Re:Ancient Rome's version of Google Maps: how long to reach ...
by watutalkinbout on Wednesday July 29, 2026 @12:51PM
(#49099957)
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.
Re:Ancient Rome's version of Google Maps: how long to reach ...
by lstodd on Wednesday July 29, 2026 @01:05PM
(#49100133)
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.
Re:Ancient Rome's version of Google Maps: how long to reach ...
by watutalkinbout on Thursday July 30, 2026 @08:12AM
(#49108945)
Empirically, yes.
You seem to be equating flatness with surface hardness. Tarmac isn't unforgiving to walk on because it's flat, it's because it has no give.
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 back. No fancy shoes, no prep but for a hat and couple bottles of water. After a third walk or so it isn't even exhausting.