3 ms·

Maybe this is legit, but 500-1500 CE seems the worst historical period to be testing such models. Neither civilized areas nor technology (except in China) chang

by zeteo 13y ago

Maybe this is legit, but 500-1500 CE seems the worst historical period to be testing such models. Neither civilized areas nor technology (except in China) changed much during that period. Models that were accurate for periods such as 3500-2000 BCE or 1500-1900 CE would be much more interesting.

scarmig 13y ago
Where do you get the idea that 500-1500 CE didn't change much? More happened then than 500 BCE - 500 CE, 1500 BCE - 500 BCE, or really any millenium except 1500 CE - 2500 CE.
- zeteo 13y ago
  > Where do you get the idea that 500-1500 CE didn't change much? If we consider military technology, gunpowder had hardly begun to have an impact. Machiavelli's Art of War (1521) still recommends Roman military equipment and methods. Armored cavalry, pikemen, archers dominated the battlefields in 1500 CE; all familiar to Byzantines and Sassanids 1000 years before. And the centers of civilization in the Old World (Fertile Crescent, Mediterranean, India, China) were pretty much established by 300 BCE if not well before that.
  - iskander 13y ago
    What about medicine? The leap from Galen (whose methods dominated Europe for a shockingly long time) to Islamic-era methods was pretty dramatic. You have the invention of modern surgical methods in Cordoba in the 10th century (many still used), use of antiseptics to clean wounds, general elevation of evidence-based methods for pharmacology, rise of teaching hospitals, etc.. Medicine doesn't necessarily shift the borders of empire but it does dramatically affect the quality and duration of a typical person's life. The difference between being born in the 6th century vs. the 11th would (to us) I think be painful brutal existence vs. civilization.
  - vacri 13y ago
    If you define technology as 'gunpowder', then of course not. But technology is far, far more than this. The idea of the 'dark ages' in this time period is generally scoffed at by historians. Like, for example, the number 0. It rose to prominence right in the middle of this period. Or in agriculture, we have the birth of the three-field system, which was a massive step forward, along with horse collars and heavy ploughs. The beginnings of the modern musical notation system happened smack-bang in the middle of this period. Cast iron was invented in the middle ages. Naval technology was steadily on the improve, from the Vikings in the middle of the period who reached North America, to the end of the period when the Spanish 'discovered' America, and trading vessels were always getting bigger with longer ranges. Social 'technology' like the Magna Carta acted like keystones for formalising and limiting the power of monarchs. Other social technology sees the birth of federated republics, like the Holy Roman Empire. Windmills became common as a cheaper way to grind grain. Horseshoes came into vogue right in the middle of the period - a significant advance. Vaults and buttresses allowed the construction of ever-greater sizes of buildings - and the wheelbarrow to help build them, simple as it seems today, was a middle-ages invention of significance. And, surprisingly, soap was born in this period. The saddle and the stirrup were also widely implemented at this time, allowing cavalry to take a significantly different and powerful role in warfare. The middle east in particular is generally considered to have had its golden period during this time, a flourishing place of learning and technological advancement. Admittedly I know much less of eastern technological development, but certainly in the middle east and europe, it wasn't stagnant. So sure, if technology is "gunpowder", there wasn't much of it in that period (though the same could be said of your armoured cavalry and the period before it). Technology is not "gunpowder" though, and it was continuously undergoing change throughout 500-1500.
    - zeteo 13y ago
      I don't "define technology as 'gunpowder'", it's the article that says the model uses military technology: >The borders are seeded with military technology, starting with the use of horses. That technology then spreads as societies fight it out virtually. There are periods in which military technology varied significantly. 500-1500 CE is not one of them.
      - 13y ago
  - contingencies 13y ago
    the centers of civilization in the Old World (Fertile Crescent, Mediterranean, India, China) were pretty much established by 300 BCE if not well before that. So wrong... huge portions of Asia had massive material changes during that period. The rise and fall of multiple empires in many of the major population centers (Cambodia's Angkor, Funan and predecessors, Central Asia, China's Shu, India's significant naval and land empires, Indonesia's various naval civilizations, Myanmar's Ava and Pegu, Thailand's Dvaravati, Vietnam's Champa, Dong Son and Zhenla), extreme changes to the structure and material culture of societies through Buddhism, the expansion of China, the Silk Road, Hinduism, Islam, the Mongols. China re-invaded Vietnam in 1403 with significant use of gunpowder[1], in the first major gunpowder utilizing land war in the region, commemorated by Chinese imperially commissioned French copperplate engravings[2]. They then mounted gunpowder weapons on a huge fleet of ships and sailed as far as east Africa in seven separate voyages[3]. [1] http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=279471 http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=279471 [2] http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=588051&objectid=234453#more-views http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/coll... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He
iskander 13y ago
>Neither civilized areas nor technology (except in China) changed much during that period. The extremely sudden rise of Islam seems like a pretty big change to me. You had Western Roman influence in North Africa, a big functioning Eastern Roman Empire, and a thriving Sassanid Persian empire, which all got swept away. This political/military upheaval led quickly to a golden era of learning and inquiry that the world hadn't seen in half a millenium...which then itself was swept away by the Mongol invasion (and sacking of Baghdad in 1258). If a simulation could predict extremely important upheavals of that sort I'd be pretty damn impressed.
- zeteo 13y ago
  Yes, but the article talks about military technologies and their impact on the extent of civilized areas. Neither Islamic nor Mongol invasions were based on new technologies (if anything, they had less sophisticated equipment than their opponents). Also these invasions didn't result in significant changes of the civilized area (cf. the American frontier or Russian expansion into Siberia).
  - iskander 13y ago
    Good comparison with the big inland empires. Any idea what qualifies as 'civilization' in the ground truth data?

by zeteo 13y ago

scarmig 13y ago

Where do you get the idea that 500-1500 CE didn't change much? More happened then than 500 BCE - 500 CE, 1500 BCE - 500 BCE, or really any millenium except 1500 CE - 2500 CE.

zeteo 13y ago
> Where do you get the idea that 500-1500 CE didn't change much? If we consider military technology, gunpowder had hardly begun to have an impact. Machiavelli's Art of War (1521) still recommends Roman military equipment and methods. Armored cavalry, pikemen, archers dominated the battlefields in 1500 CE; all familiar to Byzantines and Sassanids 1000 years before. And the centers of civilization in the Old World (Fertile Crescent, Mediterranean, India, China) were pretty much established by 300 BCE if not well before that.
- iskander 13y ago
  What about medicine? The leap from Galen (whose methods dominated Europe for a shockingly long time) to Islamic-era methods was pretty dramatic. You have the invention of modern surgical methods in Cordoba in the 10th century (many still used), use of antiseptics to clean wounds, general elevation of evidence-based methods for pharmacology, rise of teaching hospitals, etc.. Medicine doesn't necessarily shift the borders of empire but it does dramatically affect the quality and duration of a typical person's life. The difference between being born in the 6th century vs. the 11th would (to us) I think be painful brutal existence vs. civilization.
- vacri 13y ago
  If you define technology as 'gunpowder', then of course not. But technology is far, far more than this. The idea of the 'dark ages' in this time period is generally scoffed at by historians. Like, for example, the number 0. It rose to prominence right in the middle of this period. Or in agriculture, we have the birth of the three-field system, which was a massive step forward, along with horse collars and heavy ploughs. The beginnings of the modern musical notation system happened smack-bang in the middle of this period. Cast iron was invented in the middle ages. Naval technology was steadily on the improve, from the Vikings in the middle of the period who reached North America, to the end of the period when the Spanish 'discovered' America, and trading vessels were always getting bigger with longer ranges. Social 'technology' like the Magna Carta acted like keystones for formalising and limiting the power of monarchs. Other social technology sees the birth of federated republics, like the Holy Roman Empire. Windmills became common as a cheaper way to grind grain. Horseshoes came into vogue right in the middle of the period - a significant advance. Vaults and buttresses allowed the construction of ever-greater sizes of buildings - and the wheelbarrow to help build them, simple as it seems today, was a middle-ages invention of significance. And, surprisingly, soap was born in this period. The saddle and the stirrup were also widely implemented at this time, allowing cavalry to take a significantly different and powerful role in warfare. The middle east in particular is generally considered to have had its golden period during this time, a flourishing place of learning and technological advancement. Admittedly I know much less of eastern technological development, but certainly in the middle east and europe, it wasn't stagnant. So sure, if technology is "gunpowder", there wasn't much of it in that period (though the same could be said of your armoured cavalry and the period before it). Technology is not "gunpowder" though, and it was continuously undergoing change throughout 500-1500.
  - zeteo 13y ago
    I don't "define technology as 'gunpowder'", it's the article that says the model uses military technology: >The borders are seeded with military technology, starting with the use of horses. That technology then spreads as societies fight it out virtually. There are periods in which military technology varied significantly. 500-1500 CE is not one of them.
    - 13y ago
- contingencies 13y ago
  the centers of civilization in the Old World (Fertile Crescent, Mediterranean, India, China) were pretty much established by 300 BCE if not well before that. So wrong... huge portions of Asia had massive material changes during that period. The rise and fall of multiple empires in many of the major population centers (Cambodia's Angkor, Funan and predecessors, Central Asia, China's Shu, India's significant naval and land empires, Indonesia's various naval civilizations, Myanmar's Ava and Pegu, Thailand's Dvaravati, Vietnam's Champa, Dong Son and Zhenla), extreme changes to the structure and material culture of societies through Buddhism, the expansion of China, the Silk Road, Hinduism, Islam, the Mongols. China re-invaded Vietnam in 1403 with significant use of gunpowder[1], in the first major gunpowder utilizing land war in the region, commemorated by Chinese imperially commissioned French copperplate engravings[2]. They then mounted gunpowder weapons on a huge fleet of ships and sailed as far as east Africa in seven separate voyages[3]. [1] http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=279471 http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=279471 [2] http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=588051&objectid=234453#more-views http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/coll... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He

iskander 13y ago

>Neither civilized areas nor technology (except in China) changed much during that period. The extremely sudden rise of Islam seems like a pretty big change to me. You had Western Roman influence in North Africa, a big functioning Eastern Roman Empire, and a thriving Sassanid Persian empire, which all got swept away. This political/military upheaval led quickly to a golden era of learning and inquiry that the world hadn't seen in half a millenium...which then itself was swept away by the Mongol invasion (and sacking of Baghdad in 1258). If a simulation could predict extremely important upheavals of that sort I'd be pretty damn impressed.

zeteo 13y ago
Yes, but the article talks about military technologies and their impact on the extent of civilized areas. Neither Islamic nor Mongol invasions were based on new technologies (if anything, they had less sophisticated equipment than their opponents). Also these invasions didn't result in significant changes of the civilized area (cf. the American frontier or Russian expansion into Siberia).
- iskander 13y ago
  Good comparison with the big inland empires. Any idea what qualifies as 'civilization' in the ground truth data?