BLANDCorporatio wrote:Brush up your rhetoric. That first paragraph is merely the intro, stylistic spice to give the post more flavour than a mere recitation of reasons pro or con. You'll note that the rest of the post addresses your initial argument as written. To wit, I brought (lack of) infrastructure as a way to explain slow tech progress-
Infrastructure--Labs, libraries, factories, power, are not required to improve technology in a Middle-ages period. The water wheel. The Printing press, the scientific method, improved casting techniques, universal literacy, schools that go beyond the three Rs then kick the children back out to go farm, a belief that the common man can make a difference, that people are not just victims. I thought that was what we were discussing, not...
I doubt you've watched stuff like that. This is not about how they built the Pyramids, or Stonehenge, or for that matter the infinitely more challenging to design cathedrals or barrels. It's about: you're on a deserted island. Make a fridge. Nope, there aren't parts of one conveniently scattered about.
I also think that when you say "infrastructure is not necessary", you yourself are doing some rhetorical spice. You don't really believe that if you managed to grab the most detailed schematics of a car, and found yourself in Dark Age Britain at Camelot, you'd be able to build one, do you?
...building cars in camelot. You claim the transistors out of flint argument was just a stylistic device, then you do it again? Tecchnological progress is not technological leaps. And I wasn't denegrating small leaps when I said just variations on a theme. I was denegrating mostly cosmetic changes. 50,000 years and they had a few arrowhead types, some triangles, some ovals, some long pointy arrow heads. That's bad. Real, real bad. Moving up from flint arrowheads to copper arrowheads is significant progress. Because it involves a forge, and not just hitting a rock with another rock.
oh, and "Your on a deserted island, build a refrigerator," is a freaking Reality show crap. It's not real. That's why I dispise reality show crap. I watch educational shows. So yea, your right. I don't watch survivor. With people playing little games and eating worms to get points, and backstab the other players. I mean really, WTF over? If you alone on a deserted island, building a refrigerator is the last thing on your mind. I assure you. And again. Technological progress is not building a refrigerator on a deserted island. Technological progress improving from you are, not jumping to where you were. If your naked on a deserted island, building a fire alone is technological progress. Then using that fire to smoke meat for storage and cook. Construct a wheel and then stick it under a tub and you have a wheelbarrow. Baby steps.
Books about someone going back in time, or walking through a portal to some technologically backwards planet, never have he protagonist somehow bring this civ back up to modern standards. But they do bring some modern ideas that make a significant difference. Sanitation for one. There's some technological progress for you. Toilets and sewers rather than throwing offal out on the streets.
You also explain why humanity's tech progress has been slow, without resorting to natural incuriosity. So maybe we agree after all.
I can think of no other excuse for 50,000 years of lack of significant progress, other than lack of curiosity, and a lot of cultural pressure to conform to the way things are, as opposed to a cultural impetus to make the way things are now, better. Belief in yourself, belief that change can be better, and the belief that curiosity and reason are good things, not bad habits that should be beat out of children.
Infidel wrote:The Erfworld time period is set in what is a technologically stagnant period for Earth. They thought they had figured out everything there was to know about war too. It is going to be a while before the renaissance.
Ok, but what about war? Would you be able to find anyone today that would be better, consistently and always better, at leading the armies of the period, than the better generals of that period? This is actually what we are discussing here.
No, reading back thread, the discussion is explicitly concerning the reasons Erfworld technology has not been progressing independently of Parson's influence. Not, why can't Parson break the world with even more borrowed tech. If you would like to add this side discussion, then this is fine, although, I disagree.
And to answer your question, hindsight is 20/20. Any military historian who truly understands the strategies involved, and had the leadership skills necessary, could re-do any of those battles and come out better probably. But this isn't an alternative history novel, which I usually despise if they change real history, not simply perceived history. Alternative history is fun if we still end up where we are now, but for very different reasons than we believe. Alternative History is not so fun when they Change realized history with something like, "What if Inca's took over the world?"
Even the law is sometimes interpreted "in spirit", other times "in letter". It's not presumption, it's reading between the lines. And in this case, by loudly saying what I think the poster wanted said gives them the chance to correct me if necessary, or might improve a slight miscommunication.
And poorly. And it is presumption and I hardly ever see the assumer be correct. The problem with reading between the lines is: there is nothing between the lines. Any reading between the lines is putting words in someone else's mouth, and that is presumption. Saying, "I think he means", is an acceptable assumption, saying, "He means." is presumption. Moving forward on assumptions is a fact of life, and necessary, but one should never lose sight of the fact that it is an assumption. The world is full enough of people speaking loudly, and shy people will often not step in to correct a misquote if it is spoken loudly enough. Just like 9 out of 10 customers don't complain to management when they have a problem, they complain to their friends instead. I hate, "The loudest person wins!" style of argumentation. Reasonable people usually don't want to raise their voice to the level necessary to put the misinformed in their place.
Nice quote on the Vicker's gun. My first thought when I started reading that was, "How did they keep those guns cool?" I dunno that this is a good example though. A crew fed gun isn't really an example of two soldiers one gun since that gun is significantly more effective than two standard issue weapons. And many gun crews would still possess their personal weapon. But over 1million rounds and still kept on chugging, totally awesome.