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

31–40 of 55 posts

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

#31

Post by artisinal »

agos wrote: post #25
embedding-shape wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

ehhh Italy is sadly one of the most car-dependent countries in the western world, topping the number of vehicles per 1000 people in Europe (excluding microstates). No one's safe

I wanted to walk from one town to another. 15 kilometers. It was on a road where cars would go past literally 15 centimeters from you. No shoulder and because of the guardrails no ditch to walk in either. I didn’t do it, took the bus.

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

#32

Post by jordanb »

toyg wrote: post #19
watutalkinbout wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

What you call sandals the Romans called boots. Their boots were open on the top but still heavily soled. This suited their climate and kept the foot cool and dry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligae

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

#33

Post by Insanity »

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…

I think they generally take some approximations, but yeah the walking one is problematic. Horseback is also mentioned, but depending on wealth you could use regular stops across the road and swap your horse when it got tired. So travel times would depend not only on your horse but also your ability to swap horses and availability of stops along the way.

Which in my mind is reminiscent of swapping your EV battery along roadstops lol.

Either way, these are just approximations to give a general sense of travel speed. And no doubt nowadays the world feels smaller because we can much more easily travel between distant locations.

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

#34

Post by Insanity »

nntwozz wrote: post #24
swasheck wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

I'd like to add they were also doing all that wearing leather sandals. Imagine the Roman army with Adidas Ultraboost.

And without coffee! So you can't get a quick 'pick me up' along the way.

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

#35

Post by redwood »

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…

Not if cutting through dense bush, water, bog or rocky environments would be necessary.

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

#36

Post by k3liutZu »

jordanb wrote: post #32
toyg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an ancient road in ancient boots Boots? That's luxury! Sandals more likely...

What you call sandals the Romans called boots. Their boots were open on the top but still heavily soled. This suited their climate and kept the foot cool and dry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligae

The wikipedia article names them in the first paragraph "sandal-boots".

So maybe they were both

(If I were to see someone wear them today, I would call them sandals)

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

#37

Post by echoangle »

artisinal wrote: post #30
watutalkinbout wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the case of Spain, many long distance roads are no longer safe for pedestrians as there are cars on them now. Madrid to Milan would be a suicide missions in current day.

Are there no bike paths or foot paths close by? You don’t literally have to walk on the street the cars are using.

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

#38

Post by echoangle »

redwood wrote: post #35
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…

Not if cutting through dense bush, water, bog or rocky environments would be necessary.

I don’t think the Roman street system way covered in dense bush, that was kind of the point

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

#39

Post by echoangle »

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…

> 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.

Yeah, because they sit in the Albergue half of the day. You need to start looking for one around 4pm or it will be full because people tend to stop walking around that time. It’s also an activity that mainly retired people do.

You can easily do 40 km/day on the Camino routes with manageable elevation (the coastal ones).

You’re right about the equipment weight though, I can’t imagine what a Roman soldiers full pack must have weighed with the textiles of the time. On the Camino, you don’t really need to bring anything except some clothes.

I see the point with the camp but on the other hand after the third day you’re more limited by your feet, not the time, so you would still have enough time for that in my estimation.

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

#40

Post by odyssey7 »

jordanb wrote: post #32
toyg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an ancient road in ancient boots Boots? That's luxury! Sandals more likely...

What you call sandals the Romans called boots. Their boots were open on the top but still heavily soled. This suited their climate and kept the foot cool and dry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligae

A modern alternative might be a pair of crocs?
Post reply on HN