Pre-American industrial "evolution"

[painandgreed]

My guess is that technology is a slow, alomost logarithmic growth. Thus even a slightly slower start at the begining means it will be far behind others. No draft animals is one that has been pointed out. Without animals to do heavy work, then things like the wheel become much less useful. Soem indian tribes across the Americas were in the early copper age, but such advances don't give too much of an advantage over stone. I'd put the biggest setback down to no written language, at least not one that was suitable and easy to compose literature such as the Greeks did at the birth of philosophy. There is only so much a single person can memorise and teach the next generation. Once it becomes possible to store that knowledge then the next generation gets access not only to the knowledge of the generation before them but also even earlier generations. They can cherry pick ideas and apply them to their lives and such ideas don't get forgotten if somebody deems them not worth remembering. So I'm going to say that it was the lack of a written language and literature that held them back and such things really don't make themsevles useful till several generatins after they are invented and put into use, so there is no real push to develop them.

 

[Storm Raven]

Why did the Europeans start using firearms a century or so before other people? Who knows? But most tech, whether used by Europeans, Americans, Africans or Asians has come into being because information and materials have moved across cultures.

One likely important factor in the development and use of technology such as firearms in Europe (as opposed to much of the rest of the world) is the European emphasis (at the time) on personal property ownership, specifically personal proeprty ownership of land. In his book Carnage and Culture Victor Davis Hansen details the reasons why the existence of a substantial base of landholding citizens has driven western development (in the case of his study, development in the areas of warfare).

 

[fusangite]

I would assume that the fact that the tribes were spread out over a large continent, and there was not much need for land.

Sensible argument but unfortunately unsupported by the data. The Mexico Valley, in the 15th century, was one of the most densely populated areas of the planet and Tenochtitlan, the world's largest city with a population of about 300,000. While some regions of the Americas were not that densely populated, Mesoamerica was very highly populated indeed.

Many modern ideas about population density pre-1492 come from our observations of the virgin soil epidemics that wiped out somewhere between 50-85% of the indigenous inhabitants. Disease often traveled down trade routes, arriving years or even generations ahead of Europeans.

I would also think that the underlying similarities wouldn't have spurned the need for war and then technology.

Again, there is little evidence that people in the Americas were less warlike than people elsewhere in the world. While this was indeed an issue in Australia, this really wasn't the case here. The Mayan and Aztec religions had a very high opinion of war indeed and much of the human sacrifice of the later Aztec period was fueled by something called the Flowery War, an institutionalized, ceremonialized war in which civilized nations participated -- functioning like medieval jousting only with a much higher body count.

I'd put the biggest setback down to no written language, at least not one that was suitable and easy to compose literature such as the Greeks did at the birth of philosophy.

Of course, Mayans and Nahuas (Mexica) had written languages. Although the Franciscans burned over 500 unique volumes of Nahua philosophy, history, astronomy and poetry, a handful did survive. They show a civilization working with sophisticated concepts and engaging in discussions about cosmology, virtue and various other things that low-tech high cultures wrote about in Egypt and Sumeria thousands of years before.

The idea that knowledge=tech is a common modern one but historically, has not generally been the case. Take a period like the early medieval ages where the Latin West lost philosophical and cosmological knowledge rapidly while at the same time making some of the most important technical advances in history like developing the heavy plough. -- And nobody wrote about these crucial advances that spread like wildfire through northern Europe.

In most literate/literary cultures, written documents are almost never used to store technological information. We're a very exceptional society in that respect.

 

[fusangite]

One likely important factor in the development and use of technology such as firearms in Europe (as opposed to much of the rest of the world) is the European emphasis (at the time) on personal property ownership, specifically personal proeprty ownership of land. In his book Carnage and Culture Victor Davis Hansen details the reasons why the existence of a substantial base of landholding citizens has driven western development (in the case of his study, development in the areas of warfare).

Interesting argument. So the argument is that the competition amongst aristocrats for tenants after the 14th century epidemics led to a kind of de facto private holding of land by the 15th century? Certainly, feudal styles of land holding started their 500 year terminal decline in the demographic collapse of the 14th century but I would be very hesitant to describe 15th century land holding as private in any remotely modern sense. There were larger blocks of land, less oversight and better rental arrangements but land was still held aristocratically. Or is the argument that the technological advances of the early middle ages were caused by the collapse of central governments in favour of feudal forms of governance? This too is problematic. Also, is Hansen making an argument about tech development or tech use?

 

[Storm Raven]

Interesting argument. So the argument is that the competition amongst aristocrats for tenants after the 14th century epidemics led to a kind of de facto private holding of land by the 15th century? Certainly, feudal styles of land holding started their 500 year terminal decline in the demographic collapse of the 14th century but I would be very hesitant to describe 15th century land holding as private in any remotely modern sense. There were larger blocks of land, less oversight and better rental arrangements but land was still held aristocratically.

Even in the 15th century, the concepts of personal property were much more developed in the Western world than anywhere else. Many of the concepts of modern property law date from the 15th century or earlier. The concept of the landholding citizen, while prevalent in the West (and dominant in some areas, such as Switzerland, and to a lesser degree Germany and France), never took serious root elsewhere. Even Spain, considered a bastion of aristocratic privilege, had a class of landholding private citizens unheard of in, for example, the Ottoman Empire, or any of the meso-American empires.

Or is the argument that the technological advances of the early middle ages were caused by the collapse of central governments in favour of feudal forms of governance?

No, it is a discussion of one of the core elements of what is now Western culture: the importance of the property owning citizen. If you want the full explanation, I can only suggest you read Hansen's book. He explains things far better than I can in a message board post. I think he bogs down in his discussion of the issues surrounding the Tet offensive, but his use of various battles to highlight other elements of Western culture is well-done.

This too is problematic. Also, is Hansen making an argument about tech development or tech use?

Tech development without tech use isn't very interesting. The Chinese did develop gunpowder long before it came into use in the West, but without the cultural incentives that fueled its rise to prominence, it is little more than an intersting toy. Similarly, the Greeks developed the steam engine, but without a cultural system that placed it into a position where it was useful, it is a historical oddity and nothing more. Developing technology is nice, but without exploitation of that technology, you might as well be spending your time painting sea scenes.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

One likely important factor in the development and use of technology such as firearms in Europe (as opposed to much of the rest of the world) is the European emphasis (at the time) on personal property ownership, specifically personal proeprty ownership of land. In his book Carnage and Culture Victor Davis Hansen details the reasons why the existence of a substantial base of landholding citizens has driven western development (in the case of his study, development in the areas of warfare).

See, I just can't credit this theory with much. On the one hand it seems like a fairly generic argument, on the other I really don't know that you could claim that Europe had a better sense of private property, or rather a better system of ownership, than the rest of the world. I'm not saying that developments in the idea of private property weren't significant, just that they don't seem unique.

The Roman empire probably had a better idea of public and private property and they were crap for technology, and during the period of the scientific revolution the most common landholding classes were largely eliminated. The industrial revolution in Britain really seemed to depend on people loosing their land, becoming poorer, and suddenly creating an unskilled and desperate work force. And everyone had highly competitive landholding nobles. Probably condition, but certainly not a cause.

Were I to attribute a single factor as significant it would be the odd aspects of European literary culture, monks being both contemplative and practical is a distinctly Latin thing, and, honestly, the tension between absolutism and democracy throughout the period. Both forms have their benefits to technological development and meantime the complexity of the issue probably had a lot of benefits.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Why didn't the native people of the Americas go through the armor-firearms-industrial revolution "evolutionary" steps that Europe and Asia did?

Quasqueton

Right, to go back to the original question, they didn't develop it precisely because it was an "evolutionary" step.

And what I mean by that is that the European technology explosion was, to continue an awkward metaphor, a surprisingly beneficial and succesful mutation.

You can ask why that mutation thrived and did well, but it doesn't really make sense, in terms of the course of human history, to ask why noone else did. Steady technological advancement is really sort of freak. Some fringe cultures do it, Inuits have amazingly sophisticated tools and clothing and we'd be nowhere without nomads, but otherwise it just doesn't happen.

It amazes me when I see people complaining about the long periods of slow tech advancement in fantasy. Our species spent, what?, close to a million years figuring out the intricacies of rocks and fire and doing just fine. All the evidence seems to point to agriculture as a pretty common step, but certainly not an inevitable one. And then civilized agricultural itself is probably an 'evolutionary phase' we haven't really mastered.

Guns, Germs, and Steel is an awesome book but it's one point of view, I wouldn't stop with it.

Before you consider the Aztecs that far behind technologically, ask yourself what percentage of the most important domesticated crops in the world came from Central and South America. Even before you do that:

Check out the Valley of Mexico in the Aztec and pre-Aztec era. That place was a freaking agricultural miracle. The food that could be produced in that small valley was among the greatest weapons the world had ever seen.

Technology helped in the conquest of Mexico, but it was culture and politics that decided the conflict.

Peru, on the other hand, well coming in just after a nasty civil didn't hurt the Spanish. That and the Incans may have had a bit of a Persia vs. Alexander the Great problem going on. Too much territory and too much dependence on a great organization. That and Pizarro was CRAZY. I'd say 20th level crazy at the least.

So in terms of a homebrew, the real question is: Do you want the freak? If so how do you simulate it actually doing well? And, really, do you want the freak?

As a side note, if you do have the freak, don't forget to include the Ottoman empire in your model of Europe. They're role in the whole issue, and that of the Middle East and Northern Africa in general, is terribly underemphasized.

 

[Angcuru]

Simply put, such pursuits require permanent settlements, and they were nomadic. Tada.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Tech development without tech use isn't very interesting. The Chinese did develop gunpowder long before it came into use in the West, but without the cultural incentives that fueled its rise to prominence, it is little more than an intersting toy. Similarly, the Greeks developed the steam engine, but without a cultural system that placed it into a position where it was useful, it is a historical oddity and nothing more. Developing technology is nice, but without exploitation of that technology, you might as well be spending your time painting sea scenes.

As a total side note: Though I completely agree with your main point here. Gunpowder ain't a question of incentives and neither, I suspect, is the steam engine.

The issue is that they're both only really useful when you combine with less sexy technologies.

China didn't have the firing tube, Greece did. You need the two technologies together to create a gun. The only reason the gunpowder travelled and the firing tube didn't is that you need Greek fire for a firing tube to be useful, and noone is going to succesfully put Greek fire on a camel and travel across Asia without getting fried.

In terms of steam power: I honestly don't know it as well, but I do know that the two industries it came out of and was used for: Brandy manufacturing and deep shaft mining were things the Greeks didn't do. I would also suspect that without the various powertrain developments that came from late-medieval exploitation of the windmill and waterwheel there wouldn't have been much the British could have done with it either.

And certainly, if you don't have a big ole steppe you can cross fairly easily and the mediterranean which you can cross really easily you're going to get a lot fewer hook-ups between sexy tech and unsexy tech.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Simply put, such pursuits require permanent settlements, and they were nomadic. Tada.

Who was nomadic now? The Aztecs with their miracle farming culture?

Or the central Asian nomads who had better tech than anyone else in Eurasia up through the 15th century?