Alternative Ages

[Tabster]

Now I've calmed down a bit, after all this talk of lathes and engines, the more I think about this whole idea the more complicate it seems to be.

Even if we just look at the three traditional ages, stone, bronze and iron. There isn't an progressive improvement in every possible use of these materials. What I mean for example is you can get a sharper cutting edge in stones like flint, chert and obsidian than in bronze or iron (iron not steel!). Bronze is over all easier to make, process and work with than iron. I would also suspect that rust is a far bigger problem than verdigris if you consider the structual and engineering aspects.

Another example of why a rating based on technology is difficult to define would be the early clocks. The most accurate clocks were at first spring driven, then pendulum driven, then back to being spring driven! How can a rating take account of things like that?

Sadly, I think technology is best left out of it in general!

 

[Masada]

Even if we just look at the three traditional ages, stone, bronze and iron. There isn't an progressive improvement in every possible use of these materials. What I mean for example is you can get a sharper cutting edge in stones like flint, chert and obsidian than in bronze or iron (iron not steel!). Bronze is over all easier to make, process and work with than iron. I would also suspect that rust is a far bigger problem than verdigris if you consider the structual and engineering aspects.

It's also an artificial distinction as well, you wouldn't put the Inca and Aztec on the same level as the Australian Aboriginals now would you? We know that the former were on a society level very advanced on a par with Europe in many respects. The ability to work metals is therefore not a good indicator of relative levels of advancement.

Another example of why a rating based on technology is difficult to define would be the early clocks. The most accurate clocks were at first spring driven, then pendulum driven, then back to being spring driven! How can a rating take account of things like that?

Technology is also not a very good indicator of relative levels of advancement, do we count the Spanish as 'advanced' compared to the Netherlands in the seventeenth century because the former didn't make clocks while the latter made the best in the world? Do we then equate the Spanish with the Iroquois who also couldn't make clocks?

Sadly, I think technology is best left out of it in general!

I wholeheartedly agree! I'm a fan of societal complexity as a proxy for advancement. Societal complexity requires technology to foster, but it doesn't require particular technologies per say. Sure, agriculture is nice, but there isn't a need for a steel plow, you can do it by hand if necessary. The important thing is the level of complexity not really how one got to it, although that could certainly be measured. If I return to Inca, Aztec and Aboriginal comparison is it now clear who is the more 'advanced' if we accept the basic proposition that 'advancement' can be defined by societal complexity (some would, of course, argue that it isn't but for the moment that isn't important). If we then look at the Netherlands and Spain it becomes clear that both are relatively similar in their levels of societal complexity, the artificial distinction that could be made under a technological model isn't all that important now is it? The difficulty then is figuring out what constitutes societal complexity if we accept my proposition. I believe that the Iroquois represent a different form of development which isn't all that much inferior to the model that the Spanish represent, I'm not about to decide which is better, what we're debating is the relative complexity and even that is difficult to ascertain.

 

[flyingeye76]

It's also an artificial distinction as well, you wouldn't put the Inca and Aztec on the same level as the Australian Aboriginals now would you? We know that the former were on a society level very advanced on a par with Europe in many respects. The ability to work metals is therefore not a good indicator of relative levels of advancement.

Technology is also not a very good indicator of relative levels of advancement, do we count the Spanish as 'advanced' compared to the Netherlands in the seventeenth century because the former didn't make clocks while the latter made the best in the world? Do we then equate the Spanish with the Iroquois who also couldn't make clocks?

I wholeheartedly agree! I'm a fan of societal complexity as a proxy for advancement. Societal complexity requires technology to foster, but it doesn't require particular technologies per say. Sure, agriculture is nice, but there isn't a need for a steel plow, you can do it by hand if necessary. The important thing is the level of complexity not really how one got to it, although that could certainly be measured. If I return to Inca, Aztec and Aboriginal comparison is it now clear who is the more 'advanced' if we accept the basic proposition that 'advancement' can be defined by societal complexity (some would, of course, argue that it isn't but for the moment that isn't important). If we then look at the Netherlands and Spain it becomes clear that both are relatively similar in their levels of societal complexity, the artificial distinction that could be made under a technological model isn't all that important now is it? The difficulty then is figuring out what constitutes societal complexity if we accept my proposition. I believe that the Iroquois represent a different form of development which isn't all that much inferior to the model that the Spanish represent, I'm not about to decide which is better, what we're debating is the relative complexity and even that is difficult to ascertain.

Basically I agree with you although I think technology does have an equal share. Social complexity has for the most part been ignored in favor of the old tri-part (Stone, Bronze, Iron) metal system. That's why I ask if it's fair to say that Iron Age Barbarians were really more advanced civilization than say ancient Egypt? While one man can learn the secrets of smelting Iron over Bronze, it takes a lot more to organize a society and their projects on the scale of the Egyptians or even the Incas.

 

[Tabster]

. The ability to work metals is therefore not a good indicator of relative levels of advancement.

Technology is also not a very good indicator of relative levels of advancement.

By the way you have phrased this it seems I have lead you astray from what I mean by technology, by only taking about machines. Really I mean any artifical process, so even drilling a hole in hard ground with a stick to plant a seed is still technology to me.
but I understand the points you've made.

If we then look at the Netherlands and Spain it becomes clear that both are relatively similar in their levels of societal complexity, the artificial distinction that could be made under a technological model isn't all that important now is it?

From my schoolboy knowledge of history didn't the Dutch and the Spainish have a war around this time? didn't the Dutch win? Best clocks, means the best lathes, means most accurate guns and best navigational instruments ect. (pure speculation on my part, but I hope you see what I mean)

But again from schoolboy history, English longbow vs French crossbow. The longbow is clearly a simpler machine, but it's success relied on the 'societal complexity' of the logistics and training of the longbowman.(If I've understood what you mean)

I still feel the role of technology can be decive, at the odd moment in history. But it is so interwoven with itself, it become impossible to fragment and count in any meaning full way.

The difficulty then is figuring out what constitutes societal complexity if we accept my proposition. I believe that the Iroquois represent a different form of development which isn't all that much inferior to the model that the Spanish represent, I'm not about to decide which is better, what we're debating is the relative complexity and even that is difficult to ascertain.

I agree, I fact I'd say it's very difficult. but we've got to try and help poster flyingeye 76! What about number of laws/rituals , is this any good as a measure of societal complexity?

 

[Dachs]

From my schoolboy knowledge of history didn't the Dutch and the Spainish have a war around this time? didn't the Dutch win? Best clocks, means the best lathes, means most accurate guns and best navigational instruments ect. (pure speculation on my part, but I hope you see what I mean)

More like Dutch fortifications, Spanish distractions, naval power, sheer stubbornness (see: Willem de Zwigjer's career), and the new model army of that Maurits van Nassau guy.

 

[Tabster]

Dutch fortifications , naval power

Nothing to do with technology at all then !!

 

[Dachs]

Nothing to do with technology at all then !!

Not really, no. The Dutch weren't significantly advanced, technologically, compared to the Spanish (mah boiiiii Menno van Coehoorn wasn't even born until 1641); they had just as much trouble as the Spanish did in pushing an offensive through against Spanish forts, but the thing was that the Dutch fortifications allowed them to survive (that, and opening the dikes...IIRC there was a pretty sweet naval battle fought on a flood plain that was inundated by dike destruction)...the Spanish fortifications were what restricted United Provinces offensives and ultimately a major factor behind the Dutch failure to conquer the entirety of the old Netherlands.

Naval power over the Spanish wasn't really a function of technological advantage either, but it's vastly more complicated than the land bit IMHO...take a look at the sea beggars and tell me they were more "technologically advanced" than the Spanish...

 

[Tabster]

Thanks I'll have a search for some info on the above.

I remember reading years ago, the dutch navel builders pioneered the use of pine for non-structrual parts of their ships, saving time and money in construction, traditionallly they used elm for the bulk of their ships, a wood with excellent qualities inclueding longevity in water. I had thought their ships were of excellent quality previously ! but I'll check out the sea beggers. (it doesn't sound good judging by the name)

 

[Dachs]

Meh. You have to keep in mind that for most of human history, a technical - technological - military advantage usually hasn't translated into that much of a military superiority. There are a very few notable exceptions (like, say, Greek fire, or the steel weapons of the conquistadors), but in general the differences between any two sides that are usually fighting aren't pronounced enough to have an impact; instead, other considerations, such as the style of warfare they engage in or the resources at their disposal, tend to have a more decisive impact. Luttwak in his Strategy shows this fairly well with a thought experiment on the difference between anti-tank missiles and tanks.

 

[Tabster]

They were a load of pirates !

I think the ship building methods I was refering to occured after the first Anglo Dutch war , when the Dutch reorganized their navy.

resources at their disposal

This also, I'd say, can be dependent on technology

Anyway I got an idea for flyingeye 76 -

Base your 'age' system on types of energy converted into motion.

1) Wind power - sails, a simple system for capturing wind power, needs textiles, rope making
2) Animal power - domestic animals, needs wheels, axles ect
3) Water power - complicated capture of natural energy, we can stick windmill in here too.
4) Fuel power - complicated convertion of stored chemical energy into motion, using coal and petrol
5) Scientic power - motor/dynamo, using physics to utilise electrical energy, and extract energy from systems like solar and nuclear.

I know it's only two more than we started with but it still involves technology

 

[Lord Baal]

They were a load of pirates !

I think the ship building methods I was refering to occured after the first Anglo Dutch war , when the Dutch reorganized their navy.



This also, I'd say, can be dependent on technology

Anyway I got an idea for flyingeye 76 -

Base your 'age' system on types of energy converted into motion.

1) Wind power - sails, a simple system for capturing wind power, needs textiles, rope making
2) Animal power - domestic animals, needs wheels, axles ect
3) Water power - complicated capture of natural energy, we can stick windmill in here too.
4) Fuel power - complicated convertion of stored chemical energy into motion, using coal and petrol
5) Scientic power - motor/dynamo, using physics to utilise electrical energy, and extract energy from systems like solar and nuclear.

I know it's only two more than we started with but it still involves technology

Doesn't work. Many of those systems of energy overlap. I mean, the Greeks were using "Animal power" to farm and travel overland while using "Wind power" to travel overseas and establish colonies. To make no mention of warfare.

 

[Dachs]

They were a load of pirates !

A load of pirates privateers who beat the living out of the Spanish Navy.

This also, I'd say, can be dependent on technology

But isn't a very good measure of how technologically advanced one society is compared to another.

 

[flyingeye76]

They were a load of pirates !

I think the ship building methods I was refering to occured after the first Anglo Dutch war , when the Dutch reorganized their navy.



This also, I'd say, can be dependent on technology

Anyway I got an idea for flyingeye 76 -

Base your 'age' system on types of energy converted into motion.

1) Wind power - sails, a simple system for capturing wind power, needs textiles, rope making
2) Animal power - domestic animals, needs wheels, axles ect
3) Water power - complicated capture of natural energy, we can stick windmill in here too.
4) Fuel power - complicated convertion of stored chemical energy into motion, using coal and petrol
5) Scientic power - motor/dynamo, using physics to utilise electrical energy, and extract energy from systems like solar and nuclear.

I know it's only two more than we started with but it still involves technology

That could be a way to subdivide a Type 0 Kardashev Scale- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Using the wild imaginations of Sci-Fi combined with your power scale maybe such a system could include:

1)- Human Power: Pre-domestication of burdenable animals

2)- Animal Power: Plowing, Horse transportation, animal powered machinery

3)- Elemental Primary Power: Applying direct force from the elements such as wind, fire &
water-i.e. sails,forges,& watermills

4)- Chemical Power: Steam and Combustion Engines

5)- Elemental Secondary Power: Containable power translated from the elements such
as Solar, Wind, and Hydro

6)- Nuclear Fission and Fusion: Atomic energy and weapons

?)- Anti-Matter

?)- Zeropoint

Concerning technological overlap, one simply counts the highest level that a civilization can readily access. For instance today we still work in copper and bronze, but clearly we're not rated as a Copper or Bronze Age Civ.

 

[Masada]

By the way you have phrased this it seems I have lead you astray from what I mean by technology, by only taking about machines. Really I mean any artifical process, so even drilling a hole in hard ground with a stick to plant a seed is still technology to me.
but I understand the points you've made.

It isn't exclusively related to machines, that's just the examples I came up with on the fly.

I agree, I fact I'd say it's very difficult. but we've got to try and help poster flyingeye 76! What about number of laws/rituals , is this any good as a measure of societal complexity?

Not really. Maybe you could do something along the lines levels of society, relative ability to complete complex tasks and so on. I don't believe that I'm capable of coming up with a complex measure like that on my own.

That could be a way to subdivide a Type 0 Kardashev Scale-

That would be an astonishingly boring graph. Animal power didn't overcome human muscle power in raw terms until quite late in human history, if you consider the fact that draft animals were comparatively rare (and not altogether useful) in Ancient Greece and so on. A trend which probably continued until sometime after the introduction of the horse collar and one that isn't believed to have been reversed in favor of animal power until very late on. Basically your graph wouldn't really represent all that much except the most superficial view of history. I don't believe it would be all that useful, and would be just as much of an artificial distinction as ages defined by metal.

 

[Tabster]

Pirates/privateers, yes I know, I shouldn't have been flippant

Concerning technological overlap, one simply counts the highest level that a civilization can readily access

Yes, I did mean this.

I've always struggled to get information off the internet, nothing in wiki about 'steam powered pod augers' yet for example. I don't always find it reliable either. A wiki article told me the cam was invented in 1206, yet the same article said that they had fullering mills in the 10th century! How can you have a fullering mill without a cam?, I don't know, maybe you can, I don't know enough to be sure. but know enough to be suspicious.

I had a look for those books Masada mentioned, but there's so many. Does anyone have a specific book they could recommend, please?