We have many in the South of England. As a kid I walked and biked
them. Most are dirt trails now, grown over. But if you look on maps
it's clear they are the shortest, straight path between major towns.
Modern roads twist and turn around them.
I am showing my embarrassing ignorance of history here, but I don't
know why that happened. Maybe something to do with land rights, and
the "enclosures"? Anyway something important was lost in the
communication systems of England between the Roman era and today.
Modern road don't only try to minimize the distance but also other factor like slopes. If you look at old railroads there is a very big constraints on slope and you will see very complex trajectories in hilly places.
Modern railroads typically have extremely tight restraints on slope. This allows trains to be longer and reduces overall shipping costs. In fact, the desire to make railroads less steep has led Americans to do incredible things, like building the Whittier Access Tunnel (and the port of Whittier at all) to avoid trains going uphill coming from Seward.
Road networks just match the most efficient paths of the era they were built in. The economic map changed a lot in the feudal era and most Roman roads (some of which high maintenance) were simply abandoned.
I think they're just pointing out that they use relay horses. I wonder how many times in history that's been both possible and needed - the expense is relatively high compared to sending a single rider.
If I remember correctly, from what I read, relay horses allowed the message to arrive faster. Horses get tired too, so after a certain distance the rider would get a fresh horse.
By the way see the Man versus Horse Marathon [1] which proves that horses aren't that fast on long distances, in this particular case 22 miles (35 km).
In general, I agree. Although in the context of the actual quote, there was so much back and forth trading of land in northern England over the centuries that to say Hadrian's Wall was in at least partly in Scotland at one point isn't necessarily wrong.
One of those "technically true, the best kind" things. Raised north of the wall in Edinburgh, I was very aware how Northumberland was similar to my landscape and mentality of the locals. They have bagpipes. the TH in thumber leads to asking if its a T and Humber and it does refer to the river Humber, its the land north of the humber. It makes you think how Yorkshire leads there. Certainly the Jacobites didn't pause long at Hadrians wall heading south, the last time England was invaded at scale (They got as far south as Derbyshire)
North of Hadrians Wall is sometimes treated as more Scottish than not. South is the other way round.
So not a border, but instead perhaps, a boundary which encompasses Scotland more than not?
The Border Reivers crossed the Tweed, the badlands north of Hadrians wall were part and parcel of a cross-border community which made its own laws, and in turn led to laws against them.
The border was .. mutable. Hadrian's wall was not the border.
> the TH in thumber leads to asking if its a T and Humber and it does refer to the river Humber, its the land north of the humber. It makes you think how Yorkshire leads there.
IIRC, Northumberland was the only part of Northumbria that didn't get absorbed into the Danelaw (the swathe of north and central England conquered and settled by Vikings from the late 800s), which is why it retains the name of the former, much larger region.
> to say Hadrian's Wall was in at least partly in Scotland at one point isn't necessarily wrong
Cumbria, which contains the western end of the wall, was part of Scotland at the time of the Domesday Book (1086), and wasn't incorporated into England until some years later.
So there was a period of time when part of Hadrian's Wall was, in fact, in Scotland.
The The Alcántara Bridge is very striking. Something about its simplicity is awe inspiring. It's almost 2000 years old and still absolutely amazing. I wonder what things built today will be around in 2000 years.
You will find this is true of almost everything ancient that was never lost. Things that aren't maintained are rediscovered a thousand years later under a dirt mound. Almost everything old in Europe is renovated every few hundred years or even more frequently.
The cross became a symbol of Christianity because Jesus was crucified, not the other way around.
Moreover, crucifixion is just a pragmatic approach to traditional public executions. Many societies have used trees and walls to hang, kill and display the executed their necks broken, beaten to death, lashed, lynched, asfixiated, left to die of thirst or exposure... the method doesn't really matter, the point is they are there for everyone to see.
I recently came across a piece of a Roman road while hiking the Pyrenees. Astounding to see something that old, and to realize just how far the Roman empire extended.
I am showing my embarrassing ignorance of history here, but I don't know why that happened. Maybe something to do with land rights, and the "enclosures"? Anyway something important was lost in the communication systems of England between the Roman era and today.