Same-tech world

I know it's an ASBish idea, but it's stimulating.
Let's imagine, outside every kind of historical truth, that ANY people/civilization on the Earth has the SAME EXACT technological advance, though keeping its own tradtions as to language, religion, culture.
So, for example, New Guineans don't remain to the stone age, Amerindians don't stick to Neolithic, when iron is first worked its use is immediate EVERYWHERE, the discovery of electricty leads to the lightning ros in any civilization...
I repeat, I know it's impossible, but try to imagine this and worl ut this world.
No "superior civilizations" in technology, with all the imaginable consequences...
Only an equilibrate, constant struggle for resources, power, exploration and knowledge of the world.
 
The seeds of impossibility are sown with your insistance that each society "keeping its own tradtions as to language, religion, culture." This fairly reminds me about the Civilization boardgame, which my friend tells me, runs the same way. There seems to be a complete ignorance of distance and its impact on development.

Undoubtedly what would be the strangest thing would be the magical appearences of certain things amid very isolated peoples. For example, does the minute the Wright Flyer successfully flies for the first time a duplicate copy immediately appears in the Amazon Rain forest for some local tribe?
 
I wonder if something similar is starting to happen in this world.

Due to commerce, most technology gets in the hands of everyone, except techs that are considered of strategic (military) importance. In today's world, distance is not an important factor in the spread of techs: rather, security concerns (both economic and military), copyright/patent issues, and adquisitive power.

What do you think?
 
Well, that is certainly happening to a degree, especially with the increase in the military's use of "off the shelf" technology. This does make possible a particular 'universality' internationally, tho probably not to the same degree as presented so many times in Hollywood movies. I would wonder, as suggested by the recent case against Microsoft, if one could see two versions of Windows developed strictly by legal decision.
 
I think it becomes a little less ASBish if we simply postulate that all centers of civilisation (what John Keegan called 'Areas of First Preference') maintain roughly the same technology level. That way, the Samoyed, Wampar and Kayapo will not get steam engines the same year the British and French do, but Persia, Turkey, India, China, Japan and whoever stands in in the Americas do. (the Americas are tough - maybe a much earlier regular contact from, say, around 1200 BC? Technically it would have been possible)

This would very likely result in a society much closer in feel to the later medieval period (the real medieval period, not Hollywood's burping-and-quaffing, they-can't-see-it's-lycra-in-a-group-shot middle ages). THe dominant cultures would look down on the barbarians, but they'd have to find some kind of arrangement to coexist because they have no edge over each other. Trade is far more equitable and diplomatic because if the Pulo Islanders don't want to sell their nutmeg to the Dutch then that's that. No 'civilising missions with a firm guiding hand' allowed. Also, there'd be no third-level ethnicities (clients of clients, so to speak), only first and second-tier nations. There would probably also be a lot more wars (more matched opponents means more people think they have a chance of winning), but also the mechanisms for limiting them. And a LOT more people would be learning Chinese :)
 
carlton_bach said:
I think it becomes a little less ASBish if we simply postulate that all centers of civilisation (what John Keegan called 'Areas of First Preference') maintain roughly the same technology level. That way, the Samoyed, Wampar and Kayapo will not get steam engines the same year the British and French do, but Persia, Turkey, India, China, Japan and whoever stands in in the Americas do. (the Americas are tough - maybe a much earlier regular contact from, say, around 1200 BC? Technically it would have been possible)

This would very likely result in a society much closer in feel to the later medieval period (the real medieval period, not Hollywood's burping-and-quaffing, they-can't-see-it's-lycra-in-a-group-shot middle ages). THe dominant cultures would look down on the barbarians, but they'd have to find some kind of arrangement to coexist because they have no edge over each other. Trade is far more equitable and diplomatic because if the Pulo Islanders don't want to sell their nutmeg to the Dutch then that's that. No 'civilising missions with a firm guiding hand' allowed. Also, there'd be no third-level ethnicities (clients of clients, so to speak), only first and second-tier nations. There would probably also be a lot more wars (more matched opponents means more people think they have a chance of winning), but also the mechanisms for limiting them. And a LOT more people would be learning Chinese :)

Well, the "Areas of first preference" were roughly comparable technologically in the 16th century, at least for Europe, East Asia and the Middle East (The Indian ocean area seems a bit more backward, judging from the way little Portugal blew through the local opposition): the Europeans weren't up to imposing "civilizing missions" on the Chinese or the Ottomans (indeed, the Ottomans at the time were trying to impose a "civilizing mission" of their own in Europe).

Speaking of rough comparability: if we posit _all_major technologies developing at the same time, history rapidly diverges from OTL: for a single example, the stirrup being developed in Rome at the same time as in China will have major effects on Roman military practice, and likely seriously change the nature and timing of the Empire's collapse. Perhaps we can specify a time at which the major civilizations begin to "track?" (For another example: if technology continues to be duplicated, the Japanese get the gun earlier and never give it up, thereby eliminating the Samurai as the central figure of Japanese society centuries earlier, since armies are fought by large masses of peasant recruits with guns, not noblemen with swords and bows).

As per native Americans: well, we might posit an ealier development of agriculture in the Americas. The trouble is that this changes history thousands of years ago, utterly butterflying the Aztecs and Incas away...perhaps we are better off assuming "X" and "Y" cultures centered in South and Meso-America, with whatever cutural characteristics one cares to imagine, but with gunpowder, steel, and the printing press when Europeans arrive in 1492. (Might not have quite the same set of farm equipment, tho': no draft animals. Or do we assume shipwrecked Carthaginians with pigs, cows and horses in 120 BC? This also gives us a reservoir of diseases to build up their immunities).

Re the Chinese: as I said, in the 1500's the Chinese had the technology to compete effectively with Europeans: the important thing was that they didn't wan't to, at least not in the "overseas colonization" gig. OTOH, if the Chinese develop gunpowder technology as fast as Europeans do, they will be rather less concerned with invasion from the Steppes, and may pay more attention to people and influences coming from across the seas.

Thought: when we say technology develops at the same rate, do we mean just the hardware, or institutional and organizational developments as well? The British conquered much of India in the late 1700's with weapons little more advanced than the locals, and indeed with largely local armies: they just happened to be better at the _theory_of the thing, and had the advantage of belonging to a politically sophisticated state they felt loyal to. Better cannon and windmills won't necessarily keep the Ottomans from getting their asses handed to them by 18th century professional armies.

Once again On The Other Hand, it's hard to see how aspects of culture and society don't change profoundly if the technology level is different. Being able to create some item of technolgy is not the same as using it. Various failed efforts took place to create a printing industry in the Ottoman empire before the 19th century. If the duplication of European technolgy by other societies is to mean anything, these technologies must be _used_. And if the Ottomans are using the printing press, that means they are reading more, which means more rapid distribution of knowledge and ideas, changes in the education system, changes in the beurocracy, etc. (Indeed, if the Ottomans are to keep up with Europe, they will have to have a scientific/industrial revolution, which means BIG changes in society, ways of thought, etc.)

One more thought on the Ottomans: looking at the size of their empire on the map in 1560. If they keep up with Europe both organizationally and technologically, a lot more people are going to be learning Turkish (Ottoman, rather...) as well.

Bruce
 

Xen

Banned
Perhaps the best way is to have the Europeans take Africa and the other third world countries kicking and screaming into the nineteenth and later twentieth century. Of course this would be cultural genocide, the people would have to be united behind a common tongue, perhaps the language of their Imperial masters, erase all lines of ethnicitiy which will have to be done by force. After the "Rape of the Third World" they will be much wealthier, but more like their former Imperial masters than their own culture.
 
I think Carlton got the point. Just thinking the tech level remains roughly equal throughout all the major centers of civilizations (however, leaving no stone age populations even in isolated areas), you can also imagine Mayas discovering Europe or West Africa by accident, or the Bushmen discover Antarctica, or the Australians exploring the Pacific...
 
bm2617 said:
Speaking of rough comparability: if we posit _all_major technologies developing at the same time, history rapidly diverges from OTL: for a single example, the stirrup being developed in Rome at the same time as in China will have major effects on Roman military practice, and likely seriously change the nature and timing of the Empire's collapse. Perhaps we can specify a time at which the major civilizations begin to "track?" (For another example: if technology continues to be duplicated, the Japanese get the gun earlier and never give it up, thereby eliminating the Samurai as the central figure of Japanese society centuries earlier, since armies are fought by large masses of peasant recruits with guns, not noblemen with swords and bows).

I don't think the stirrup counts as major technology (and yes, I am aware what Lytton White wrirtes about it, but there have been experiments with Roman riding gear lately that indicate the story of the 'rise of chivalry' is far more complicated). However, let's assume the romans adopt it as soon as it reaches them,. and that it reaches them within say a century of invention (at that age, that is a reasonably fast tracking time for technological innovation). What difference would it make? Probably very little, unless the Romans also manage to developa system that allowsd them to reliably recruit, train, and maintain at battle readiness heavy cavalry without jeopardising the integrity of their state or the power of the court.

As per native Americans: well, we might posit an ealier development of agriculture in the Americas. The trouble is that this changes history thousands of years ago, utterly butterflying the Aztecs and Incas away...perhaps we are better off assuming "X" and "Y" cultures centered in South and Meso-America, with whatever cutural characteristics one cares to imagine, but with gunpowder, steel, and the printing press when Europeans arrive in 1492. (Might not have quite the same set of farm equipment, tho': no draft animals. Or do we assume shipwrecked Carthaginians with pigs, cows and horses in 120 BC? This also gives us a reservoir of diseases to build up their immunities).

I don't think a bunch of shipwrecked Carthaghinians, Greeks, Egyptians, Welsh or Portuguese will do the trick. It didn't work with the Vikings, and they came back several times (btw, I believe in multiple discoveries so I wouldn't be surprised if we could prove Carthaginian contact OTL). To maintain the tech development we need lasting contact - trade would be best. It wouldn't be in large volumes at first, but if the Carthaginians figure out you can get gold for iron, bronze, domestic animals, glass, and other Mediterranean products they will come back, and the natives will want horses - so horses will be sold eventually. As will cows, sheep, goats (there go the mountain forests...), donkeys, chickens etc. An additional benefit would be the earlier boost to high seas navigation (crossing oceans isn't really difficult in terms of seamanship, it is scary. Took Europeans generations to feel comfortable at sea. If we start the process earlier we could have regular transoceanic shipping by, what, 300 AD? Oh, Gods, the butterflies!

Re the Chinese: as I said, in the 1500's the Chinese had the technology to compete effectively with Europeans: the important thing was that they didn't wan't to, at least not in the "overseas colonization" gig. OTOH, if the Chinese develop gunpowder technology as fast as Europeans do, they will be rather less concerned with invasion from the Steppes, and may pay more attention to people and influences coming from across the seas.

I think that even without the interest, once the Europeans turn up they will have to be checked. Now, if the rest of the world managed to track Europe on navigation, applied science, warfare and knowledge transmission in the crucial 1400s and 1500s there is no reason why the Chinese, the kingdom of Cola, the Mamluks, Ottomans, Koreans, Japanese, Mughals, Persians or American cultures shouldn't float their own wooden walls (matter of fact the Ottomans and their Maghrebin subjects did in the 16th and 17th cent.) STill, even without high seas fleets, they would be able to keep the Europeans out of their land. assuming Europe's maritime enthusiasm from OTL stays the same (actually rather likely, given its geographic placing) that places European traders in a position similar to the Italian sea republics or the Arabs in the Indian Ocean pre-1300: dominant long-distance traders, not all-conquering colossi.

Thought: when we say technology develops at the same rate, do we mean just the hardware, or institutional and organizational developments as well? The British conquered much of India in the late 1700's with weapons little more advanced than the locals, and indeed with largely local armies: they just happened to be better at the _theory_of the thing, and had the advantage of belonging to a politically sophisticated state they felt loyal to. Better cannon and windmills won't necessarily keep the Ottomans from getting their asses handed to them by 18th century professional armies.

Once again On The Other Hand, it's hard to see how aspects of culture and society don't change profoundly if the technology level is different. Being able to create some item of technolgy is not the same as using it. Various failed efforts took place to create a printing industry in the Ottoman empire before the 19th century. If the duplication of European technolgy by other societies is to mean anything, these technologies must be _used_. And if the Ottomans are using the printing press, that means they are reading more, which means more rapid distribution of knowledge and ideas, changes in the education system, changes in the beurocracy, etc. (Indeed, if the Ottomans are to keep up with Europe, they will have to have a scientific/industrial revolution, which means BIG changes in society, ways of thought, etc.)

One more thought on the Ottomans: looking at the size of their empire on the map in 1560. If they keep up with Europe both organizationally and technologically, a lot more people are going to be learning Turkish (Ottoman, rather...) as well.

Technology and mentality always go hand in hand, so in order to get a world where the major civilisations track each other we need to have changes in that department. (I would even go so far to say that certain social processes and organisations *are* technology in a sense. Think of the invention of 'army' or 'factory')
I am sure, though, that the resulting social changes would not be as one-sided and westernising as they were OTL. THere would be ways of fitting the organisational and technological advances into other societies - so to speak, the Chinese, Mayan or Indian ways to run factories and printing presses. That's the difficult bit, of course. In China, I would expect printing to become successful with the spread of instructional and entertainment literature and, if allowed to flower freely, would then spread from the scholarly and would-be scholarly market into other applications. The Islamic world would most likely have presses attached to mosques and schools at first, run as pious foundations rather than artisanal businesses. Factories could be built on a village community, retainership or slave basis as well as 'free' labour.
 
Top