Is there a technical reason they weren't invented until the French Revolution? They seem quite simple to me, but maybe I'm missing something. :unsure:
Is it just one of those things like the stirrup that looks obvious in hindsight and could have been invented and put into use a thousand years earlier?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_line
Where is the link to the news article where you learned about Semaphore Towers
Quote from: sbr on May 14, 2011, 12:43:36 AM
Where is the link to the news article where you learned about Semaphore Towers
I don't read 18th century French newspapers.
Centralisation and the power of nation-states are the big issues.
I don't see any big reason why the Romans couldn't have done it, had it been invented back then. But of course, even if it was in fact invented back then big infrastructure projects don't just happen and semaphores are far from perfect. It's not one of those things that get employed automatically just because it's invented.
Quote from: Tyr on May 14, 2011, 03:09:21 AM
Centralisation and the power of nation-states are the big issues.
Someone on another forum mentioned that you really need the telescope for this, otherwise you just have to build and man too many towers.
Yeah thinking about it Newtonian physics was pretty obvious.
Quote from: jamesww on May 14, 2011, 06:05:21 AM
Yeah thinking about it Newtonian physics was pretty obvious.
When Tim strikes you with his cane he can blame gravity. :cool:
Quote from: jamesww on May 14, 2011, 06:05:21 AM
Yeah thinking about it Newtonian physics was pretty obvious.
Indeed it was, and physics was understood empirically for millennia before Newton formulated (or invented) the math necessary to quantify it.
Sometimes, simple ideas don't occur to people. Romans didn't have windmills. There was no material reason why this should be.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2011, 10:42:52 AM
Sometimes, simple ideas don't occur to people. Romans didn't have windmills. There was no material reason why this should be.
I suspect the Romans and earlier peoples didn't use them because they didn't have strong prevailing winds like those of the Middle East, which allowed fixed-direction windmills.
You are right, but the stirrup probably remains the better example of your argument.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 14, 2011, 03:52:31 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 14, 2011, 03:09:21 AM
Centralisation and the power of nation-states are the big issues.
Someone on another forum mentioned that you really need the telescope for this, otherwise you just have to build and man too many towers.
Yeah, that's a biggy. Was a few centuries of telescoping before they emerged though.
There was one cool similar system I read about which was used in 19th century Japan, rather than having big permanent towers they instead had men stationed on mountains waving flags to send messages (rice prices) from Tokyo to Osaka (IIRC). Strange something like that which doesn't require so big an initial investment wouldn't have popped up elsewhere.
The closest we get is beacon systems. For emergencies only.
Quote from: Tyr on May 14, 2011, 05:08:19 PM
The closest we get is beacon systems. For emergencies only.
Not necessarily, just a bit unwieldy. "Wouldst thou cyber?"
Quote from: The Brain on May 14, 2011, 05:25:42 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 14, 2011, 05:08:19 PM
The closest we get is beacon systems. For emergencies only.
Not necessarily, just a bit unwieldy. "Wouldst thou cyber?"
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2011, 05:04:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2011, 10:42:52 AM
Sometimes, simple ideas don't occur to people. Romans didn't have windmills. There was no material reason why this should be.
I suspect the Romans and earlier peoples didn't use them because they didn't have strong prevailing winds like those of the Middle East, which allowed fixed-direction windmills.
You are right, but the stirrup probably remains the better example of your argument.
Not really no. There's plenty of strong prevailing winds all over the previous territories of the Roman Empire.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 15, 2011, 01:16:06 PM
Not really no. There's plenty of strong prevailing winds all over the previous territories of the Roman Empire.
And we don't know that they didn't use some kind of windmill in those areas of the empire. It seems a logical extension of the sails that people were using on their ships. In Rome and Italy, where the historians tended to live, not so much.
I believe some windmills have been built in the Mediterranean. Another example is the wheelbarrow. There's not much evidence of Wheelbarrows in Rome.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 15, 2011, 04:00:39 PM
I believe some windmills have been built in the Mediterranean. Another example is the wheelbarrow. There's not much evidence of Wheelbarrows in Rome.
They only had wheelbarrows in some parts of Ethiopia when I was there last year. I wondered what the reason for that might be. In other regions they carried 20-30 liter canisters of water on their backs for kilometers each day.
Wheelbarrows like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ngari/4405137094/
Economic and biological reasons are the best reasons behind the great stirrup controversy and the wheelbarrow issue.
Regarding the stirrups, they are not as useful as they might appear. Modern day experimental archeology has pretty much settled the issue of the usefulness of stirrups. They do not improve performance in fighting except with the use of sword and/or mace from a stationary or slow moving horse. Stirrups were not used even by Cataphracts. In all likelyhood they became popular as large warhorses started being bred. I think the best explanation for why stirrups were not used at earlier times is that stirrups require a certain kind of saddle. You need the solid saddle to make use of the stirrup and the stirrup isn't of any use unless you have the large horse. It makes perfect sense to me that stirrups don't get invented until the time when the right kind of horses exist. The ancients were not stupid.
Regarding wheelbarrows, they seem to not have spread like wildfire after they were "re-invented" in the middle ages. Wheelbarrows existed in the far east and quite possible in ancient greece as well. A better explanation might be that certain economic conditions are required for wheelbarrows to be built and used. The ancients were not stupid.
Wheel barrows are a faff, and they don't let you carry all that much more.
Hell. Why bother with a wheel barrow at all if you have a pull/animal drawn cart?
Quote from: Tyr on May 15, 2011, 06:26:18 PM
Wheel barrows are a faff, and they don't let you carry all that much more.
WTF, could you sound any gayer? You make Marty sound like the paragon of heteronormative behavior.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2011, 07:16:23 PM
WTF, could you sound any gayer? You make Marty sound like the paragon of heteronormative behavior.
How's that. A man who can carry a wheelbarrow load in his arms is a big brawny manly man.
Viking: where'd you get that about the useless stirrups? Everything I've read (and I've read it countless times) is that the stirrup is what changed cavalry from nancy boys who pranced around and slapped people with their swords to knights couching their lances and charging home.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2011, 07:35:44 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2011, 07:16:23 PM
WTF, could you sound any gayer? You make Marty sound like the paragon of heteronormative behavior.
How's that. A man who can carry a wheelbarrow load in his arms is a big brawny manly man.
Anyone who uses faff in a sentence should be drug out into the street and shot! :angry:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2011, 07:51:39 PM
Anyone who uses faff in a sentence should be drug out into the street and shot! :angry:
I'd like to see you try. Dude's got gigantic superpowered chav arms. Arms genetically adapted for wrenching coal from bedrock 16 hours a day.
The horned saddle could probably keep a knight stabilized when charging home.
The question remains though, since we know the ancients knew how to built mail armor, why didn't the heavy cavalryman appeared earlier than it did.
It should be also noted that in the military not always what its better is embraced as it should. Culture plays a big role and sometimes it takes a major defeat, or a major victory, to make people accept and utilize new gear. And new gear by itself doens't add much. New tactics have to come with it.
I wonder how long it took for the newly minted Heavy Cavalry to change from charging with their lances overarm, to couching their lances underarm.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2011, 07:35:44 PM
Viking: where'd you get that about the useless stirrups? Everything I've read (and I've read it countless times) is that the stirrup is what changed cavalry from nancy boys who pranced around and slapped people with their swords to knights couching their lances and charging home.
Plus, the argument that "are not as useful as they might appear" could
only come from someone who has never actually ridden a horse! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2011, 08:38:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2011, 07:35:44 PM
Viking: where'd you get that about the useless stirrups? Everything I've read (and I've read it countless times) is that the stirrup is what changed cavalry from nancy boys who pranced around and slapped people with their swords to knights couching their lances and charging home.
Plus, the argument that "are not as useful as they might appear" could only come from someone who has never actually ridden a horse! :lol:
Yeah. I can only imagine a knight in full battlerattle trying to mount a destrier without stirrup.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2011, 07:51:39 PM
Anyone who uses faff in a sentence should be drug out into the street and shot! :angry:
Sounds like something Dr. Seuss would use.
Quote from: Viking on May 15, 2011, 06:02:55 PM
Economic and biological reasons are the best reasons behind the great stirrup controversy and the wheelbarrow issue.
Regarding the stirrups, they are not as useful as they might appear. Modern day experimental archeology has pretty much settled the issue of the usefulness of stirrups. They do not improve performance in fighting except with the use of sword and/or mace from a stationary or slow moving horse. Stirrups were not used even by Cataphracts. In all likelyhood they became popular as large warhorses started being bred. I think the best explanation for why stirrups were not used at earlier times is that stirrups require a certain kind of saddle. You need the solid saddle to make use of the stirrup and the stirrup isn't of any use unless you have the large horse. It makes perfect sense to me that stirrups don't get invented until the time when the right kind of horses exist. The ancients were not stupid.
Regarding wheelbarrows, they seem to not have spread like wildfire after they were "re-invented" in the middle ages. Wheelbarrows existed in the far east and quite possible in ancient greece as well. A better explanation might be that certain economic conditions are required for wheelbarrows to be built and used. The ancients were not stupid.
There really isn't any evidence of wheelbarrows used in in ancient Greece, and they are certainly handy.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 15, 2011, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2011, 07:51:39 PM
Anyone who uses faff in a sentence should be drug out into the street and shot! :angry:
Sounds like something Dr. Seuss would use.
As a nonsense word in a story.
Quote from: Siege on May 15, 2011, 08:21:10 PM
The horned saddle could probably keep a knight stabilized when charging home.
The question remains though, since we know the ancients knew how to built mail armor, why didn't the heavy cavalryman appeared earlier than it did.
Due to lack of endurance, without stirrups does the horseman have to use more energy to stay in the saddle. The stirrups allow the horseman to rest easier in the saddle, also provide him with better stability, with out constant having to press his thighs against the flank of the horse. The more heavily armored the horseman is the more top heavy is he likely be and so is forced to use more energy to stay stable in the saddle with out any stirrups...
Early Cataphracts had only their saddle to keep them stable and as most of us know a very limited endurance, this wasnt just due to the weight the horse had to carry, but also due to the limits of the horseman himself...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on May 16, 2011, 02:17:01 AM
Early Cataphracts had only their saddle to keep them stable and as most of us know a very limited endurance, this wasnt just due to the weight the horse had to carry, but also due to the limits of the horseman himself...
I don't know. Humans can endure far more hardship than horses.
Horses have always been expensive. They eat the same than 3 cows, they can only run for relatively short distances, and they quit when pushed past their confort limit.
Of course, the advantages surpass the disadvantages of cavalry.
But horses have to bve taken care of.
There is a reason why medieval knights have riding horses for traveling and charging horses for combat.
And don't forget Mongol cavalry never went anywhere without at least 5 horses per rider.
Humans can be highly motivated and dedicated. Horses are just trained animals.
Quote from: Siege on May 16, 2011, 04:07:34 AM
I don't know. Humans can endure far more hardship than horses.
Relatively speaking. How far can you go with a couple hundred pounds on your back?
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2011, 03:28:41 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 15, 2011, 01:16:06 PM
Not really no. There's plenty of strong prevailing winds all over the previous territories of the Roman Empire.
And we don't know that they didn't use some kind of windmill in those areas of the empire. It seems a logical extension of the sails that people were using on their ships. In Rome and Italy, where the historians tended to live, not so much.
if there was a kind of windmill in those regions there's a good chance we'd have found some evidence of it by now (either in historical sources or via archaeology).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 16, 2011, 04:33:19 AM
Quote from: Siege on May 16, 2011, 04:07:34 AM
I don't know. Humans can endure far more hardship than horses.
Relatively speaking. How far can you go with a couple hundred pounds on your back?
Relatively speaking.
I bet you whatever you want that I can proportionaly carry the weight a horse carries farther than a horse can.
A 200 lbs knight would be equivalent to what? 40 lbs on my back?
I'm not sure what's the weight of a Destrier. I assume close to a 1000 lbs.
If so, since I'm 190, it would be like 40 lbs for me.
I can walk forever with just 40 lbs.
Make no mistake, a horse would beat me in a short run, but as the miles pile up, I guarantee you 200 lbs are gonna slow your horse.
I have done 100 km with 50 lbs. That's the final forced foot march for basic training in the Golani Brigade, meant to simulate a change of theater in Eretz, from the North command to South command, from the Golan heights to the Negev.
But then, these days Im an old horse.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 16, 2011, 04:38:10 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2011, 03:28:41 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 15, 2011, 01:16:06 PM
Not really no. There's plenty of strong prevailing winds all over the previous territories of the Roman Empire.
And we don't know that they didn't use some kind of windmill in those areas of the empire. It seems a logical extension of the sails that people were using on their ships. In Rome and Italy, where the historians tended to live, not so much.
if there was a kind of windmill in those regions there's a good chance we'd have found some evidence of it by now (either in historical sources or via archaeology).
I would assume windmills are largely made of perishable organic materials, and the hard parts, like the actual mill, would have been reused for something else.
Quote from: Siege on May 16, 2011, 04:52:18 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 16, 2011, 04:33:19 AM
Quote from: Siege on May 16, 2011, 04:07:34 AM
I don't know. Humans can endure far more hardship than horses.
Relatively speaking. How far can you go with a couple hundred pounds on your back?
Relatively speaking.
I bet you whatever you want that I can proportionaly carry the weight a horse carries farther than a horse can.
A 200 lbs knight would be equivalent to what? 40 lbs on my back?
I'm not sure what's the weight of a Destrier. I assume close to a 1000 lbs.
If so, since I'm 190, it would be like 40 lbs for me.
I can walk forever with just 40 lbs.
Make no mistake, a horse would beat me in a short run, but as the miles pile up, I guarantee you 200 lbs are gonna slow your horse.
I have done 100 km with 50 lbs. That's the final forced foot march for basic training in the Golani Brigade, meant to simulate a change of theater in Eretz, from the North command to South command, from the Golan heights to the Negev.
But then, these days Im an old horse.
Its not about carrying stuff on your back and walking, humans are made for that and as you said can do it for pretty much forever. No this is about holding on to a horse in gallop, using only your thigh muscles. Trust me, it can get hard very fast...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2011, 07:51:39 PM
Anyone who uses faff in a sentence should be drug out into the street and shot! :angry:
Faff is a perfectly valid word. No gay assosiations at all.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on May 16, 2011, 05:07:42 AM
Quote from: Siege on May 16, 2011, 04:52:18 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 16, 2011, 04:33:19 AM
Quote from: Siege on May 16, 2011, 04:07:34 AM
I don't know. Humans can endure far more hardship than horses.
Relatively speaking. How far can you go with a couple hundred pounds on your back?
Relatively speaking.
I bet you whatever you want that I can proportionaly carry the weight a horse carries farther than a horse can.
A 200 lbs knight would be equivalent to what? 40 lbs on my back?
I'm not sure what's the weight of a Destrier. I assume close to a 1000 lbs.
If so, since I'm 190, it would be like 40 lbs for me.
I can walk forever with just 40 lbs.
Make no mistake, a horse would beat me in a short run, but as the miles pile up, I guarantee you 200 lbs are gonna slow your horse.
I have done 100 km with 50 lbs. That's the final forced foot march for basic training in the Golani Brigade, meant to simulate a change of theater in Eretz, from the North command to South command, from the Golan heights to the Negev.
But then, these days Im an old horse.
Its not about carrying stuff on your back and walking, humans are made for that and as you said can do it for pretty much forever. No this is about holding on to a horse in gallop, using only your thigh muscles. Trust me, it can get hard very fast...
You have a point.
I still think horseys get tired too soon for their own good.
They also drink a lot of lite bier.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2011, 07:35:44 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2011, 07:16:23 PM
WTF, could you sound any gayer? You make Marty sound like the paragon of heteronormative behavior.
How's that. A man who can carry a wheelbarrow load in his arms is a big brawny manly man.
Viking: where'd you get that about the useless stirrups? Everything I've read (and I've read it countless times) is that the stirrup is what changed cavalry from nancy boys who pranced around and slapped people with their swords to knights couching their lances and charging home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stirrup_Controversy
QuoteThe Great Stirrup Controversy is a controversy about the Stirrup Thesis, the theory that feudalism in Europe was largely the result of the introduction of the stirrup to cavalry.
The idea, first proposed by Lynn White Jr. in 1962, contends that as mounted warfare became easier and more effective for Frankish cavalry, they replaced infantry as the most powerful force on the battlefield, and thus aristocracy with wealth enough to own a horse became the dominant force on the battlefield, and thus were in a position to offer protection to horseless peasants.
It is agreed that cavalry replaced infantry in Carolingian France as the preferred mode of combat around the same time that feudalism emerged in that area, but whether this shift to cavalry was caused by the introduction of the stirrup is a contentious issue among historians. It has been asserted that armored cavalry were used successfully without stirrups before their introduction, and that the transition to cavalry was not a result of new technologies.
Modern reenactment and experimental archaeology has, however, shown that stirrup provides very little benefit for a mounted lancer, and a cantled saddle and spurs are more avail. Stirrup provides stability for striking with a sword or mace, however.
The first fully armoured cataphracts appeared in third century BC, almost 1000 years before the Carolingian dynasty.
Quote from: Viking on May 16, 2011, 07:52:15 AM
Modern reenactment and experimental archaeology
:hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2011, 08:38:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2011, 07:35:44 PM
Viking: where'd you get that about the useless stirrups? Everything I've read (and I've read it countless times) is that the stirrup is what changed cavalry from nancy boys who pranced around and slapped people with their swords to knights couching their lances and charging home.
Plus, the argument that "are not as useful as they might appear" could only come from someone who has never actually ridden a horse! :lol:
You don't know much about the icelanders and our horses do you? Idiot.
Stirrups are really useful, but if you don't have the right kind of saddle they harm the horses. You need to get the new solid saddle which distributes the forces from the stirrups across the back or you can't use the stirrups. The solid saddle is heavy and expensive and requires the rider to learn how to ride again, anybody who has ridden both bareback (referring to horses not condoms) and with a saddle knows that two require different riding techniques. Adding the really cheap and really useful stirrups requires the rider to buy a new saddle and learn a new riding technique.
As a rider or horses I use the stirrups to get on and off the horse and when on the horse I use the to stand to scratch my ass or adjust my riding stance. With a small horse (like the Icelandic horse) you can get on and off without much problems if you have a small rock or step next to the horse and you can adjust/scratch your ass without much problems either.
Stirrups do not take the impact when a lance is used, the saddle does. If anything the stirrups get added as an afterthought when the saddles are changed to take the force from a lance impact.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 16, 2011, 07:59:53 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 16, 2011, 07:52:15 AM
Modern reenactment and experimental archaeology
:hmm:
http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/ExperimentalArchaeology.html
QuoteExperimental archaeology is one of the very practical methods of archaeological interpretation. It is a living analytical process used to re-create aspects in part or in whole, of ancient societies in order to test hypotheses or proposed interpretations and assumptions about that society.
Modern Replicas
Experimental archaeology attempts to observe a modern manufactured replica of an ancient site and/or objects based on the discoveries of items from the archaeological record, in a controlled environment where archaeologists can test and re-test their theories about the lost society.
Just a Good Guess Equals Hypothesis
Very often there are only a few artefacts discovered at an archaeological site. There may also be remnants of buildings and other structures but as a whole collection the absence of a full complement of items limits understanding of the site and therefore the archaeologist is required to 'guess' the missing pieces.
By 'missing pieces' we mean, for example, that at Stonehenge megaliths have been moved from their source and placed in an upright position. There has been no mechanical type tools ever discovered that would clearly indicate how the stones were transported or how they were fixed in upright positions. Without the hard archaeological evidence archaeologists can only guess at how it was done. In scientific circles such a guess is called an hypothesis.
Validity Testing of Ideas
Archaeologists attempt to recreate the exact ancient conditions using only the same known materials available to the ancient culture. This method of experimental archaeology uses a variety of techniques, methods, and approaches to test the theories but all methods have the one goal: to advance an idea and to test its validity.
Historical Re-Enactment
Experimental archaeology has two distinct variants. The first is called historical re-enactment and it is an artificial re-creation of a past culture (or part of it) and the testing of all of the many theories about building construction, transport systems, weapons, metals, ceramics, use of fire and so on.
Living History
The second variant is known as living history, and it requires archaeologists, usually coupled with anthropologists, to find a similar modern group of people living in and under the same types of conditions of the ancient target group, and to live with, or at the very least, to observe and study that group in order to determine the hows, whats and whys that are unstated in the archaeological record.
Historical re-enactment is the most common form of experimental archaeology and by far the most profitable for researchers as tests can be repeated and small adjustments made in a suitably controlled manner to yield scientifically valid results.
Reconstruction Archaeology
For this reason historical re-enactment has branched forth to include many enactment themes. Reconstruction archaeology is one area that has benefited from experimental archaeology. Here, the archaeologist creates copies of historical buildings, tools, or other objects, using only historically accurate materials and technologies.
Many fine replicas of artefacts are made and displayed in museums throughout the world. However, most of these are manufactured using modern machines and are often not even made of the original raw materials. The specialist in reconstruction archaeology will deliberately be limited to the use of only known raw materials and only processes and technologies known to have existed at the target time in history.
Through these limitations archaeologists are able to test their own theories about how tools were made, how buildings were constructed, how strong a tool is, and consequently answer the many unknown questions relating to these items.
Reconstructed Working Farm
There is a fully functioning replica of an historic Iron Age farm in the English county of Hampshire. Although the recreated farm would make a unique tourist attraction the product of the historical re-enactment is archaeological data and not simply to display a realistic replica of an old farmstead. The working farm hosts many long-term experiments and tests ideas about agriculture and animal domestication.
In an offshoot of reconstruction archaeology there are some experts who specialise in constructing ancient buildings using only the exact tools, methods, and materials that their former builder used in ancient time. These are historically accurate reproductions in every way and are particularly expensive and time consuming to do.
Experimental archaeology is a systematic and controlled method of interpretation of artefacts discovered in the archaeological record. By testing the validity of archaeological assumptions, archaeologists are expanding the database of empirical knowledge about ancient humanity.