-- Posted by HiggledyPiggledy at 3:59 am on Jan. 7, 2009 I don't know if I've posted this in the correct place. If not, then I apologise. Ancient Technology I was watching a show called Mythbusters last night, and they had an interesting story to investigate. It concerned an ancient Korean weapon called the Hwacha. Supposedly, it could fire 200 explosive arrows at once at a range of 500 yards. They did some test, and then built a Hwacha. It proved its reputation and then some. A volley of arrows shot out like a primitive missile launcher and exceeded the distance. Ancient technology fascinates me. We think most things were invented in the modern age, but ancient cultures had similar devices long before we reinvented it. China was the first to build earth quake detecting devices. The middle east created the first battery. Greeks had a full understanding of hydrolics and steam power. An Egyptian wrote the first medical book. You wonder that if none of these inventions and discoveries had been forgotten or neglected, where would we be now? Would we be living on the moon and have cleaner power sources? It makes you think. -- Posted by blufindr at 4:01 am on Jan. 7, 2009 Tis a possibility, of course. -- Posted by HiggledyPiggledy at 4:04 am on Jan. 7, 2009 I also was thinking of one of those Medieval slingshots which could fire a full lavatory 1,000 paces... can you imagine that? -- Posted by chuckibladez at 4:12 am on Jan. 7, 2009 Quote: from HiggledyPiggledy at 12:04 pm on Jan. 7, 2009 I also was thinking of one of those Medieval slingshots which could fire a full lavatory 1,000 paces... can you imagine that? Is that a trebuchet? Theyre damn powerful catapults! -- Posted by JohnTheNormalOne at 9:38 am on Jan. 7, 2009 If the whole western civilization didn't fail epically like it did after the fall of the Roman empire, we sure would be a lot more advanced than we are now. -- Posted by Event Horizon at 9:50 am on Jan. 7, 2009 -- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 7:44 am on Jan. 29, 2009 Quote: from Event Horizon at 2:20 pm on Jan. 7, 2009 If anything that makes me hate extremists much more. -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 7:22 pm on Jan. 29, 2009 Quote: from BleedingSteelWings at 10:44 am on Jan. 29, 2009 Quote: from Event Horizon at 2:20 pm on Jan. 7, 2009 If anything that makes me hate extremists much more. fucking monks, preserving ancient culture and knowledge in the wake of the collapse of the Roman empire in the face of cultural decadence and encroaching germanic tribes -- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 11:16 am on Jan. 31, 2009 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 11:52 pm on Jan. 29, 2009 Quote: from BleedingSteelWings at 10:44 am on Jan. 29, 2009 Quote: from Event Horizon at 2:20 pm on Jan. 7, 2009    If anything that makes me hate extremists much more. fucking monks, preserving ancient culture and knowledge in the wake of the collapse of the Roman empire in the face of cultural decadence and encroaching germanic tribes Is that an attack against someone? -- Posted by Cumulonimbus at 9:16 pm on Jan. 31, 2009 Quote: from BleedingSteelWings at 2:16 pm on Jan. 31, 2009 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 11:52 pm on Jan. 29, 2009 Quote: from BleedingSteelWings at 10:44 am on Jan. 29, 2009 Quote: from Event Horizon at 2:20 pm on Jan. 7, 2009   If anything that makes me hate extremists much more.    fucking monks, preserving ancient culture and knowledge in the wake of the collapse of the Roman empire in the face of cultural decadence and encroaching germanic tribes Is that an attack against someone? He's pointing out that a lot of ancient technology and literature that we now know about we only know about because Christian monks liked to pass the time by preserving knowledge that would have otherwise been lost. Christianity didn't cause technology to collapse.  German tribes migrating to escape invading waves of Asian nomads and a flaccid Roman Empire did technology in.   -- Posted by Bud2400 at 6:27 pm on Feb. 3, 2009 Quote: from Event Horizon at 9:50 am on Jan. 7, 2009 To put it bluntly, this graph is full of shit. -- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 1:59 pm on Feb. 6, 2009 Quote: from Bud2400 at 10:57 pm on Feb. 3, 2009 Quote: from Event Horizon at 9:50 am on Jan. 7, 2009   To put it bluntly, this graph is full of shit. how so? the steep upward extrapolation curve?  It could do with some reduction but still. however, I realize that most of our tech is due to Newton's physics discoveries. -- Posted by Bud2400 at 6:14 pm on Feb. 8, 2009 Quote: from BleedingSteelWings at 1:59 pm on Feb. 6, 2009 how so? the steep upward extrapolation curve?  It could do with some reduction but still.   however, I realize that most of our tech is due to Newton's physics discoveries. Nah, I was really referring more toward the Middle Ages. There was hardly a huge drop in technology and it remained stagnant for 1000 years (especially not to the level of 1000 BC). Even if that were the case for Europe (which it was not), that's then an extremely Eurocentric graph as while Europe was enduring the so called "Dark Ages" during the first half of the Middle Ages, the classics, natural sciences, and other technology flourished elsewhere. After all, in medieval Europe alone, there was the adoption of the stirrup and arched saddle (allowing for militaries to be based on cavalry, as is exemplified by the importance of knights and the like), a newer and more efficient method of agriculture, along with greatly improved water mills and the horse collar and horseshoe (combined with favorable environmental conditions, allowing for Europe's population boom in the High Middle Ages which wouldn't be surpassed until the 18th century), clear and transparent glass (before about 1200, all glass was opaque - this new glass would allow for European dominance in optics, which would come to aid in navigation and astronomy), mechanical clocks, improved building techniques of all kinds in general, the blast furnace, how to grow silk in Europe, etc. And don't forget, it's hardly like Europeans didn't know any of the classics or were void of any philosophy or notion of civilization - the medievals were certainly familiar with Aristotle. The 12th century renaissance is seriously overlooked by those who emphasize the "Renaissance" of the 16th century. Western Europe around 1200 was by far more more advanced than the Roman Empire at its height, even if they still lacked a few key Roman technologies like concrete. However, one or two things is hardly significant in the grand scheme of everything. Moreover, be wary of graphs like this. It is more than likely based entirely on one individual's notion of history's technological progress and nothing else. It is so difficult to measure actual technological progress that I have a hard time accepting any graph showing even a general trend. -- Posted by Elm at 6:19 pm on Feb. 27, 2009 Concrete, water supply, indoor plumbing, steam power, applied mechanical leverage, vending machines... I'd much rather live in Rome than anywhere in Europe in the 1200's.   -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 3:54 am on Mar. 4, 2009 I think the graph is rather shit if only because it is trying to imply that Christianity is responsible for the Dark Ages. The situation is a touch more complex, I'm afraid. If we're going to allow ourselves to confuse correlation and causation, we might as well blame the slow development of technology prior to year 1 on the utter lack of Christianity to enlighten the dim heathens. -- Posted by Bud2400 at 6:57 pm on Mar. 4, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 6:19 pm on Feb. 27, 2009 Concrete, water supply, indoor plumbing, steam power, applied mechanical leverage, vending machines...   I'd much rather live in Rome than anywhere in Europe in the 1200's.   Concrete was indeed lost, however, steam power in ancient Rome wasn't nearly as significant as you're portraying it to be. Much of the other stuff wasn't lost in technology, but rather, became less common as a result of the decline of urbanization throughout Europe. During the Roman Empire, you'd only find those innovations concentrated in the urban centers, and indeed it was the same way during the Middle Ages - there just happened to be far fewer urban centers. Of the ones that still existed, namely Constantinople, they were all present and improved upon by 1200. Cities like London and Paris during this time didn't come close in population to Constantinople and some of the greater Roman cities - I believe London's estimated population in 1300 was about 80,000ish, hence the lack of what you mentioned. I wouldn't call Europe's lack of urbanization a sign of its stagnance, however. Perhaps it may be if you're defining progress by what occurred in the cities, however, what Europe didn't progress in the urban centers during the Middle Ages, it certainly made up for in rural society, particularly in agriculture, where innovations in farming allowed for a much greater population to be supported in Europe than ever before. Such innovations are dictated by where one is concentrated and needs them most. -- Posted by Elm at 8:05 pm on Mar. 4, 2009 They had steam operated doors.  Hell they even had a computer (rope knot drive but still).  I can't think of a culture where the most technological feats were not found where the largest populations gathered.  They had accurate distance measuring tools, paved roads.  A health knowledge that was still being used 600 years later with little to no advancement. Oh and apartment buildings.   The loss of plumbing alone created a huge sanitation problem for Europe which is one reason their city populations were so low.  Along with the loss of concrete making cheap public housing unrealistic as well. We don't have Segway tractors for a reason (besides the obvious). Tell me you would rather be a citizen in 1000 Germany or France than a citizen anywhere of Rome in 100 AD? -- Posted by Bud2400 at 10:59 am on Mar. 5, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 8:05 pm on Mar. 4, 2009 They had steam operated doors.  Hell they even had a computer (rope knot drive but still).  I can't think of a culture where the most technological feats were not found where the largest populations gathered. These were all generally seen as novelties and were hardly used on a wide scale. If they were, we'd have seen an industrial revolution begin a lot sooner than about the 19th century. They had accurate distance measuring tools, paved roads. As far as measuring tools went, so did those in medieval Europe to a good extent. At least enough for a general census to be taken in England immediately after William the Conquerer's conquest in 1066 (also known as the "Doomsday Book," a survey of the population for tax purposes). Granted though, this was primarily the result of William having a considerable degree of centralization and authority in England, which most western European kingdoms during this time did not. The methods (and thus the technology) were there, but the means to carry them out weren't always available. A health knowledge that was still being used 600 years later with little to no advancement. Oh and apartment buildings. Of course, as far as health knowledge goes, much of the knowledge during this time, as well as Roman times, dated back to Hippocrates. Much of the knowledge in health gained during this time was from Arabia, diffused into Europe via the Moors in Spain, and to a much smaller extent, the Byzantines. The medieval Europeans, however, made one key contribution - that is the concept of quarantine, which came about as a result of the Black Plague that swept through Europe around 1348 - 1352. Even if it seems rather crude and primitive, prior to then, it wasn't realized that the sick were necessarily contagious in some manner. The loss of plumbing alone created a huge sanitation problem for Europe which is one reason their city populations were so low.  Along with the loss of concrete making cheap public housing unrealistic as well. It was a reason why they remained so low for awhile, however, the reason for the depopulation of the big cities was a direct result of the breakdown in trade. Without imports of food and other basic goods, the people had to disperse into the countryside and revert back to subsistence farming. This was what occurred immediately after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire (this situation never happened in the East) and from there, agricultural technology was improved upon. I should also say that this breakdown in trade also made paved roads less necessary than before. Moreover, as the saddle and stirrup were introduced, travelling great distances overland became much mroe easy and quick than during the Roman era (which while not having much to do with hauling a cart of goods, had plenty to do with personal travel, which was still infrequent during the medieval era just as it was during the Roman era), where riding on horseback was rather difficult and dangerous. Tell me you would rather be a citizen in 1000 Germany or France than a citizen anywhere of Rome in 100 AD? Depends on what exactly my function in society would be. As I said, urban society in the Roman Empire was much more sophisticated and the living standards of the urbanites were greater than during the medieval era, hence if I were to be a resident of an urban center, Rome would be the obvious choice. However, if we're talking about farming in the countryside (as the majority did, even in Rome), Germany or France of the 11th century would be far more preferable than Rome of the 2nd century. Simply put, innovations were made that allowed plows to be driven by horses and oxen without choking them to death, whereas this wasn't the case in Roman society. Agricultural techniques of the 11th century Europe were far superior to the techniques of the Roman 2nd century, hence a greater agricultural output (this improvement in agricultural output was compounded upon by the medieval warming period as well and allowed Europe's population by 1300 to be greater than any other region in the world, even greater than both China or India, though of course once it ended, the population reached its bottleneck event and made it ever more vulnerable to the Black Plague; the popuation of Europe after that steep decline was still greater than Roman Europe and continued to rise, though more slowly than before). Roman agricultural techniques were far from becoming "mechanized," whereas the medieval Europeans had already began the process first by using animals to a greater extent than ever before and using windmills and watermills (which were both improved from the primitive Roman versions) on a much greater scale with more success.