"Traveling around the empire was excruciatingly slow"
"The researchers estimate that it took 7 weeks to travel from Constantinople (at the eastern end of the empire) to London (in the far west)."
What a funny little empire with nice roads :). Check this empire:
"And say, the governor went to Yakutsk, not months, for three years. The first year we reach Tobolsk. The second - to Irkutsk. And in the third year of riding on horseback to the upper reaches of the Lena and floated with water to Yakutsk."
1. Mercator projection gives Russian empires an unfair advantage.
2. The Romans ruled over arguably the best lands in the known world at that time, and a much larger part of the world population. Russia ruled/rules over vast empire of vast forests, inhospitable steppes and empty tundra, sprinkled with a few good spots and a few people.
3. Inefficient travel doesn't make a great empire.
That's not to say the Russian empire wasn't huge, or didn't have a lot of people, or wasn't powerful. It was the largest power pre-World War 1, and its remnant is still a major player. I just wasn't as important or dominant or influential or long lived as the Roman empire was.
That's an extreme example, but really traveling anywhere before modern transportation was slow. I remember from Benjamin Franklin's autobiography that it took him two weeks just to travel from Boston to Philadelphia. And IIRC, he went by sea and almost drowned in a ship wreck along the way.
Comments
"Traveling around the empire was excruciatingly slow"
"The researchers estimate that it took 7 weeks to travel from Constantinople (at the eastern end of the empire) to London (in the far west)."
What a funny little empire with nice roads :). Check this empire:
"And say, the governor went to Yakutsk, not months, for three years. The first year we reach Tobolsk. The second - to Irkutsk. And in the third year of riding on horseback to the upper reaches of the Lena and floated with water to Yakutsk."
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Tobolsk,+Tyumen+Oblast,+Ru...
http://www.e-reading.ws/chapter.php/142600/90/Burovskiii_-_P...
Some remarks:
1. Mercator projection gives Russian empires an unfair advantage.
2. The Romans ruled over arguably the best lands in the known world at that time, and a much larger part of the world population. Russia ruled/rules over vast empire of vast forests, inhospitable steppes and empty tundra, sprinkled with a few good spots and a few people.
3. Inefficient travel doesn't make a great empire.
That's not to say the Russian empire wasn't huge, or didn't have a lot of people, or wasn't powerful. It was the largest power pre-World War 1, and its remnant is still a major player. I just wasn't as important or dominant or influential or long lived as the Roman empire was.
Over 1500 years later? Come on. If you want size, and the 19th century, how about this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/The_Briti...
That's an extreme example, but really traveling anywhere before modern transportation was slow. I remember from Benjamin Franklin's autobiography that it took him two weeks just to travel from Boston to Philadelphia. And IIRC, he went by sea and almost drowned in a ship wreck along the way.
that's a lot of cold empty land! the roman empire was with a large and variegated population.