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

Post by watutalkinbout » Wed, Jul 29, 2026, 4:51 PM UTC

lstodd wrote: post #28

watutalkinbout wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cobblestones aren't walk friendly.

Asphalt/concrete isn't either. Gravel or packed dirt is way better. That said 30km/day is very real, even in mountain country. It takes 6-7 hours, the rest is resting/gawking/laying on a mountain watching the sky (or trying furiosly to find that effin trail on osmand). I walked that a few times a week when I lived in Montenegro, and that was 50/50 roads and mountain trails from sea level up to 700m-ish elevation and…

Post by jordanb » Wed, Jul 29, 2026, 5:15 PM UTC

odyssey7 wrote: post #40

jordanb wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 by watutalkinbout » Thu, Jul 30, 2026, 12:12 PM UTC

lstodd wrote: post #52

watutalkinbout wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but I'd imagine the average human could walk substantially further on flat modern roads in modern footwear than on cobblestone with ancient sandles. You use 10–20% more energy for just mildly uneven surfaces - probably more for roman cobblestone.

Actually no. Uniform flat surface is tiring compared to a trail even in best shoes. Try walking 10 km on hardtop then compare to walking same distance on unpaved road. For shoes we also went not too far: Merrel sandals basically replicate roman caliga with modern materials. And it's not like you can use even halfboots in mediterannean unless it's winter - it's just too hot.