social classes at TL1

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

The technologies and techniques in Agricola were never improved upon until the 19th century. They were used right throughout TL5.

"The innovations of a given TL fade as those of higher TLs displace them, but they rarely vanish completely. A blacksmith in 1850s England uses TL3 techniques to shoe the horses that pull the carriage the gentleman rides to catch his TL5 train to London. . . . The GM should decide which 'dated' technologies remain in use in his game world, and which items from earlier TLs are still commonly available for purchase." (p. B511)

So if the techniques were used all through TL5, but they were described by Agricola in the 1500s, which was TL4, that would say they were TL4 techniques that remained in use. And if Agricola compiled them from records of ancient Roman practices, which were (let us suppose) TL2, then they were TL2 techniques that remained in use in Agricola's time. It doesn't mean that Agricola was a TL5 mining engineer, and still less that ancient Roman mining was TL4 or TL5.

[AlexanderHowl]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Athens seems to have imported grain from what is now Ukraine, via ship traffic on the Black and Aegean Seas.

In addition, it traded for grain with Greek colonies in what is now southern Italy, Cyprus, Libya, and Turkey, and with the Egyptians and the Phoenicians. Since it was a center of trade for products from the Black Sea, eastern Mediterranean, and western Mediterranean, Athens did not have to possess the land to support its population, it only had to trade with people who possessed excess grain, like Egypt.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

In addition, it traded for grain with Greek colonies in what is now southern Italy, Cyprus, Libya, and Turkey, and with the Egyptians and the Phoenicians. Since it was a center of trade for products from the Black Sea, eastern Mediterranean, and western Mediterranean, Athens did not have to possess the land to support its population, it only had to trade with people who possessed excess grain, like Egypt.

Yes, and all three of Egypt, Silicy, and Ukraine were highly productive agriculturally, for diverse reasons.

[AlexanderHowl]

It was trade that allowed Athens to function beyond the carrying capacity of its territory, but that level of dependency comes at a cost. It had to maintain powerful fleets to protect its trade from enemies and pirates, it could suffer starvation when internal conflicts prevented its trading partners from participating in trade, and it needed to produce a trade surplus to afford to ship grain from a thousand miles away. It could only afford to do so for a couple of centuries before it could not maintain its power and its wealth.

I am curious about how Athens acquired firewood and lumber. The average Athenian demand for wood would have been 20 cords per year per household (Athenian households were quite large and the shipbuilders needed lots of quality lumber), meaning that Athens would have required 200,000 cords of wood a year. Sustainable forestry practices only produce 1 cord of wood per acre, meaning that Athens would have needed over 300 square miles of forests to supply its wood demands. Even if we assume an optimistic rural to urban ratio of 4:1, the territory of Athens would have needed 1,500 square miles of forest, which was more than the size of their territory. If I am correct, Athens would have been importing the majority of its wood as well as the majority of its food.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by whswhs

"The innovations of a given TL fade as those of higher TLs displace them, but they rarely vanish completely. A blacksmith in 1850s England uses TL3 techniques to shoe the horses that pull the carriage the gentleman rides to catch his TL5 train to London. . . . The GM should decide which 'dated' technologies remain in use in his game world, and which items from earlier TLs are still commonly available for purchase." (p. B511)

So if the techniques were used all through TL5, but they were described by Agricola in the 1500s, which was TL4, that would say they were TL4 techniques that remained in use. And if Agricola compiled them from records of ancient Roman practices, which were (let us suppose) TL2, then they were TL2 techniques that remained in use in Agricola's time. It doesn't mean that Agricola was a TL5 mining engineer, and still less that ancient Roman mining was TL4 or TL5.

While these are good points I would be careful on assigning TLs by date. The Western Roman Empire was long gone by c 600 CE but it was TL3 in some areas: steel weapons; the technology to made plate armor (they didn't for social reasons not technological ones), and anatomical science (thanks to plenty of "rare material" coming out of the colosseums)

Also while windmills were put in TL3 there is Heron of Alexandria's 1st century windwheel (TL2) so it was possible for Rome to have had those as well if things had been ever so different.

The Romans had "heavy horses" both in terms of draft horses (the Ardennes) and in terms of heavy "calvary" (Cataphractarii).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by maximara

Also while windmills were put in TL3 there is Heron of Alexandria's 1st century windwheel (TL2) so it was possible for Rome to have had those as well if things had been ever so different.

Doesn't count. TLs are defined not by when somebody starts experimenting with something but by when it comes into actual use in a society. "It was possible" doesn't define an actual TL, because anyone can speculate about what's possible.

I mean, for example, J.C. Bose was experimenting with crystal detectors in 1894, and it was possible for him to try adding a second cat's whisker and get amplification—in fact, the transistor—a decade before the Edison effect led to the vacuum tube. But that doesn't make transistors and solid state electronics TL6.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Athens seems to have imported grain from what is now Ukraine, via ship traffic on the Black and Aegean Seas.

Well, yes, obviously. But all large cities depend on trade, and there were plenty of other classical cities the size of the one in the OP, like Thebes, Argos, or Corinth, which were not so dependent and did not control anything like a 120-160 mile radius.

The Greeks got some significant part of their calories from sea fish, and I would imagine that the Sevenfold Cities eat a lot of river and marsh fish.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Well, yes, obviously. But all large cities depend on trade, and there were plenty of other classical cities the size of the one in the OP, like Thebes, Argos, or Corinth, which were not so dependent and did not control anything like a 120-160 mile radius.

The Greeks got some significant part of their calories from sea fish, and I would imagine that the Sevenfold Cities eat a lot of river and marsh fish.

Only one of the Urbes Septemplex, Mercatus Magnus, is comparable to Athens in size.

I agree that fishing is an important food source for the cities. In the case of Portus Argenti, this includes ocean fishing; nixies tend not to do this, but there's a substantial selkie community just downstream, one of whose source of income is salt-water fishing. They take more than they can consume, and trade the rest for luxury goods (or just for fresh-water fish). Seal and whale meat are also relevant.

As I've said before, I would be happy to see a model of the economic geography of Portus Argenti that included its salmon runs and its other fisheries.

[AlexanderHowl]

I would be really hesitant to depend on ancient sources for accurate sources of information on population because a) ancient scholars were not trained historians and b) ancient scholars often inflated the populations of their nations while reducing the populations of their enemies to make the nations appear important and to make their enemies appear insignificant. Instead, it is important to look at the archeological record and to apply basic economic principles of supply and demand.

For example, ancient human cities require wood for construction and for fuel. If they do not have sufficient wood, they cannot build affordable housing to provide shelter, they cannot build a fishing fleet to provide protein, they cannot build a merchant fleet to conduct their trade, they cannot build a military fleet to protect their trade, they cannot heat water, they cannot cook food, etc. You can tell how large an ancient city realistically could be by accessing their supplies of wood.

In the case of ancient Athens, it could not really have sustained more than a total (urban and rural) of 10,000 households (with an average of twelve people each) based on the area they controlled just because they would not have possessed sufficient wood to meet their demand for wood. Now, an ancient society can increase their wood production by 20x to 25x by clear cutting forests, but any society that depends on clear cutting for their wood supply will run out of forests (and wood) pretty quickly. Of course, magic can solve that problem, but magic can solve practically any problem.

I am curious how the nixie survive in water polluted by human waste. If you have an urban population of 30,000 people, they are going to be producing a lot of industrial waste and sewage. The traditional way that humans dealt with such things was by dumping it in the water and by getting 'clean' water from wells (aqueducts are impossible at TL1). Of course, local fisheries would collapse due to a combination of demand and pollution, meaning that fishermen would need to travel hours out to find fish, so the nixie would also need to travel further out to find fish.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I would be really hesitant to depend on ancient sources for accurate sources of information on population because a) ancient scholars were not trained historians and b) ancient scholars often inflated the populations of their nations while reducing the populations of their enemies to make the nations appear important and to make their enemies appear insignificant. Instead, it is important to look at the archeological record and to apply basic economic principles of supply and demand.

Isn't that what present-day population estimates are based on? The classical studies I've edited that contain population estimates seem to rely on archaeological data.

For example, ancient human cities require wood for construction and for fuel. If they do not have sufficient wood, they cannot build affordable housing to provide shelter, they cannot build a fishing fleet to provide protein, they cannot build a merchant fleet to conduct their trade, they cannot build a military fleet to protect their trade, they cannot heat water, they cannot cook food, etc. You can tell how large an ancient city realistically could be by accessing their supplies of wood.

In the case of ancient Athens, it could not really have sustained more than a total (urban and rural) of 10,000 households (with an average of twelve people each) based on the area they controlled just because they would not have possessed sufficient wood to meet their demand for wood. Now, an ancient society can increase their wood production by 20x to 25x by clear cutting forests, but any society that depends on clear cutting for their wood supply will run out of forests (and wood) pretty quickly. Of course, magic can solve that problem, but magic can solve practically any problem.

On one hand, it seems to me that the history of ancient and medieval societies (and perhaps not only those) has been one of ongoing deforestation. I read lately about the cedar forests of the ancient Near East, which were cut down over time once people started building cities. I've seen discussions of deforestation in England caused by ironmaking, too.

On the other hand, it's not necessarily the case that all that wood is grown within the political boundaries of the city-state. A large city could import its wood from other cities. This is especially the case for wood used as fuel, which can be turned into charcoal, which results in greater consumption of wood for the same heat but also allows shipping at less expense.

I am curious how the nixie survive in water polluted by human waste. If you have an urban population of 30,000 people, they are going to be producing a lot of industrial waste and sewage. The traditional way that humans dealt with such things was by dumping it in the water and by getting 'clean' water from wells (aqueducts are impossible at TL1). Of course, local fisheries would collapse due to a combination of demand and pollution, meaning that fishermen would need to travel hours out to find fish, so the nixie would also need to travel further out to find fish.

That's an interesting question, since nixies spend a lot of time in the water. Perhaps they have a stronger sense of "we don't ---- where we eat"? How do river animals like beavers and otter behave in relation to their own wastes?