Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ancient Rome's version of Google Maps: how long to reach the beach

euronews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 55 posts

Re: Ancient Rome's version of Google Maps: how long to reach the beach

#11

Post by glimshe »

NotCamelCase wrote: post #7
dmurray wrote: post #3

This part is clearly nonsense: > According to the planner’s calculation, the journey would have taken 43 days to cover 1,500 Roman miles. To put that into a contemporary context: the same route by road today can be completed in 14 days (340 hours) on foot, or 16 hours by car (source in Spanish). It would take 340 hours to walk, whether you do it today or in Roman times. Google maps is assuming you would walk for 24 h…

Who'd walk the route more easily for 8h though? A random Western today or a random Roman then?

Probably the Westerner with better shoes, clothes, energy bars, hydration drinks, sunscreen etc.

The only caveat since you said "random" is obesity.

Re: Ancient Rome's version of Google Maps: how long to reach the beach

#12

Post by embedding-shape »

NotCamelCase wrote: post #7
dmurray wrote: post #3

This part is clearly nonsense: > According to the planner’s calculation, the journey would have taken 43 days to cover 1,500 Roman miles. To put that into a contemporary context: the same route by road today can be completed in 14 days (340 hours) on foot, or 16 hours by car (source in Spanish). It would take 340 hours to walk, whether you do it today or in Roman times. Google maps is assuming you would walk for 24 h…

Who'd walk the route more easily for 8h though? A random Western today or a random Roman then?

> A random Western today or a random Roman then?

Probably better to compare "A random Italian" rather than "A random Westerner", the Americans and other car-focused cultures kind of drag down the average a bit too much otherwise.

Re: Ancient Rome's version of Google Maps: how long to reach the beach

#14

Post by watutalkinbout »

dmurray wrote: post #3

This part is clearly nonsense: > According to the planner’s calculation, the journey would have taken 43 days to cover 1,500 Roman miles. To put that into a contemporary context: the same route by road today can be completed in 14 days (340 hours) on foot, or 16 hours by car (source in Spanish). It would take 340 hours to walk, whether you do it today or in Roman times. Google maps is assuming you would walk for 24 h…

That said, as someone who has walked on cobblestone - a modern road in modern boots is different to an ancient road in ancient boots.

I'd bet money the 'real' travel times would differ.

Re: Ancient Rome's version of Google Maps: how long to reach the beach

#15

Post by watutalkinbout »

fakedang wrote: post #10
NotCamelCase wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who'd walk the route more easily for 8h though? A random Western today or a random Roman then?

Eh, I'd say it's equal. I've walked for 8 hrs before, wearing modern sneakers on roads with vehicular traffic, and travelled about the same distance estimated by Google Maps. I'd estimate the Roman would like be able to travel in the same duration, barring other extenuating factors (like Caesar staging a revolt against the Senate and crossing with his legion right in front of your planned route), with worse shoes but…

Cobblestones aren't walk friendly.

Re: Ancient Rome's version of Google Maps: how long to reach the beach

#16

Post by dmurray »

NotCamelCase wrote: post #7
dmurray wrote: post #3

This part is clearly nonsense: > According to the planner’s calculation, the journey would have taken 43 days to cover 1,500 Roman miles. To put that into a contemporary context: the same route by road today can be completed in 14 days (340 hours) on foot, or 16 hours by car (source in Spanish). It would take 340 hours to walk, whether you do it today or in Roman times. Google maps is assuming you would walk for 24 h…

Who'd walk the route more easily for 8h though? A random Western today or a random Roman then?

Roman legions marched around 30 km/day [0], carrying their own supplies, food, weapons and armour, needing to spend time making and breaking camp each day.

Modern European pilgrims on the Camino de Santiago seem to do about 20 km/day [1] and it's considered tiring but accessible by average people, not serious hikers. They carry less of their supplies and do not need to fortify their camp against barbarians.

Roman soldiers were presumably fitter and better trained than the average Roman (though maybe not by much, since everyone worked manual jobs). Maybe that's enough to account for the difference.

[0] https://www.quora.com/Did-Roman-legions-actually-march-20-mi...

[1] https://caminoways.com/how-many-days-does-it-take-to-walk-th...

Re: Ancient Rome's version of Google Maps: how long to reach the beach

#18

Post by swasheck »

dmurray wrote: post #16
NotCamelCase wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who'd walk the route more easily for 8h though? A random Western today or a random Roman then?

Roman legions marched around 30 km/day [0], carrying their own supplies, food, weapons and armour, needing to spend time making and breaking camp each day. Modern European pilgrims on the Camino de Santiago seem to do about 20 km/day [1] and it's considered tiring but accessible by average people, not serious hikers. They carry less of their supplies and do not need to fortify their camp against barbarians. Roman sol…

i’ve walked the via francigena and the italian section has quite a few sections of ancient roman road. they’re admittedly not contiguous, and are worn more extensively now, so i don’t get the same overall experience of treading on the stones for kilometers as they would have.

i target 35km/day with a 40L pack and finish my segments within 6-7 hours. asphalt, dirt and grass, and hiking trails (rocks, roots, dirt, etc) are the most standard surfaces and, to be honest, they’re all exhausting in their own rights so a change in surface is always welcome.

i can’t imagine marching most of this with near double body weight and then having to make camp.

Re: Ancient Rome's version of Google Maps: how long to reach the beach

#19

Post by toyg »

watutalkinbout wrote: post #14
dmurray wrote: post #3

This part is clearly nonsense: > According to the planner’s calculation, the journey would have taken 43 days to cover 1,500 Roman miles. To put that into a contemporary context: the same route by road today can be completed in 14 days (340 hours) on foot, or 16 hours by car (source in Spanish). It would take 340 hours to walk, whether you do it today or in Roman times. Google maps is assuming you would walk for 24 h…

That said, as someone who has walked on cobblestone - a modern road in modern boots is different to an ancient road in ancient boots. I'd bet money the 'real' travel times would differ.

> an ancient road in ancient boots

Boots? That's luxury! Sandals more likely...

Re: Ancient Rome's version of Google Maps: how long to reach the beach

#20

Post by toyg »

swasheck wrote: post #18
dmurray wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roman legions marched around 30 km/day [0], carrying their own supplies, food, weapons and armour, needing to spend time making and breaking camp each day. Modern European pilgrims on the Camino de Santiago seem to do about 20 km/day [1] and it's considered tiring but accessible by average people, not serious hikers. They carry less of their supplies and do not need to fortify their camp against barbarians. Roman sol…

i’ve walked the via francigena and the italian section has quite a few sections of ancient roman road. they’re admittedly not contiguous, and are worn more extensively now, so i don’t get the same overall experience of treading on the stones for kilometers as they would have. i target 35km/day with a 40L pack and finish my segments within 6-7 hours. asphalt, dirt and grass, and hiking trails (rocks, roots, dirt, etc)…

That's how they conquered all of their known world though, out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
Post reply on HN