Long Timelines

[Terry Wilcox]

Originally posted by Old Man

I sort of hate to use magic as an excuse to not develop technology because it implies that magic is more prevalent than I would like it to be.

 

If you want to keep magic rare but also explain why we don't have flying cars yet, use the standard reasons for technology not advancing. Lack of resources, lack of knowledge transfer from other civilizations, persecution of inventors by whoever is in charge, etc.

 

But it doesn't take much magic to stifle innovation. Superstition works just as well. Priests of the Harvest Goddess frowning at the idea of a new plow works, especially if the Harvest Goddess really exists and the priests do have some power.

[Storn]

Horse/sword/spear around 500 ad. No stirrup. lIghtly armored. No real calvary tactics besides teh roman version of using horse to move light calvary around.

 

Stirrup changes horse combat and the projection of military power as political means forever. That is a change.

 

Horse/sword/spear and most important, horse bow circa 1350. Sophisticated armor. Incredibly sophisticated tactics that are still studied as the basis of modern tank armor warfare. Incredibly sophisticated organization (10 men= 1 squad, 100 men = company, 1000 men = brigade etc). Combat medics. Incredibly sophisticated pony express including the use of mirrors to dispatch armies over long distance (and the ruling of a large empire). Very sophisticated law and tax structures. Very sophisticated religious views, all religions were considered equal WAAAY before Jeffersonian democracy was a twinkle in anyone's eye. Very sophisticated trade, diplomacy AND sophisticated espionage (can you say Venetians vs. the Pope?)

 

I'm talking about the Mongols.. tactics that were sharpened from that 500 AD period of steppe cultures... and an empire who mutated into the Ottoman Empire and lasted til WWI.

 

To me, that is progress, that is not stagnation. That is change on all fronts, technology, engineering (mongols, despite the horse culture, were sophisticated combat engineers... that takes some doing), social etc.

 

And I picked ONE culture in that time period.

 

Sarajevo was run by a democratic merchant guilds before the word guild was used (circa 1000 ad). They had wooden streets. There was freedom of religion. That is pretty amazing...yes, it didn't last. But it happened.

 

Poland went through vast changes in the time period up for discussion. Tons of up and down. Yet Russia was very stagnant for most of its history.

 

Norse shipping and art certainly changes within that period and transforms not only Europe, but touches all the way to China and to Africa.

 

I think that the major problem is that since we are English speaking peoples for the most part... the history we study and the history that is taught is Anglo centric. So we talk about France, England and Italy in the 500-1500 period. We don't talk about Poland, Balkans, Asia Minor, Spain, Middle East, Egypt is still a player til Napoleon...they don't fade away..even though no one discusses them.

 

And England and France were depopulated horrendously by disease... there was a bit of stagnation between 500-1500. So we have this sense that the Dark Ages/Middle Ages were stagnant. They were not. Not even in Europe.

 

But that stagnation of especially England is one of the HUGE galvanizing historical force that launches around 1400 to becoming the global power that it will be for the next 400/500 years.

 

So...no change between 500-1500... nope, don't buy it.

[Terry Wilcox]

Originally posted by Old Man

So to sum, over the course of a thousand years Europe went from small ships to bigger ships, and from small feudal states to bigger feudal states.

 

But that would be incorrect.

 

I recommend Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel as a more detailed summary.

 

And this appears to be a reasonably good quick overview.

[Ghost who Walks]

Getting somewhere back on topic.

 

Using the analogy of Earth history really doesn't work.

~No (provable) magic

~No non-human races

 

The qustion is how to explain a lack of progress in these really long histories.

 

I'd like to add at least one more. In most fantasy world, magic spells are written in their own "secret" language or in some long dead one. Literacy is usually rare, often only restricted to wizards/scribes.

 

An argument might be made that the lack of literacy could slow down the transmission of ideas fro mone generation to the next. In European history, the centers of literacy were the monestaries, which were essentially semi-fortified compounds protected by the state religion. The church also had its own courts, in case you bothered any of the monks.

 

Compare this to the fantasy world, where the "party" sacks the evil temple, and butchers the "evil" priests.

 

Add in various non-human races, whose long lifespans mean they could have oral histories, and not bother writing much down. Low population growth among most of them means they can take their time educating the young.

[assault]

Originally posted by Storn

Horse/sword/spear around 500 ad. No stirrup. lIghtly armored. No real calvary tactics besides teh roman version of using horse to move light calvary around.

 

Stirrup changes horse combat and the projection of military power as political means forever. That is a change.

 

Old myth here.

 

Heavy lancer cavalry had been around for at least a thousand years.

 

A decent saddle does most of the stuff attributed to stirrups.

 

Roman military techniques were "real cavalry tactics" with a sophistication not seen in Europe until probably the 16th Century. (I'm ignoring the fact that the last bits of the Roman empire only fell in the 1460s.)

 

"Stirrup changes horse combat and the projection of military power as political means forever. " is a pretty wildly generalised statement. Yes, it did change horse combat in a technical sense. Changing "the projection of military power as political means" is a wild overstatement. Did Alexander the Great have problems with the projection of military power? Caesar? Attila the Hun? None of their armies had stirrups.

 

And incidentally, nomadic horse archers are precisely the people who need stirrups least in combat.

 

On that topic... the Mongol empire was only the largest of a whole sequence of large civilised nomadic empires. Its military organisation was superior to that previously existing _amongst the Mongols_, but wasn't necessarily any more so than that existing amongst its neighbours and predecessors.

 

Of course, by bringing Europe, India, China and the Islamic world into contact with each other, the rise of the Mongol empire actually _did_ represent progress - while it lasted.

 

But that's the kind of progress that another poster has defined out of existence.

 

Alan

[assault]

Originally posted by Ghost who Walks

Compare this to the fantasy world, where the "party" sacks the evil temple, and butchers the "evil" priests.

 

Conan started it!

 

Of course, this is another area where DnD has infected fantasy RPGs in general. But it is reflected to some extent in the source material.

 

Alan

[cutsleeve]

One major factor in our teochnological developement is lack of an easier method. In a world with high magic technology would be magic and magic would eventually be technology. Most things would be created, powered, and controlled by magic because it is a tool like any other. in those worlds you might have someone make firearms or many other inventions but they would be just another tool. In a high magic world sword daggers bows crossbows and gun are not very effective weapons.

 

In a moderately magical world a firearms would still only be just another kind of weapon. It may replace the bow in some respects but some people might still use them. I would imagine people would use bows because they are cheap and easy to get ammunition for a firearms would be more expensive. They may also be regulated by whatever principality is in charge.

 

In low magic worlds the progression of technology would be close to our normal historical technological progression. With ebbs and flows of technology like the tide coming in and going out. but constantly moving.

 

If magic where to exsist it would change things in extrodinary ways. Maic wouldnt change a few things it would change almost every aspect of the society in the same measure with which it is prevelant in the world.

 

This doesnt mean technology and magic arent compatible. I have always taken the route that magic and technology could work in tandum. both fufilling particular needs of the societies which they where in. Wizards would study thaumaturgy and engineering because they wouldnt want to waste magic on something that just requires a little brain power. eventually in the distant future because the scientific mind exsisted and the prevelancy of magic magic and technology would merge into one another and there would be neither there would be science and magic would be just another aspect of it.

 

On another note technological developement is spurred by many things. if the Nations of islam hadnt invaded europe and prussia there would have been no renisaunce. If Budhism and zen hadn't entered japan the bushi would not have been contemplating the philosphical implications of their servitude to the local land owners and would not have developed the way of the bushi and would have never become samurai. without samurai the major motivating force behind the authority of the shogun would not have exsisted and would have degenerated even more rapidly into structural decay resulting in even more war and strife in japan which would have slowed technological developement until around 1540 when the spaniards would arrive and promptly invade and conquer japan destroying not a prosperous honorable society but a loose unorganized psuedo feudal governing body.

[Markdoc]

Slightly off-topic for a second: This exchange is from Dr Strangelove (just saw it at the movies a couple of days ago). Bat Guano is a paratrooper, not a superhero

 

>>>>Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Colonel, Colonel, I must know what you think has been going on here.

Col. "Bat" Guano: You wanna know what I think?

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Yes.

Col. "Bat" Guano: I think you're some kind of deviated prevert. I think General Ripper found out about your prevertion, and you were organizing some kind of mutiny of preverts.

~Bat Guano, 1950's era superhero.<<<

 

Back on topic again - I don't think anyone (at least, not me) is arguing that change is inevitable, merely that under normal circumstances (ie: here on earth) it has always happened. So if you don't want it to happen in your fantasy game/story you need a reason.

 

As already pointed out, there are lots of reasons it might not happen - you can choose one that please you as a GM. In my game, I chose to retard technology, in some areas, but not stop it - so in the 5000 year history, my game races have gone from wandering tribes with shamanistic magicians, to the equivalent of 21st century technology - ie: sophisticated nation states with international trade and communications, a pofessional military, high quality healthcare and orbital space stations (OK, orbital castles, but you get the point). The printing press exists and (in some areas) is widely used. The difference is that mass production doesn't exist, because most of the "high-Tech" is actually high magic. And as noted in the Fantasy currency thread, IMG mages can make gold, so their interests are primarily not economic. Most mages would not take the job of providing city lighting (for example) for mere cash - what's the point?

 

So I have tried to balance off what I wanted : medieval/renaissance technology levels, with a fanatsy ambiance and a long history - with what we know about humans and the way the world works.

 

I am not saying this is the only solution - there's a near infinitude of good options to do this kind of thing. But if you want a long history, with relatively stable societies, you should at least try to explain it.

 

Of course one option is to state that the gods behind the gods created the whole thing a couple of months ago, complete with fake gods, fake ancient ruins and fake memories, just for laughs. That could be a real shocker for the players, if they ever find out.

 

cheers, Mark

[Ghost who Walks]

Originally posted by Markdoc

Slightly off-topic for a second: This exchange is from Dr Strangelove (just saw it at the movies a couple of days ago). Bat Guano is a paratrooper, not a superhero

 

>>>>Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Colonel, Colonel, I must know what you think has been going on here.

Col. "Bat" Guano: You wanna know what I think?

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Yes.

Col. "Bat" Guano: I think you're some kind of deviated prevert. I think General Ripper found out about your prevertion, and you were organizing some kind of mutiny of preverts.

~Bat Guano, 1950's era superhero.<<<

Heh, Someone finally caught the reference. However, it is precisely what a 1950's superhero would say, IMHO. Colonel Guano also refuses to shoot a vending machine, claiming it is private property.

 

Back on topic

If you want to have gunpowder, and still have other weaposn about, one solution might be to use "the properties of magic". Perhaps magic is more conductive when dealing with natural objects, suh as wood. This would make sense if elf-types are supposed to be magic masters. Dwarves would be poor at magic.

 

This could mean, for example, that a wizard could casta spell to increase the damage caused by an arrow. He could not cast it on a bullet however. Naturally, everyone would start carrying bows and arrows.

 

I have sen this carried to the other extreme, there magic offers no protection at all from non-natural forces. (like bullets)

 

Natural in this case, is that which is found in nature. Iron counts as non-natural, which is why in legend many creatures of faerie are damaged by it.

 

Just a thought, so I could respond to the Strangelove quote.

[assault]

Originally posted by Ghost who Walks

Perhaps magic is more conductive when dealing with natural objects, suh as wood. This would make sense if elf-types are supposed to be magic masters. Dwarves would be poor at magic.

 

Loud "Feh!" sound.

 

Arneson and Gygax really owe the world an apology for the "non-magical Dwarves" thing.

 

Even cultures that don't have Dwarves know that blacksmiths work magic. Like it doesn't take magic to make a sword...

 

Sheesh.

 

Alan

[Count Zero]

Originally posted by Terry Wilcox

A lot of fantasy literature is based on post-apocalytic worlds. Often the world is "early in the third age", meaning that the last two ages ended in some horrible world-ending conflagration that nuked almost everybody back to the stone age.

 

Wouldn't the Dark Ages have felt like an Apocolyptic Age compared to the "enlighted age" of the Romans... apocolypse is a perspective in most fantasy worlds.

 

As to why fantasy worlds don't advance... well in the Tolkien model, the writer hated most modern technology. He saw the internal combustion engine as one of the worst things to befall mankind (who knows... he might be right) and kind of believed he was born a few hundred years to late. There is also the aspect that it is fantasy. You can't really use traditional common sense. Also keep in mind that humanity only really started making major advances in about the past 200 - 400 years. We have advanced in leaps and bounds in the past 60 years. Perhaps these cultures haven't hit that point yet. They haven't been through a rebirth and enlightenment. Also, keep in mind that when you thing about the fact that it took about 700 years to move from bronze to iron to steel.. that is pretty slow development, but we tend to forget that.

 

Jonathan

[tkdguy]

Don't count stirrups out though. You wouldn't have jousting without them. The Normans didn't have stirrups when they conquered England, so true, cavalry didn't *absolutely* need them. But the Normans wielded their lances in the Roman style (raised above their heads). They didn't tuck their lances under their armpits like you see in the documentaries so often. Anyone who tried a lance charge that way without stirrups would have been knocked off his horse upon impact.

 

If you look closely in the movie "Gladiator," you'll see the riders using stirrups. The reason for this is that they tried not to use them, but everyone was riding crooked (or so I heard). So that historical inaccuracy was a necessary evil.

[assault]

Originally posted by tkdguy

Don't count stirrups out though. You wouldn't have jousting without them. The Normans didn't have stirrups when they conquered England, so true, cavalry didn't *absolutely* need them. But the Normans wielded their lances in the Roman style (raised above their heads). They didn't tuck their lances under their armpits like you see in the documentaries so often. Anyone who tried a lance charge that way without stirrups would have been knocked off his horse upon impact.

 

Major "Bzzt".

 

1. The Normans most certainly did have stirrups.

2. Lancer cavalry had been around since well before Alexander the Great's time.... And what do you think Alexander and his buds were using? Baseball bats?

 

Alan

[tkdguy]

Originally posted by assault

Major "Bzzt".

 

1. The Normans most certainly did have stirrups.

2. Lancer cavalry had been around since well before Alexander the Great's time.... And what do you think Alexander and his buds were using? Baseball bats?

 

Alan

 

It seems that whether the Normans had stirrups or not is debatable. I've heard sources claiming they didn't.

 

In any case nobody claimed lancer cavalry hasn't been around for a long time. The issue is their technique. If you read it carefully, you'd understand that. But please feel free to prove me wrong. Show me someone who can do a lance charge the way a medieval knight did without stirrups and keep himself from falling. That was my main point after all, right?

[tkdguy]

Okay, looking at the Bayeux Tapestry, it seems that there are riders using stirrups, so my original source must have been mistaken.

 

But you still can't joust without them. You can still do a cavalry charge (I never disputed that), just not the way knights did at the lists.

[assault]

Originally posted by tkdguy

But you still can't joust without them. You can still do a cavalry charge (I never disputed that), just not the way knights did at the lists.

 

Most ancient lancers seemed to have held their lances with two hands, and not used shields. This is recorded in various works of art. It is further supported by literary sources.

 

Aside from Alexander's crowd, notable lancers included the Sarmatians, Armenians, Parthians, and Palmyrans. The Romans had some too. Various groups further east used them too.

 

Modern experiments suggest that a decent saddle is more important than stirrups.

 

May I suggest you do a little research if you want to continue to discuss this topic? There should be some useful sources on the net.

 

Alan

[LordGhee]

Macedonian saddles

 

In the early 80â€s I read a British modeling magazine a friend of mine owned with an article on the reconstruction of a Macedonian saddle. The article explains how the author a history professor had gotten the design off tomb statures, mosaics and drawings. The saddle had a high back and two horns that came over the top of the rider’s thighs from the pommel. After getting a saddler to make a Macedonian saddle the author a historian took the saddle to the local jousting club. With out telling the jousters what kind of saddle it was, he asked them to joust with it. The riders after using it felt that the horns and back locked the rider in place just fine. Once they had developed a confidence with this “new†saddle the jousters jousted just fine. What you could not do is what stirrups allow one to do, get on the horse easier, rise up and lean over with the weight on one foot which allowed one to stab the ground with ones sword. Most cavalry used javelins in the Ancient period probably for the reach to get at infantry lying on the ground. The author felt that the reports of Macedonian cavalry using shock action were correct. It is to my regret that I did not get the name of the magazine or the author.

 

Lord Ghee.

[Agent X]

Point of comparison: Complex societies in South and Central America appear a few thousand years after they appear in the Middle East. Mesopotamian and Egyptian Civilization are at least two thousand years older than the Olmecs and the Moche Cultures. The Americas would not make practical use of the wheel and would not develop extensive use of metals as tools.

 

Isolationism and the lack of Large Load-Bearing Mammals is very important in explaining the slower pace of development in the Americas than in the Old World. It is important to note, that in certain areas the Amerinds had achieved a great deal to rival the Old World although they were collaterally behind the Old World in development.

 

These are things you might explore in your fantasy world.

 

Concerning the Mongols, it wasn't simply the Ordu or stirrups that made them so unique. They had a gifted leader, a military expert, a charismatic politician, and a law giver. The Yasa was very important in understanding why the Mongols exploded onto the scene. It didn't hurt that they faced weakened states in Song China and Abbasid Persia.

 

Isolationism slowed development in the Americas. Conversely, the transmission of ideas, goods, and technologies along trade routes between China, India, Southwest Asia, the Mediterranean, and Peripheral Areas stimulated growth and development. It also stimulated pandemics.

 

Western Europe would eventually dominate sea-lanes along the coasts of the Old World through the use of the sternpost rudder (China), improved magnetic compass (China), and gunpowder (China). It would produce these goods through the gift of appropriate natural resources within Europe and the application of windpower and waterpower that had been underexploited through much of the Old World. In this case, this was a local improvement. The invention of the Cam in the so-called Dark Ages/Medieval Era allowed them to exploit tidal mills, watermills, and windmills to produce many items. Populations in Western Europe grew as the heavy plow and the horse collar transformed the countryside. Europe experienced a great deal of deforestation. In fact, the forested area of Europe is greater today than it was at the height of the Medieval Agricultural Revolution. The sciences and overall learning had improved through the rediscovery of Classical Learning preserved by Byzantium and the Arabs (although some had always been preserved by the Catholic Church). Advances in various sciences made by Arabs to Classical Learning were also transmitted. Indian and Arab advanced mathetmatics were also transmitted. As many have mentioned the stirrup arrived in Europe in early Medieval times. Learning and Literacy would explode in Western Europe with a innovative printing press whose ancestor was invented in China. During Medieval Times, Manorialism begat Feudalism and inexorably resulted in the growth of Nation-States. Mercantile City-States and Monasteries were busy experimenting in various ways that would prove important to improving business, manufacturing, horticulture, etc.

 

As these nation-states grew and trade flowed thanks to the Pax Mongolica (Mongolian Peace), this greater contact would also lead to plague. The plague would devastate the European population which would create a labor shortage that would encourage greater efficiency and an eye for labor-saving methods and technology.

 

If you notice, this involves a great deal of transfer between various "cultural hearths." A great deal of this transfer was by shipping, horse, donkey, mule, ass, ox, cow, and camel.

 

If you want to slow things down you can:

Find reasons for greater isolation between different cultures.

This can be accomplished with massive natural barriers, magical curses, and plagues that depopulate large regions and encourage insularity.

Eliminate many of the large load-bearing mammals.

This is tricky because it radically transforms the "look" of the campaign.

Perhaps the presence of the ravening hordes of humanoids produces additional pressures and isolation.

Perhaps past advances have led to bad outcomes, a sort of Tower of Babel approach - certain technologies become taboo

 

One last comment: The Medieval Period was by no means a period of stagnation. Northern Europe and Western Europe were areas of great innovation and agricultural adaptations to an environment not suited to Meditteranean agricultural practices were key to much of this. Southern Europe quickly rebounded from the fall of the Western Empire and kept on plugging away at trade. Byzantium still reigned as Constantinople and would not fall until the Ottomans used a great cannon to breach their walls in 1453. Where did the makers of such a fine cannon come from you might ask? Hungary

 

One more last comment: Japan is the poster child for progress between 500AD and 1500AD - a simple society begins to borrow from China, the growth of centralized regional and eventually centralized national government, an explosion in arts and architecture, fantastic advances in metallurgy, a greatly expanding area of geographical knowledge and trading partners, more sophisticated approaches to religion and philosophy, more and more sophisticated agricultural methods, what many consider to be the first novel ever written in the world

[Ghost who Walks]

Good post Agent X.

 

I would also addd something about language.

 

Most fantasy worlds have a "common" language, which would cause innovations, invention, and trade to occur more rapidly.

 

A slower development might be caused by more languages, europe used to have a many different languages, so did North and South America.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Ghost who Walks

Good post Agent X.

 

I would also addd something about language.

 

Most fantasy worlds have a "common" language, which would cause innovations, invention, and trade to occur more rapidly.

 

A slower development might be caused by more languages, europe used to have a many different languages, so did North and South America.

Excellent point. The Tower of Babel might be an inspiration for a curse.

 

In real history the reason for the predominance of language groups in the Old World is presumed by many to be because groups with the "father" to the language group gained an advantage over other population groups whether it be use of the horse (Indo-European), use of bronze, agriculture (Semitic), or the like.

 

It would be difficult to rationalize empire-building in the past without some sort of Tower of Babel event after the fact though.

[AnotherSkip]

Mayhaps the "language of magic"?

 

Only those who are unaffected by the curse for whatever reason can communicate/understand the true language which allows the use of magics.

 

hmmm a Magic System that requires a Skill roll (ancient Speech), a Language skill and a Talent(immune to the Barbar Curse). In order to get thngs done "magically"

[tkdguy]

Originally posted by assault

Most ancient lancers seemed to have held their lances with two hands, and not used shields. This is recorded in various works of art. It is further supported by literary sources.

 

Aside from Alexander's crowd, notable lancers included the Sarmatians, Armenians, Parthians, and Palmyrans. The Romans had some too. Various groups further east used them too.

 

Modern experiments suggest that a decent saddle is more important than stirrups.

 

May I suggest you do a little research if you want to continue to discuss this topic? There should be some useful sources on the net.

 

Alan

 

May I suggest you divulge where you find your conclusions. I've researched into this matter for a while. Where are you getting your stuff?

[Terry Wilcox]

Originally posted by Count Zero

Wouldn't the Dark Ages have felt like an Apocolyptic Age compared to the "enlighted age" of the Romans... apocolypse is a perspective in most fantasy worlds.

 

That really depends on your perspective. If you're a dirt poor peasant, the so-called Dark Ages were no worse than the so-called "enlightened age". You're still down-trodden and dirt poor. People still tramp through your village killing and pillaging.

 

The dark ages weren't particularly dark. They just got a bad reputation by lacking the huge empires that impress western civilization.

[Markdoc]

Yep. To someone living in say, Provence, having all these huge hairy people stomping through your garden, kicking the heads off your garden gnomes (Vandals!) and peeing in your fish pond, the period after the collapse of the western Empire probably seemed like the Dark Ages.

 

To someone living in Southern Arabia, the same era was the beginning of "Let the good times roll!"

 

And to someone living in Lithuania the entire thing would have seemed much of a muchness.

 

A good example: here in Scandinavia, the tenant farmers of the 1700's - the so-called era of enlightenment were in general poorer, and less well nourished than the peasant farmers of the so-called dark ages, a thousand years before...

 

cheers, Mark

[Storn]

Yep. To someone living in say, Provence, having all these huge hairy people stomping through your garden, kicking the heads off your garden gnomes (Vandals!) and peeing in your fish pond, the period after the collapse of the western Empire probably seemed like the Dark Ages.

 

An interesting theory on the "fall" of Rome. My very good friend and fellow gamer went to Harvard for history. HIs study was Papal politics. HIs good friend and fellow classmate was studying Rome and came up with this:. A interesting tidbit... the families the owned the land (and the records in Italy are pretty good, it was literate culture and survived) before the "fall", still owned the land and in many cases are still on the same land right up to today. The same families. They weren't killed or driven off. They didn't take on "Barbarian" surnames... in fact, it seems that many German tribes married into the italian families and took italian surnames.

 

The Harvard fellow's opinion was that there was NO fall of Rome. Sure, Rome changed. Rome absorbed and adapted and as a gov't structure it was decentralized and would stay decentralized til 1930s. But the people stayed. The power stayed where it has always been up to recent times, in the land. So if there is no Fall, then what do you predicate the beginning of the Dark Ages on? Now, I think the counter arguement is that Rome as an expansionistic power, fell. But I do wonder just how Dark those ages really were. I think a lot less dark than we think.

 

Just what I think is an interesting nugget.