Tech Levels - understanding and creating vs manufacturing
- Thread starter kristof65
- Start date
Dave Chase
Mongoose
simonh said:
Ah, then sorry if I seemed harsh.
If you can't find the article I will try and dig it up later this month.
Dave Chase
simonh said:
Having seen a AK built entirely by a Blacksmith with only a blacksmiths traditional tools, I can tell you Micrometer really isn't all that necessary to build relatively complex machinery. Measuring tools can be relatively crude, they just need to be consistent, and that is more on the craftsman than the tool. As for seals and such, they are pretty low-tech too, as long as you can accept the wear.
Now, since we are talking about TL, I'll put in my 2 cents.
In general I use TL as the local infrastructure score. Invention has nothing to do with it, that happens where it happens, or if you have the information you can do your best to implement it with the tools you have at hand or can order. Just because I can build a aircar, doesn't mean it is feasible to set up a production line to produce them for my neighbors at a price they could afford. The same goes for planets.
Link this to the Average pop score of most places in the Traveller Universe... Pop 5, a smallish city, a village if you are in China, what's you infrastructure gonna look like?
Dave Chase said:
<sigh>
You don't know much at all about Roman slavery, do you?
There's no reason why you should, of course.
However, your statements above are ... completely wrong ... because of your lack of knowledge.
"To keep slaves in line you have to keep them so busy that they are too tired to revolt."
Well, actually, no.
The Romans suffered exactly one major slave revolt - that of Spartacus - and that one didn't get underway because the Slaves didn't have enough to do. Read about it.
Roman - indeed, all Ancient - society was based on subsistence level agriculture and the upper classes (including the government) acquired their wealth through the oppression of the poor (see G E M de Ste Croix's classic "The Class Struggle in the Graeco Roman World" ... be warned, he's a Marxist, but his analysis is quite interesting and detailed).
In fact, the ongoing trend throughout the Republic and into the Empire was to increasingly oppress and disenfranchise the poor ... so that, by the later Empire (4th and 5th centuries AD) we have the bulk of the poor tied to the land by Imperial edict and rated as "coloni" which was, more or less, effectively a serf (from the Latin "servus" = slave).
The reason for the existence of slavery and, indeed, the connecting reason for the oppression of the poor by the government and the wealthy was, quite simply, a result of the extremely low levels of agricultural (and other, but mainly agricultural) productivity.
Evidence strongly suggests that crop yields in Classical Europe were about 2-2.5:1 (i.e. they'd sow 1 kilo of seed and get 2-2.5 back), which is extremely marginal (you need to keep 1 kilo of the crop for next year's seed, leaving only 1-1.5 kilos for consumption) ... agricultural improvements during the so-called Dark Ages raised this to 3-3.5:1, and, frankly, this didn't make life a whole hell of a lot less marginal and subsistence level for most people (= the poor).
With such low levels of productivity the only way to accumulate wealth or capital was by s****ing the poor ... hence the slow but inevitable progression from free citizen farmer to serf ... or by having a class of people who could be "paid" an absolute minimum even below what a nominally part-free colonus would expect ... that's where slavery comes in.
"To replace the slave with machines you would have to either accept the slaves as part of the citizenry ..."
Which is more or less exactly what the Romans did. (More on this below)
"But remember some of the slaves had been slaves for many generations so that they had no place to call home other than as a Roman slave."
Like I said, in the kindest possible way (really
), you don't know anything at all about Roman slavery, do you?This is so wrong it isn't even close to being vaguely related to being right.
Firstly, Roman slaves, by and large, were segregated into two groups - Household slaves and Estate slaves. The former were very likely to be able to gain their freedom either by purchase or as a reward for service - and, even if they didn't, might be able to breed ... the latter, well, they were segregated. Males kept well away from females (who would mostly be household slaves anyway) and were generally not, therefore, allowed or able to breed.
It was evidently somewhat rare (but only somewhat) for a slave to be a slave for "generations" ... what actually happened was, as the empire stabilised its borders, and the number of slaves dropped dramatically, there was an economic imperative to increase the amount of cheap labour ... but the Romans found (as slaveholding cultures mostly do, even in the medium term) that slave labour is worth spit ... the worker has to have some gain from the fruits of his/her labour or they work (on classical figures) at somewhat considerably less than half the effectiveness of a "free" (or at least "servile" = serf = colonus) worker.
So what happened was that "slaves" were given a plot of land to work and allowed to marry, and, effectively and slowly, turned into serfs ... with more rights than an estate slave (the Roman contract form for purchases of slaves was the one they used for the purchase of cattle and other livestock) but less than a nominally free man (though the tendency was to reduce the rights of the latter so that the difference wasn't great by the 3rd century on, if not sooner) and make them, effectively, sharecroppers.
In return, since they were getting a larger (but still tiny) share of the fruits of their labour, their productivity shot up to the same levels as for "free" workers.
Much the same happened in Anglo-Saxon England, where slavery basically died out and the slaves were freed but turned into Serfs (who, as we all know, weren't really free ... but weren't slaves, either) and, when the economic imperatives changed in the 13th-14th centuries (under the Normans, who certainly were even less altruistic than the Saxon lords!), they moved away from serfdom to hiring day labour fairly rapidly!
Slavery, indeed, is rather more complex than most people are aware (and, sure, given what is written about it in most High School ... and, indeed, even survey type College/Undergraduate Uni leve ... textbooks, that's not at all surprising).
"If you forced the Romans to start using machinery instead of slaves they would probably started having lots more games, gladitor games that is."
Hmm. You don't know much about the "Ludi et circenses", either, hey? :wink:
Suffice it to say that the "games" were also much more complex and, indeed, the gladiatorial contests were not all that popular, relatively speaking.
The Colosseum held somewhere between 50-70,000 spectators, the three Hippodromes in Rome held (between them) around 3/4 of a million spectators.
The big money was on the horses, just as it is today ;-)
And the Charioteers were the superstars of Roman entertainment.
Phil
Well, there were three "Servile Wars", and the one against Spartacusaspqrz said:
was the third one.
While I agree with almost all you wrote as a very good description of the
situation during the (late) Empire, I see things quite differently for the ti-
me of the Republic - but I think we should agree to disagree instead of
turning this thread into a debate on Roman history, so I leave it at that.
If I read what you said correctly then aspqrz, introducing machines that would make the crop yield more efficient might have had the effect of opressing the slaves further, correct? Because with an efficient machine, even an unmotivated slave might be able to produce more crop yield than a serf farmer could without one.
Hmm, interesting.
I know that with my own electronics knowledge, I could, were I to suddenly find myself in a 15th-16th century European or Asian society, with the assistance of local craftsmen, I could easily design and build working ac generators and a telegraph system in relatively short order. I suspect that would be the case for even earlier cultures, too - all I would need is metalworkers to make copper wire and the switches; potters to make various ceramic parts, and weavers to make insulation for my wires.
Given time, I could build a working phone system, and crystal radios as well. Light bulbs and vacuum tubes wouldn't be far behind. That knowledge, and other things I know tidbits of might be able to inspire other men to build things well beyond what they should supposedly be capable of. These first attempts would surely be crude devices, and anything but pretty, but the advantages they could give a society could be staggering, particularly on the communications front.
So it seems that for many things, the discovery comes much later than the actual capability to make it. I just recently read that some scientists actually consider it an accident that lasers were not discovered and used for communications before radio was, which indicates to me that the principles the laser are based on were known well before the principles radio is based upon.
The reason I started this thread is that several hypothetical situations have occured to me, and the interesting ideas those situations generate.
Frex, what if it turns out FTL travel is simple enough to be built with TL 5-6 level equipment, it's just that it's not useful in a gravity well? Now you have a situation where the technology may not be discovered for years, decades even centuries after a society takes to space, simply because it's "old" tech. You can further have fun with that situation by that society then discovering an alien spaceship, and upon investigating it's FTL tech, suddenly having a "Doh!" moment.
Or take a peaceful society with a slow birth rate, no population pressures and plenty of natural resources that has no reason to explore space beyond curiousity and therefore hasn't discovered FTL, despite being tech level 10 or 11? What would they do when an interstellar ship suddenly appears abandoned in their star system? What if that starship turned out to be lower tech than their own?
Hmm, interesting.
I know that with my own electronics knowledge, I could, were I to suddenly find myself in a 15th-16th century European or Asian society, with the assistance of local craftsmen, I could easily design and build working ac generators and a telegraph system in relatively short order. I suspect that would be the case for even earlier cultures, too - all I would need is metalworkers to make copper wire and the switches; potters to make various ceramic parts, and weavers to make insulation for my wires.
Given time, I could build a working phone system, and crystal radios as well. Light bulbs and vacuum tubes wouldn't be far behind. That knowledge, and other things I know tidbits of might be able to inspire other men to build things well beyond what they should supposedly be capable of. These first attempts would surely be crude devices, and anything but pretty, but the advantages they could give a society could be staggering, particularly on the communications front.
So it seems that for many things, the discovery comes much later than the actual capability to make it. I just recently read that some scientists actually consider it an accident that lasers were not discovered and used for communications before radio was, which indicates to me that the principles the laser are based on were known well before the principles radio is based upon.
The reason I started this thread is that several hypothetical situations have occured to me, and the interesting ideas those situations generate.
Frex, what if it turns out FTL travel is simple enough to be built with TL 5-6 level equipment, it's just that it's not useful in a gravity well? Now you have a situation where the technology may not be discovered for years, decades even centuries after a society takes to space, simply because it's "old" tech. You can further have fun with that situation by that society then discovering an alien spaceship, and upon investigating it's FTL tech, suddenly having a "Doh!" moment.
Or take a peaceful society with a slow birth rate, no population pressures and plenty of natural resources that has no reason to explore space beyond curiousity and therefore hasn't discovered FTL, despite being tech level 10 or 11? What would they do when an interstellar ship suddenly appears abandoned in their star system? What if that starship turned out to be lower tech than their own?
Mark Twain used this idea in his "A Connecticut Yankee At King Arthur'skristof65 said:
Court", where the protagonist of the novel attempts with some success
to introduce "modern" technology into a medieval society.
While the novel is not exactly "serious science" throughout, it is well worth
a look for Twain's interesting ideas on the potential consequences of this
"culture clash":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Connecticut_Yankee_At_King_Arthur%27s_Court
It's also an underlying theme of Eric Flint's 1632 series of novels, where a modern West Virginia coal town ends up in the middle of Germany during the 17th century's 30 years war.rust said:
One of the series proposes is that the books the town brings with it to the past wind up more valuable than the technology like modern cars and guns.
How would our modern society react if an alien starship suddenly crashed here, and it's survivors were willing to share their knowledge with us? If there were no survivors?
If there were no survivors, I think we would try to "retro-engineer" thekristof65 said:
knowledge and technology of the aliens in a way that would be somewhat
similar to the way the scholars of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance
tried to "retro-engineer" the knowledge and technology of the Ancient
cultures from translations and artefacts.
Survivors would, in my opinion, make things far more difficult, and I
could imagine dozens of possible and even plausible outcomes of such
a situation, somewhere between a kind of enslavement of the aliens and
an enslavement of the "primitive" humans, with some kind of compromi-
se as the in my opinion most likely outcome.
Dave Chase
Mongoose
Nice to know you are the expertaspqrz said:
BTW you never defined as to what part of the Roman Empire you were referring to you all your lecturing below. I only mention this because it was not the same from the begining to the end of the considered actual Roman rule.
rust beat me to it but the was one Roman Empire wide revolt it even made the movies LOL
But there were many other ones many of them local to a sub region of the Roman Empire.
I guess during my ancient studies during college all my PhD Professors were wrong and there never was any war, slaves taken from the losing side or even forced slavery. Never knew how wrong they were until now. The evils of college and upper learning centers.
I guess I was wrong again. It was the entire Roman Empire of rule with things just coming to a head during the 4 and 5 centuries.
Sounds a bit like behind the Iron Curtain (to coin a phrase) that the Farms did not produce as well as the individual community gardens or individual plots did. And dont even try correcting on this one or I will know you are full of it.
Do you even realize where the majority of the Roman Citizens came from as Roman expanded.
Nope, owners never had sex with their slaves. Slaves always did what they were told and never sneaked around on their owners. And of course slaves grew on trees so you did not want them actually have sex because then there would be way too many slaves running around."To replace the slave with machines you would have to either accept the slaves as part of the citizenry ..."
Which is more or less exactly what the Romans did. (More on this below)
"But remember some of the slaves had been slaves for many generations so that they had no place to call home other than as a Roman slave."
Like I said, in the kindest possible way (really
This is so wrong it isn't even close to being vaguely related to being right.
Firstly, Roman slaves, by and large, were segregated into two groups - Household slaves and Estate slaves. The former were very likely to be able to gain their freedom either by purchase or as a reward for service - and, even if they didn't, might be able to breed ... the latter, well, they were segregated. Males kept well away from females (who would mostly be household slaves anyway) and were generally not, therefore, allowed or able to breed.
Holly Roman Gods, it all makes sense. NOT.
Some of what you say is true and does apply to parts of the Roman Empire during certain times of their rule. But not through out the entire Empire nor it's entire exsistance.
Indentured servitude is the term you are looking for, I think.
And since I don't know you and you don't me but you have gone to such great trouble to correct me on what slavery really is or is not. Could at least give some references to your sources. I might just take the time to read them, since after all you know me so well to know how uneducated I am.
Honestly on this point, I do not know all the history and facts behind the games. I do know how some of the were conducted but only as part of the general history of the Arenas. I know bit more about the great naval battles, festivals and stories/plays put on at the arena versus the actual fighting games.
Hmm, and next time please put <soapbox> at the start and end of your post when you get in one of the above moods to correct me (or anyone). I would be helpful, thanks.
Dave Chase
Dave Chase said:Nice to know you are the expert
Glad we're agreed 8)
Dave Chase said:
The Roman Empire ... was pretty explicit I thought.
Dave Chase said:
Indeed. And I believe I noted that as well.
Dave Chase said:
Yeah. Spartacus ... Kirk Douglas IIRC ... you did note that I mentioned Spartacus specifically? My specialty was/is the Late Republic and Early Empire ... and I should have known of the earlier Servile Wars, but I goofed ... shouldn't do things from memory :?
Dave Chase said:
Which disqualifies them as to being "major".
Dave Chase said:
Obviously they taught you about creating strawman arguments.
I never said anywhere that slaves weren't taken as prisoners of war. In fact, I didn't really mention much about the source of slaves at all.
What I said was that your claim that they had to be worked hard to prevent them from revolting was ... wrong ... and explained why it was.
I note you didn't answer that one. Missed it, perhaps, in the process of concentrating on the strawman you were setting up?
Dave Chase said:
Why would I correct you when your statement agrees with what I said?
I said that free workers work more effectively than those forced to do so ... and your example of Collective Farms vs. Private Plots is support for that from a modern perspective.
So thanks for agreeing I was correct, even if you didn't quite grasp it.
With such low levels of productivity the only way to accumulate wealth or capital was by s****ing the poor ... hence the slow but inevitable progression from free citizen farmer to serf ... or by having a class of people who could be "paid" an absolute minimum even below what a nominally part-free colonus would expect ... that's where slavery comes in.
Dave Chase said:
Indeed I do. Do you?
And, assuming that we both do ... which I will for the moment ... so what?
I also have a pretty good idea where most of the slaves came from at various periods, too, but I didn't specifically mention that because it wasn't particularly relevant.
Dave Chase said:
Another Strawman.
If you read what I said, which you seem not to have, I was referring to slave women on country estates ... latifundia rather than private residences ... there's a fair bit of evidence to support the segregation of (or absence of) the sexes in those specific situations ...
Dave Chase said:
Now, if you'd only read what I said you would have plainly seen that it was specifically referring to commercial farming operations where there is plenty of archaeological and written evidence to show that such estates had separate quarters where the men were segregated at night (and well away from where the women, if, indeed, there were any women there at all, were quartered).
Or in the Mines, where there were, likewise, few or no slave women who would certainly have been unlikely to have been made available to the male slaves who, anyway, were regarded as expendable tools and had a life expectancy of around a year.
Town Households or Country Residential Estates were quite different.
However, the majority of slaves were used in commercial operations ... the vast majority ... and the majority of them seem to have been, so the evidence suggests, separately quartered and discouraged from breeding during the periods when slaves were easily available (i.e. when the Republic and Empire were still expanding).
The reason you think it doesn't make sense is because what you think it says, indeed, doesn't. Sadly, what you think it says isn't what it actually says ... either its another of your strawmen or you simply didn't read very carefully.
Dave Chase said:
More of what I said is true than you admit, and it was more widespread than you are prepared to admit and applied for a greater time than you are prepared to admit ... again, because you don't seem to have read things carefully.
I made it quite plain that there was a trend that developed over a period of time ... and, of course, like all trends, it moved at different speeds in different places ... with ebb and flow even ... but the trend was there and it was, in the long term, quite consistent.
Sure, its not the only interpretation of the evidence possible, but its a reasonably convincing one, and even de Ste. Croix's opponents tend to agree with key elements of the argument even if they wouldn't go as far as, for example, that there were "classes" in the Graeco-Roman world or that there was a "class struggle" ... but the evidence for the increasing imposition of effective serfdom (serf = servus = slave) over time goes back right to the mid to late Republic and continues right through to the end of the Late East Roman Empire in 2206 AUC.
Dave Chase said:
And, as I understand it, that's one interpretation of how Slavery got started in the Americas ... not necessarily one I would agree with.
Certainly, as I noted, the trend is there in the Roman Empire, and beyond.
Dave Chase said:And since I don't know you and you don't me but you have gone to such great trouble to correct me on what slavery really is or is not. Could at least give some references to your sources. I might just take the time to read them, since after all you know me so well to know how uneducated I am.
Don't be so precious, I merely noted that slavery in the Roman Empire is a much more complex issue than your statements would imply and, indeed, I understand why that was the case ... its not covered in any detail in even College/University level texts ... its really mostly postgrad stuff or you have to be intererested in it (or simply read more widely than is good for you, I guess, which is how I happen to know).
Because I don't know you or your educational background I was merely assuming that you didn't know some of the more obscure stuff ... and it seems that you don't ... after all, like I said, G E M de Ste Croix's works aren't exactly a household name in survey courses on ancient history, and don't even get much traffic in undergrad courses (or didn't, certainly, when I was doing mine, lo these many years ago) ... especially, I would imagine, because he's an avowed Marxist.
As for cites ... I gave a cite. Read the original post, it's there plain as day.
You don't seem to be good at reading things that are plain in front of your face.
Dave Chase said:
And, seriously and genuinely, I was not (and am not) trying to call you ill educated because you don't ... just like I wasn't calling you that over the slavery matters ... there's no reason why you'd know it even if you did a standard undergrad Roman History course ...
It certainly wasn't covered in more than passing (so and so held Games to celebrate such and such) in the courses I did ... it's pretty obscure, just like a lot of the stuff about slavery is, too. I just happen to read widely on semi-randomly selected historical things and came across the information.
There's no reason at all that you would or should be expected to know.
If my post came across as a personal attack on you for some supposed deliberate level of ignorance, that wasn't my intention, and I tried (and obviously failed) to make that plain ... but the position you stated, my blunder (mea culpa) with the two earlier Servile Wars (mea maxima culpa) notwithstanding, is not the only interpretation and, indeed, would be thought of somewhat simplistic by people with more detailed knowledge than most people even with undergrad degrees with a history major would be likely to have.
Phil
Now you have got me hooked, off topic or not - the opportunity to getaspqrz said:
more information about the games is just too seductive ...
I am far more interested in the Etruscans than in the Romans, and there
are conflicting informations about the origins of the games, so perhaps
you could help me to get a better idea of this.
From what I could find out, the games originally were an Etruscan tradi-
tion with a purely religious background, which only turned into a public
"show" with few if any religious connotations during the early Empire.
Does this concur with the informations you have ? - Thank you.
Dave Chase
Mongoose
Infojunky said:
:lol: :lol:http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/culture/reference/tech.html
Here is a very good article about the various tech levels, and also about the "plateau" which a civilization will reach as it advances.
World Builder's Handbook addressed the various tech levels which could be found on a planet, with a single planet being at an "overall TL 12", but having some technological aspects at 13 or 14 while others might be at 10 or 11.
Here is a very good article about the various tech levels, and also about the "plateau" which a civilization will reach as it advances.
World Builder's Handbook addressed the various tech levels which could be found on a planet, with a single planet being at an "overall TL 12", but having some technological aspects at 13 or 14 while others might be at 10 or 11.
rust said:Now you have got me hooked, off topic or not - the opportunity to getaspqrz said:
more information about the games is just too seductive ...
I am far more interested in the Etruscans than in the Romans, and there
are conflicting informations about the origins of the games, so perhaps
you could help me to get a better idea of this.
From what I could find out, the games originally were an Etruscan tradi-
tion with a purely religious background, which only turned into a public
"show" with few if any religious connotations during the early Empire.
Does this concur with the informations you have ? - Thank you.
Yes, though I must say that in stuff I have read recently, the statements are more hedged than they were many years ago.
AFAICT the general consensus at the moment is that the Games were, in fact, developmentally linked with the earlier Etruscan practise, and the first ones (or some of the first, you'll understand I don't have the books with me at the moment :wink
were funeral games for prominent Romans, the course of the later developments are more disputed, and (IIRC, memory being fallible and all that) there are some suggestions of outside non-Etruscan sources having an impact (Greek? Like I said, memory is fallible and the books aren't handy)ISTR that there have been some developments in the search for the origins of the Etruscan (language, at least) and these are overturning or threatening older positions ... but since the Etruscans aren't my main interest and since I'm currently in the process of getting ready to sell the house where I live and move in the next six months or so, the books that have the information are mostly tucked away in boxes ... and you probably know all about it anyway :wink:
Phil
Phil
Infojunky said:
Actually ...
SFHotWttF is based on the plays of Plautus -- specifically Pseudolus, Miles Gloriosus and Mostellaria ... so it isn't entirely unconnected with reality :shock:
Note, of course, that its about Household (and therefore, in absolute and in relative terms, privileged) slaves and not the much more numerous slaves that were held in country estates, mines etc.
Phil
Thank you very much.aspqrz said:
The "link period" between Etruscan and Roman has always been rather
"hazy", especially because of the few reliable knowledge about the ori-
gin of the Etruscans and therefore their specific cultural heritage.
I wonder whether some clever geneticist may one day be able to solve
the mystery for good, but until now I have not yet seen any truly con-
vincing results - although the latest (known to me) hypothesis that they
are descendants or close relatives of the Hittites of todays Anatolia is
rather fascinating.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
aspqrz said:
Pseudolus's master: "I have the most worthless slave in all of rome"
Random passer-by: "Oh ! You speak of Pseudolus"
One of my favorite lines....of many in that movie; and, as you point out, straight out of Plautus, IIRC.
On a related point, and not to stir up argument, some pretty cogent arguments have been made that the lot of the houshold slave was also pretty grim; especially when one considers the often overlooked class of "poor slaves" which, in fact are the slaves owned by the poor, and greatly outnumbered the upper and (pseudo) middle class household servile population. They were far less likely to ever see freedman status, could have children but had no rights to retain them (being a useful commodity) and often very short lifespans.
They were quite literally often shared household appliances, and as they were often either rented out or owned in a club, were worked HARD, and generally "replaced" rather than cared for when sick or injured. Think of a middle class house slave as being a washing machine in a nice suburban house; now think of being a washing machine in a cheap laundromat in a tenement neighborhood.
And, BTW, you are spot on about the segregation of slaves in the latafundia, mines and sweatshop factories; keep in mind though, that they were generally forced labor of the Dachau concentration camp variety, and generally worked to death in about a year -six months in any place with a hard winter (guess why ?). I suspect that the segregation was more for control purposes than to prevent breeding; hard to see how much of that would be possible under those conditions (and no, I'm not being sarcastic).
Lots of unwanted or unaffordable household slaves, especially "poor slaves" ended up in these labor camps; indeed , Rome had an insatiable need for slaves, and little opportunity to breed the ones they had - thus the lack of generational slaves -although they did exist in pleanty of areas outside the agribusiness areas of rome. And thus the constant need for slaves as tribute and captives. The Roman entrepot island (I forget its name) specializing in slaves, handled literally thousands a day , if I recall correctly -the number was staggering.
GypsyComet
Emperor Mongoose
"Second Time Around!"
