We're gonna have to rethink the TLs

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by tbrock1031

This is true. That period was essentially dominated by the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire and the Muslim Caliphates of the Middle East.

I'd say the world was always dominated by China, but it happens that what is probably the major exception falls during this period - during the 10th century, following the collapse of the Tang dynasty it's likely Gurjara-Pratihara, Samanid or Saffarid Persia, and maybe the Roman Empire and Srivajaya were stronger states than either Wu or Northern China under whichever of the Five Dynasties happened to rule it that year. The late 9th thru the mid 10th centuries were a bad stretch for the Caliphate too.

[Crzyraccoon]

Remember that general TL is the baseline TL for which most societies would be at in most fields at a given game world. Split TL is very common and even the basic set say its realistic on B511.

If I'm making a new world(s), i'll make or change the current TL chart to what I see fit.

If I'm basing the campiagn on earth, I would have TL0-8 as normal than have TL9+ to whatever the future will be, in my time travel, campiagn, I have as followed;

TL9: Micro Age (2030+).
TL10: Quantum Age (2100+).
TL11: Synthetic Age (2350+).
TL12: Dark Matter Age (2500+).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by malloyd

I'd say the world was always dominated by China, but it happens that what is probably the major exception falls during this period - during the 10th century, following the collapse of the Tang dynasty it's likely Gurjara-Pratihara, Samanid or Saffarid Persia, and maybe the Roman Empire and Srivajaya were stronger states than either Wu or Northern China under whichever of the Five Dynasties happened to rule it that year. The late 9th thru the mid 10th centuries were a bad stretch for the Caliphate too.

Well, for values of "always" that end ca. 1800; British seapower was starting to have a big global impact then. But otherwise, yes, China really was the most technologically advanced society for a large part of world history, and in a truly global perspective it would define the historical eras. (For example, Francis Bacon writes about the three great inventions that had transformed the world—gunpowder, navigation, and the printing press—and the Chinese had all three of them before Europe did.)

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by whswhs

(For example, Francis Bacon writes about the three great inventions that had transformed the world—gunpowder, navigation, and the printing press—and the Chinese had all three of them before Europe did.)

So true and yet not.

Chineese Gunpowder was a specialty weapon used by specialists to overawe barbarians and peasants--
European gunpowder was a universal weapon that made the peasant class dangerous

Chineese wood block printing reinforced the classics being cheap to obtain and new books being expensive--
European moveable type printing made the production of new literature (and thus new ideas) cheap.

Navigation I'll give you as equal -- though in terms of world dominance, it probably contributed more than the other two. China used its ships to show off to the barbarians. Europe used its ships to conquer them and take much larger portions of their wealth.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Chineese Gunpowder was a specialty weapon used by specialists to overawe barbarians and peasants--
European gunpowder was a universal weapon that made the peasant class dangerous

At TL4, yes. At TL3, not so much; it was used in big immobile artillery pieces, in petards for blowing down doors, and in gonnes that took two men to operate and were more suitable for terror than for combat. And the Chinese had much the same capabilities, decades earlier. The peasantry didn't become dangerous until later on, with weapons that could be used more quickly and transported more easily.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Navigation I'll give you as equal -- though in terms of world dominance, it probably contributed more than the other two. China used its ships to show off to the barbarians. Europe used its ships to conquer them and take much larger portions of their wealth.

Starting with the Great Heathen Army in the mid 9th century, conquering York and setting up the Danelaw. China has always seemed to me to be very introverted, historically.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Chineese wood block printing reinforced the classics being cheap to obtain and new books being expensive--
European moveable type printing made the production of new literature (and thus new ideas) cheap.

When Matteo Ricci was in China, he wrote back to Europe about how astonishingly cheap books in general were in China in comparison with what they cost back in Europe.

The nature of Chinese wood block printing did not intrinsically favor classics; a single carved wood block only lasted so long and then a new one was needed, which could just as well be used for a new book. The first of the four great Chinese novels, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, apparently dates to the 1400s.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by whswhs

At TL4, yes. At TL3, not so much; it was used in big immobile artillery pieces, in petards for blowing down doors, and in gonnes that took two men to operate and were more suitable for terror than for combat. And the Chinese had much the same capabilities, decades earlier. The peasantry didn't become dangerous until later on, with weapons that could be used more quickly and transported more easily.

And which effect was bacon referring to? big lumbering siege weapons or the arming of the peasantry? which of the two transformed the world in his eyes? Was he referring to gunpowders itself or the technologies associated with it in his day?

Originally Posted by whswhs

When Matteo Ricci was in China, he wrote back to Europe about how astonishingly cheap books in general were in China in comparison with what they cost back in Europe.

The nature of Chinese wood block printing did not intrinsically favor classics; a single carved wood block only lasted so long and then a new one was needed, which could just as well be used for a new book. The first of the four great Chinese novels, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, apparently dates to the 1400s.

As you said, a new book. Not a newspaper, or pamplet that will only be printed once-- a book. And a book you intend to print again and again for that matter. You can't take a small risk on something you aren't sure will bring in a profit. Its the difference between record labels and the internet for music. Once again, I ask if the effect Bacon referred to was merely cheap books?

Yes, those the technologies technically reffered to by bacon transformed the world and with the words he used they were technically had by the chineese much earlier. But the forms the chineese had were not the forms that transformed the world and were not forms capable of transforming the world. The comparison there was unfair.

I'm not trying to be eurocentric or to deny that china was the foremost technological power of the world for large swathes of history. I'm denying that china had the transformative technologies bacon referred to hundreds of years before europe.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Yes, those the technologies technically reffered to by bacon transformed the world and with the words he used they were technically had by the chineese much earlier. But the forms the chineese had were not the forms that transformed the world and were not forms capable of transforming the world. The comparison there was unfair.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, China had movable-block printing presses more than two centuries before Europe, but primarily used wood-block presses because it was cheaper.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

If Wikipedia is to be believed, China had movable-block printing presses more than two centuries before Europe, but primarily used wood-block presses because it was cheaper.

Chinese writing has always been about making it overly complex specifically to keep it away from the lower classes. Literacy was for the nobles, not "the people".