141–150 of 166 posts
How can it take 2 months on foot, yet only 1 month per horse, when a horse can only travel between 25-35 miles a day, which is not twice as far as a human can travel in a day, but about equal?
With baggage, a typical human can only travel about 12-17 miles a day (half that of a horse)
Sometimes I wonder if we've regressed in terms of attention to quality. Here in the US, I see lots of potholes on the streets and sidewalks. Meanwhile, the ancient cobblestone roads are still functional to this day.
Rome had the advantage of access to essentially unlimited forced labor in order to build and maintain their infrastructure. Modern engineering is absolutely superior to Roman engineering, but we do have to contend with budget constraints, at least in part because we're not using slavery to build our roads.
How can it take 2 months on foot, yet only 1 month per horse, when a horse can only travel between 25-35 miles a day, which is not twice as far as a human can travel in a day, but about equal?
With baggage, a typical human can only travel about 12-17 miles a day (half that of a horse)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With baggage, a typical human can only travel about 12-17 miles a day (half that of a horse)
I wonder how long can a horse sustain that pace vs a human. Those who hike the PCT (Pacific Crest Trail), which takes 4-5 months, might do ~20 miles per day with a “zero” (rest) day every ~10 days.
It's only with advancements in backpacking and outdoors tech that anyone is able to do that.
I don't know why everyone in this thread seems to think titanium tent stakes and frame backpacks and gore-tex jackets and polarfleece and plastic pump-driven charcoal water filters and chocolate bars and first aid (that wouldn't kill you) were a thing during ancient rome.
People are too obsessed with comparing every other empire to Rome. I remember going to a museum with my friend who is an archaeologist and there was a fantastic exhibit on the Incan Empire. I was really enjoying it, but he was frustrated by how much of it was devoted to arguing that the Incan Empire was as cool as the Roman Empire on the latter's terms. "I don't want to hear about how the Inca were similar to the Romans. I want to hear about how they were different." That really stuck with me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With baggage, a typical human can only travel about 12-17 miles a day (half that of a horse)
Not true at all - experienced thru hikers blow that out of the water
Pictures like this make me think of all the different types of empire that have existed over the millennia. For example, you couldn't make a map like this of the Golden Horde because nomadic societies aren't nearly as road-obsessed as sedentary ones (see: ours). People are too obsessed with comparing every other empire to Rome. I remember going to a museum with my friend who is an archaeologist and there was a fantas…
Here’s a good comment on it:
The TL:DR is: for D&G 'war machines' are the specific constitution, form and alignment of a state that refuses to be a state (a nomad state). It is the tools by which a state refuses to be a state.
The state as we think of it relies upon centralization, stability and continuity--war machines are by definition nomadic, shifting locations, and leaders, decentralizing, redefining what is and isn't a periphery etc.
At the same time, both are effective at commandeering power and directing it towards a goal: even if the state claims a monopoly on being able to do this.
It is the difference between a Medieval city state and the Mongol horde, or a pirate ship, or if you prefer a contemporary example, between a modern state, and terrorist groups, marginal groups, autonomous zone festivals like "Burning man", anarchist collectives, homeless camps, etc which operate within it and on the periphery of it, while neglecting or actively disrupting the state's hegemony.
War machines can and often are coopted by state power, but they are still separate from it and disruptive to it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CriticalTheory/comments/832eri/comm...
Pictures like this make me think of all the different types of empire that have existed over the millennia. For example, you couldn't make a map like this of the Golden Horde because nomadic societies aren't nearly as road-obsessed as sedentary ones (see: ours). People are too obsessed with comparing every other empire to Rome. I remember going to a museum with my friend who is an archaeologist and there was a fantas…
Have you read Deleuze? from your comment here I think you would enjoy his thoughts on empires and what he called “war machines” and “the state apparatus.” Here’s a good comment on it: The TL:DR is: for D&G 'war machines' are the specific constitution, form and alignment of a state that refuses to be a state (a nomad state). It is the tools by which a state refuses to be a state. The state as we think of it relies upo…
I've been thinking a lot about how the idea of "American Empire" gets dismissed as "hippie crap," but it's an extremely helpful lens for understanding what global superpowers do in the modern era, as long as you have a more flexible definition of empire than "Exactly like Rome."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you read Deleuze? from your comment here I think you would enjoy his thoughts on empires and what he called “war machines” and “the state apparatus.” Here’s a good comment on it: The TL:DR is: for D&G 'war machines' are the specific constitution, form and alignment of a state that refuses to be a state (a nomad state). It is the tools by which a state refuses to be a state. The state as we think of it relies upo…
No! Got a book or essay recommendation in particular? I'd definitely be interested. I've been thinking a lot about how the idea of "American Empire" gets dismissed as "hippie crap," but it's an extremely helpful lens for understanding what global superpowers do in the modern era, as long as you have a more flexible definition of empire than "Exactly like Rome."
https://youtu.be/M7fqHn3ydzM?si=FPdw8kLA9KgKbdp9
Just a warning: Deleuze and Guattari are notoriously hard to understand and/or wordy and unclear with their writing. Some people think that makes it not worthwhile, but I think it’s absolutely full of interesting ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure, but that was not my point So it’s a bit of an apples and oranges comparison because they serve very different purposes? > We literally care more about profit (GNI) than our survival (climate change, energy crisis, biodiversity crisis). So a bit like the Romans who weren’t particularly concerned about severe deforestation, soil erosion and related issues in addition to the extinction of multiple species ( http…
> So it’s a bit of an apples and oranges comparison because they serve very different purposes? My point was that we could make extra-solid roads. But that would be more difficult and hence more costly. I did not mean that there is a conspiracy; it's just a system. I did not even say it's worse; it's different. > So a bit like the Romans You're turning it around. You said "the Romans were certainly more [...]" and I…
Well.. that semantics, which is not something I have any interest in arguing about. I’ll restate, I’m certain that we care about the environment and sustainability much more than the Romans ever did.
> systematically enslaved everyone they encountered?
No, that was a hyperbole, I’m assumed that it would be pretty clear to most.
Again I’m not sure what’s the point of arguing about this. The were about as much slaves (as % of population) in Roman Italy as in the antebellum Deep South, except in the Roman case the conditions for most slaves were so poor was that their population could only be sustained through constant importation of new slaves.
And yes in some cases up to 90% of the population was either murdered or enslaved after some wars (eg. almost all of the people living in Carthage, in an entirely unprovoked and and unjustifiable war) and more often than not Roman conquests were followed by severe contractions of population and economic decline.
> I mean mine. Our society optimizes for the GNI, at the very real risk of causing global instability,
Perhaps. But I would not agree that’s true in relative/historical terms. Generally QoL for the overwhelming majority of the global population is better than it ever was in the past. Also we as a society are making many choices/decision that do not prioritize short term economic growth that would mostly be incomprehensible/irrational to the Roman elite.