Live data from Hacker News

A subway-style diagram of the major Roman roads, based on the Empire ca. 125 AD

sashat.me

71–80 of 107 posts

Re: A subway-style diagram of the major Roman roads, based on the Empire ca. 125 AD

#73

It's strange there are so many coastal routes. Shipping virtually anything by sea has been cheaper than moving it over land for a long time, and that probably includes troops. I would have expected roads to connect coastal settlements inland, not along the coast.

Going off of much later European experience, this depended on the type of traffic.

Despite the speed and cost/weight advantages of sea travel, the Habsburg Spanish empire maintained a land route between their possessions in Italy and the Netherlands [1]. Road travel had the advantage of reliability - more resistant to both natural disasters and to enemy action in war. This was very important for moving military forces through a large empire, which was a very important consideration for a polity like Rome which was constantly moving troops around to fight some revolt, war of expansion, or war of defense. There were also civilian applications - for small, expensive, non-time-sensitive cargoes.

In general, see [2] if you're interested in the transportation network of ancient time - see what combinations of weather, transport preferences (passenger carriage vs. donkey, for example, or safer daylight-only sailing vs. more efficient all-day sailing) push traffic onto coastal roads.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Road

[2] http://orbis.stanford.edu

EDIT: For example, let's take the example of travel from Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem) to Tyrus (Tyre/Sur). For a military application (travelling at military march speeds (60km/day) but restricting yourself to daylight sailing for fear of shipwrecks) relative travel speeds depend on weather - roads are better in winter, sea in summer. If you add in transfer time and cost (finding or rendezvousing with ships, cross-loading cargo, hiring porters) then the relative transfer times and costs change yet again.

In general, roads were better for: shorter trips, where transfer times and costs dominate; trips involving faster means of land travel, such as military forced marches, passenger travel by carriage, or in the extreme message passing by horse relay; and trips where protection from weather and enemy action (pirate or military) was paramount. Whereas bulk cargo of relatively low value, such as the massive grain shipments from Egypt to Rome, was only practical by sea.

Re: A subway-style diagram of the major Roman roads, based on the Empire ca. 125 AD

#74

It's strange there are so many coastal routes. Shipping virtually anything by sea has been cheaper than moving it over land for a long time, and that probably includes troops. I would have expected roads to connect coastal settlements inland, not along the coast.

Perhaps it's a matter of scale? What if not everyone could afford the upfront cost of owning a boat?

Shipping was very much a commercial activity in the Roman Empire - you paid a ship owner for a spot. There were, however, pretty considerations pushing traffic to coastal roads - see my sibling comment.

Re: A subway-style diagram of the major Roman roads, based on the Empire ca. 125 AD

#75
post #26

Tabula Peutingeriana is a road map of Europe which is a copy of a Roman original thought to have been based on a map prepared by Agrippa. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/TabulaPe... It also has a 'subway' feel, given that not much attention has been paid to getting the shapes correct.

Any idea what the small circular lake with the island in the middle, at bottom right might be? That's an interestingly precise shape. (It's surrounded by labels for desert, but I can't make out the labels on the island itself.)

If you look at the map, you can see Samosata up north on the Euphrates, Ressaina between Euphrates and Tigris and Zeugma to the west. Tharrana is next to the circular lake with the island.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samosata is the modern city of Samsat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhesaina is Ressaina (see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:19...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeugma,_Commagene Zeugma is near modern-day Gaziantep

The location of historic Tharrana is apparently not finally known. Harran, Turkey is one possibility mentioned at http://www.euratlas.net/cartogra/peutinger/10_mesopotamia/me....

Since all reference points are in Turkey or Syria, best guess is that the cirular lake with the island is Al Jaboul Lake, 36.024360"N, 37.610087"E. It used to be a tributary to the Euphrates but no source I could find states exactly when that changed.

Re: A subway-style diagram of the major Roman roads, based on the Empire ca. 125 AD

#76
post #37

It's strange there are so many coastal routes. Shipping virtually anything by sea has been cheaper than moving it over land for a long time, and that probably includes troops. I would have expected roads to connect coastal settlements inland, not along the coast.

Romans were notoriously poor sailors. Even when they acquired total domination over all sides of the Med (through sheer stubbornness and massive production of naval units, so that they could move enough land troops to the other side rather than trying to win naval battles), they couldn't completely eradicate piracy; this means sea routes were cheaper but not necessarily safer. Also, I believe coastal routes were most…

He said he made up some of the names, so I wouldn't try to make any sense of it without great care.

Re: A subway-style diagram of the major Roman roads, based on the Empire ca. 125 AD

#78
post #62
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't really get past the Germanic tribes and stopped expansion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest Presumably also because there wasn't much there at the time that would've allowed them to collect taxes.

> They didn't really get past the Germanic tribes and stopped expansion They were unable to find a new natural border that was as easily defendable as the Rhine-Danube combination. > Presumably also because there wasn't much there at the time that would've allowed them to collect taxes. The Romans liked to portray Germania as poor and inhospitable. Part of the reason for that could be cognitive dissonance for never h…

Well, the reason that Germania (and Britain north of Hadrian's Wall, the available sources are better for Britain) was never conquered was that they were so inhospitable. When your army has to support itself off plunder there needs to be plunder to begin with. It just couldn't be done in such thinly populated areas.

Re: A subway-style diagram of the major Roman roads, based on the Empire ca. 125 AD

#79
post #37

It's strange there are so many coastal routes. Shipping virtually anything by sea has been cheaper than moving it over land for a long time, and that probably includes troops. I would have expected roads to connect coastal settlements inland, not along the coast.

Romans were notoriously poor sailors. Even when they acquired total domination over all sides of the Med (through sheer stubbornness and massive production of naval units, so that they could move enough land troops to the other side rather than trying to win naval battles), they couldn't completely eradicate piracy; this means sea routes were cheaper but not necessarily safer. Also, I believe coastal routes were most…

they couldn't completely eradicate piracy

I understand that fighting piracy was a political problem. Pirates were mobile, and while any commander could suppress piracy in any area those not caught would move elsewhere and return when the commander's imperium was over and he had to return to Rome to give account.

It was feared that an admiral who was given an imperium for the whole of the Mediterranean would have such power that he would use it for political ands and upturn the system. So piracy grew with Roman hegemony, and when the seas had become so unsafe that the security of the grain supply was a political issue something had to be done. It turned out that the fears were well-founded, Pompeius was given his imperium maius over all the Mediterranean and 50 miles inland, he squashed piracy, and the First Triumvirate followed.

Re: A subway-style diagram of the major Roman roads, based on the Empire ca. 125 AD

#80
post #65
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They didn't really get past the Germanic tribes and stopped expansion They were unable to find a new natural border that was as easily defendable as the Rhine-Danube combination. > Presumably also because there wasn't much there at the time that would've allowed them to collect taxes. The Romans liked to portray Germania as poor and inhospitable. Part of the reason for that could be cognitive dissonance for never h…

Or because it really was poor and inhospitable. Until the middle ages, when new agricultural tools were invented, Germanic territories projected very little power, and relied on periodic aggression to survive in typical nomadic way. This changed when they could actually grow stuff in more reliable ways, producing surpluses to trade and establishing stable kingdoms.

In other words: Germanic tribes were using the defensive strategy of not preparing wheat fields for invaders to harvest during campaigning season. Kind of equivalent to cyberdefense by pen and paper.

Half of Cesar's Gallic War seems to be more than half about grain logistics (huge efforts to start the campaigns jus a few weeks earlier) and ripeness of the local crops. And that is even while he was likely trying to downplay all the robbery.

Post reply on HN