123 British Other Ranks, of whom 72 had the rank of Gunner, and 94 Indian muleteers. There were, of course, also 180 or so mules."
If that seems a lot of men and mules for only 6 guns, bear in mind that these mountain batteries were fighting against the likes of the Taliban, along the Indian / Afghanistan border (the North-West Frontier, as us Brits called it), one battery could fire three dozen shells per minute when they were going for it, and they had to have enough mules to carry ammo, food and water, and spare mules as replacements for any sick or casualties.
"The 1882 'Soldiers' Pocket Book' gives 6 feet as the minimum height of a mountain battery gunner, 2 inches taller than the minimum height for the Brigade of Guards, since any three gunners might have to lift a 200lb load from the 5 foot high mule pack saddle. In this respect and in the general level of fitness and stamina required, they were the pick of the army."
As an aside; I once read a notice regarding the purchase of horses for the Army, published by the British War Office in the early 1930s - when the Army was still using thousands of horses to patrol hostile territory in India and the Middle East. It was very specific that, whether for mounted troops or for haulage of wagons and artillery in those areas, the preferred range was from 14.3 hands to 15.1 (59" - 61" at the withers, i.e., the ridge above the shoulders). The notice pointed out what had been learnt by the Army of centuries of using horses in hard campaign work - that though bigger horses could carry or pull heavier loads, and were faster, they couldn't keep it up day after day on campaign, whereas the cob-sized horses could.
During WWI, a town in (IIRC) Syria was besieged by troops from the Ottoman Empire (Turks). The nearest British force which could be sent to lift the seige was a cavalry unit - 180 miles away, with the harshest of country in between, such as we've seen in footage of Afghanistan and Iraq. The cavalry unit covered that distance in three days, went straight into the attack, and lifted the siege. When you add up the weight of the trooper, the heavy Army saddle (virtually the same as a Western saddle in construction), his carbine, ammunition, sabre, water, food, bed roll, steel picket pin, and spare horse shoes, those 14.2 - 15 hands horses may well have been carrying 200lb, even if the troopers were pretty slim, and not carrying an ounce of spare flesh.
Later on, I came across a US Army publication from the 1920s - and they specified the same size criteria for their campaign horses. Further, if you look at photos taken during the American Civil War, what do you see? Cavalry horses, pack horses, artillery and wagon teams all around that same 14.2 - 15 hands size. And yet I've had (women) riders tell me that, weighing under 200lbs with my boots on, I shouldn't ride any horse under 17 hands, even for just half an hour on level going!
With best regards,
Jack
https://www.google.com/search?q=army,+m ... 96&bih=527