Campaign Assumptions!

My own impression is that what the West developed, that both the Islamic and Byzantine worlds lacked, was a general culture of enquiry where scholars and scientists built consistently on the achievements of their forebears. And I think Catholic scholasticism was one root of this development.

Hmmm. A discussion on the merits of registration and transmission of knowledge. But I do not think what you are saying here is solid. I have read for example that Homer is known today because of Byzantium's scholars and Arabs promoted the transmission of various brands of mathematics. I also know that Venetians quarantined the technicians of Murano for example. We can rather talk about impressions based on what we have read but I doubt this helps to claim any truth without even specifying the where and when -
I think it is too vague of a subject regarding the information we have to talk about and draw any significant conclusions.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There is some great debate on these threads.

The problem with Muslim scholars according to one authority, is that they each tended to create their own obtruse and abstract notations for things like maths that made sharing their work with others VERY difficult. Some even wrote in code to prevent their rivals stealing their ideas. So, one idea did not build upon another whilst in Europe this did happen. We were also rather good at stealing ideas and technology from China and other places as well; much as the Romans did.

Just to also comment on the idea that gender equality was not a part of ancient/medieval societies; this is not universally true.

In the Ireland of the Dark Ages, women were in every way equal to men in law and in fact and could hold the highest offices in the Church and in the Brehon, until many years after the council of Whitby (at least if Peter Berrisford Ellis is not lying to me :))

The problem was the Church of Rome; they seemed to intensely dislike women and it was their religious laws that relegated women to the level of Chattel. I have read one book that intimates that it was the story of Eve's corruption of Adam that is the root of this; that in the Christian mind women were somehow agents of corruption and linked with that the thing about which the Chruch of Rome was completely ambivalent; Sex! You have to have it for propagation but the idea that you might actually enjoy it; well that is a sin. This is, of course, only the subtext of alot of what I have read and simplistic, but somehow I think there is a some truth it in.
 

The problem was the Church of Rome; they seemed to intensely dislike women and it was their religious laws that relegated women to the level of Chattel. I have read one book that intimates that it was the story of Eve's corruption of Adam that is the root of this...

I think it was more that St Paul had particular 'issues', and his strand of Pauline Christianity became dominant - women were very influential in the initial spread of Christianity, and held leadership status in some Christian groups. My impression is that early Christianity was often much more female-friendly than either Judaism or Roman culture. But the version of Roman Christianity that reached NW Europe later was more sexist than were the indigenous Germanic and Celtic cultures.

I'm not sure if discussing history of religion potentially transgresses the ENW 'no religion' ban, so I'll stop there.
 

Hmmm. A discussion on the merits of registration and transmission of knowledge. But I do not think what you are saying here is solid. I have read for example that Homer is known today because of Byzantium's scholars...

Preservation of knowledge is not the same as a general culture of inquiry that promotes consistent building on past achievements. That seems to have been the particular genius of the West. I've seen lots of different arguments for why this was so - culture (lots of competing kingdoms, central authority weak), genes (eg Europeans less neotenous than east-Asians, so less conformist), religion (Protestant individualism, Catholic scholasticism) and so on, but I think it's important to recognise how unusual this was, compared even to the ancient Greeks.

Edit: And this point is very relevant to building fantasy worlds. I've seen lots of claims about how technologically static worlds are impossible/implausible, despite the wealth of historical precedents (Egypt barely changed in over 2000 years!). Many posters, American especially, take a culture of inquiry & progress as something inherent in human nature, so that the fantasy-medieval must necessarily give way to the fantasy-Renaissance and fantasy-Enlightenment. That's a very ahistorical attitude IMO.
 
Last edited:

Indeed; I completely agree S'mon.

The thing that I have learnt from reading archeology is how conservative people in the ancient world were and how long it took for technology to spread; often MANY millenia.

This was obviously less true later in history but static cultures are completely believeable if there is something like an ongoing environmental threat that saps the resources of the civilisation so that they have no time/energy for innovation.

It is also true that if you stop communication between civilisations then you can easily get complete stagnation; anyone read Chinese or Japanese history. When Commadore Perry sailed into Yokohama, Japanese culture was almost the same as it had been for the previous 500 years.
 

Preservation of knowledge is not the same as a general culture of inquiry that promotes consistent building on past achievements. That seems to have been the particular genius of the West. I've seen lots of different arguments for why this was so - culture (lots of competing kingdoms, central authority weak), genes (eg Europeans less neotenous than east-Asians, so less conformist), religion (Protestant individualism, Catholic scholasticism) and so on, but I think it's important to recognise how unusual this was, compared even to the ancient Greeks.

I really do not resonate with these theories. History is politically important and unless we are talking about established facts following vague assumptions is even more suspect about promoting some group interests -this can still be valid even if they do not relate historically to the promoting groups -hint of this: colonialist powers' rhetorics used for the shaping of feelings to various groups of people. Even modern research and study figures seem to still make bogus works due to interests that exist due to domino effects-
 
Last edited:

It is also true that if you stop communication between civilisations then you can easily get complete stagnation; anyone read Chinese or Japanese history. When Commadore Perry sailed into Yokohama, Japanese culture was almost the same as it had been for the previous 500 years.

The History major in me wants to reach through my monitor and strangle you.:) The amount of cultural development that occured in Japan during the two hundred or so years of the Edo period (17th and 18th century Japan) is staggering. Bunraku theater, Kabuki theater, Ukiyo-e art, and many other art forms arose during this period. In short, the Edo period saw the rise to prominence of a powerful middle class of merchants for the first time in its history, which drove a major cultural Renaissance in Japan. It is widely believed that the cultural developments of Japan in this period are what helped pave the way to its unprecedentedly fast modernization in the late 19th/early 20th century. The exact details are still a point of debate among historians. It is also worth noting that Oda Nobunaga's army in the 16th century was considered to be easily on par with or stronger than the army of any European power at the time.

The idea of a culturally stagnant China or Japan is one of the greatest falsehoods in the field of History.
 
Last edited:

Hi SkyOdin!

I only know a little about the cultural development of Japan and China but in terms of an increase in raw technological level, there wasn't a vast increase over this period that I am aware of.

I am not talking about art and culture; I am talking about technology and science. Were the Samurai not still using muskets before Perry arrived, of the sort europe had stopped using several centuries before or is this also a myth? Was it not a fact that Perry had a steam powered ironclad squadron to intimidate the Japanese wooden sailing ships, just as we had done a few years earlier to the Chinese. These are facts, as far as I aware (unless Perry himself was lying; this impression comes from his own account that was published after his return to the US). When you consider that Chinese culture was so far ahead of the west in science and technology in the early medieval period, this equates IMHO to an empirical phase of relative technological stagnation in these two nations, when compared to the West, over this time period.
 

However--while it seems to me that certainly there were aspects of Medieval society that were advanced--even some that were superior advancements over what the ancients had achieved in Antiquity--overall, much of Medieval society was decidedly more primitive and less developed than society in Antiquity.
Now that I got the East Asia stuff out of the way, it is time for the Medieval European Historian in me to get to work. While an incredible amount of knowledge was lost due to the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it is completely wrong to assume that the Middle Ages was a time of technological and cultural collapse. In fact, a number of technologies that were considerably more advanced than anything seen in the Roman Empire had appeared in Medieval Europe.


Military:

The technological achievement of the armored knight should not be ignored. First off, it requires something the Romans never had: the stirrup, which appeared in Europe in the 6th century. It was the stirrup that enabled cavalry to become a major factor in warfare. Furthermore, weapon and armor technology came a long way during the Medieval period, which eventually saw the rise of steel plate armor with extremely sophisticated articulation.

Europe also saw a remarkable increase in the technology of both castle design and in siege weapons. For example, the trebuchet was not available to the Romans.


Agriculture:

Here is the big one. In the Early Middle Ages, for a time, the best plow available was the Roman plow, also known as the scratch plow because it was only capable of scratching the surface of the soil. In the 6th century AD, the iron plow was adopted in Europe. This plow was capable of digging much deeper into the earth and creating much better fields. This technological advance was paired with the introduction of the horse collar, which increased both the load capacity and endurance of horses and oxen used to pull plows and other heavy loads.

Combined with new crop rotation techniques and other agricultural improvements, this led to an agricultural revolution in Medieval Europe that triggered a major population boom.

I could go on further, but I would need to dig up my notes from out of storage.

About the idea of Roman Circuses versus European tournaments though...

The Roman circuses and gladiatorial events were much like really violent versions of modern boxing matches or races: they were primarily competitions between small numbers of individuals as entertainment for a local crowd. Even the Coliseum's influence was mostly confined to Rome.

The grand tournaments of the 11th century were a completely different beast altogether. A medieval tournament was where a few hundred to a few thousand knights from as far away as Britain, Spain, and Germany would come a town in Northern France, split into two armies, and then charge each en masse and begin a day-long battle using weapons that were merely blunted. The annual tournament circuit of Northern France could be considered a series of mock-battles, designed more to train knights for actual warfare than entertainment. Though it was the most popular form of entertainment in Europe, despite various monarchs' attempts to ban or control it. The international popularity of the tournaments was such that a certain British prince who spent a fortune on tournament teams became a household name in France. Furthermore, the amount of money put into tournaments led to the rise of professional tournament experts and commentators: the heralds.

It is safe to say that the grand tournaments were not small, local affairs. Is it obvious that I wrote a term paper on this topic?:o
 

:):):) is also worth noting that Oda Nobunaga's army in the 16th century was considered to be easily on par with or stronger than the army of any European power at the time.

Yet the armies of mid 19th century Japan were clearly not comparable to European armies. I think Japan is a case of forced stagnation in certain areas, such as military technology, fed through into lots of cultural developments in other areas. North- East-Asian cultures in general (Japan, Korea, the Chinese city-states especially) are notably very capable of sudden top-directed shifts in direction. This might be rapid industrialisation, but it can also be the abandonment of technology (Imperial China's exploration fleets, or firearms in Imperial Japan). Such attempts have been much less successful in most European societies, though there are exceptions (Russia's rapid industrialisation in the '30s, Ireland's move to a high-tech society in the '90s).
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top