In any event, I do not mind the idea, although (I think) it should be imperative that fatigue lost through battle still be recovered, while fatigue lost from forced march requires a full turn of non-movement to re-generate. I actually think it should require a full move of non-movement AND non-battle, so that its particularly dangerous force-marching in enemy territory, because you could be stuck with a -25% endurance for many, many turns.
I really like that idea, it'd feel .. realistic, logical? If an enemy army really was pushing through your territory as quickly as they could, stretching out supply lines and wearying their troops, harassing them lightly (i.e. starting minor battles you don't have the forces to win) every turn just to keep them fatigued is something you'd actually do. Edit: In fact, I'd like to take this one step further. What if any army moving or fighting in enemy territory gains a fatigue penalty of some sort, and forced march simply adds more onto that? Make this a stacking penalty, say 5% per turn, so minor at first but it adds up the longer you're marching around enemy territory. If you stopped to rest for a turn, without being attacked, the penalty would disappear - if you left enemy territory, presumably it's easier to supply and safer to rest there, so no penalty - if you capture an enemy city, this pushes back their territory and secures your hypothetical supply lines, so no penalty - but marching around in the field in enemy territory, getting attacked every turn, you'd steadily lose combat effectiveness until you leave enemy territory or capture a city, just like poor Napoleon in Russia. This basically takes all the "fatigue" and "supply" and "attrition" problems that affect real armies, and wraps them up into one simple penalty to encourage you not to tramp around enemy territory too long without finding a safe place to camp or a city to plunder - a penalty that would, of course, be much more serious if you're force marching these guys at the same time. This also makes things much more interesting from the defender's perspective; harassing an enemy to fatigue them, razing your own cities so an unstoppable enemy army has nowhere to resupply, these real-life tactics (again, see Napoleon in Russia) become viable in the game, which would be awesome.
To respond to Landisaurus, I think if an army can hop into your territory and hit a city in a single turn - with or without a forced march - the game has some serious problems. If movement speeds are properly balanced, you should have several turns' warning (at least 2-3) to move defenders into place before that army you just spotted reaches a city, in which case the possibility of them gaining +50% speed for a single turn at the expense of battle effectiveness won't upset the balance. If any army can appear out of nowhere and get 2/3rds of the way to your city in a single turn, allowing them to reach it in one turn using forced march, then the problem is not forced march I think, that's just poor game balance - you should have more time than that to react to an approaching enemy, forced march or no.
Also, keep in mind that cavalry should not be able to "force march," their movement is pretty consistent (and much greater than foot soldiers) - so if a forced marching army can surprise attack an undefended city, then a cavalry group can do the same without forced march, again forced march would not be the problem in that case. It would just let naturally slow foot soldiers temporarily 'catch up' to more mobile units, if giving an army that much mobility upsets game balance then we have some problems, because cavalry units will be that fast all the time.