Technology

[MasterAdnin]

Okay, so I just started thinking about this in school. Will the difference in technology between the Muslims and Catholics be the same as it was in RTW with the Romans, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians against the tech of the Barbarians? This would be historically accurate.

Salaam,
Adnan

[Kurogane]

Well I took byzantium as an example where I read in some official news that they will be stuck with their own technology... so I am assuming by that rule of thumb the game will follow most of the technological advances in each faction.

[Matty_P]

hmmm...it's difficult to say.

[H_man]

I know in the original M2TW some civilizations progressed more quickly but capped out sooner than others, while others like Byzantium remained technologically the same (advanced in the beginning but went downhill). Most factions started out slowly but kept going the same rate throughout and never really capped off. I assume it will be the same in this version of MTW.

[Tovi]

What kind of technologies ?
Anyway muslims were more civilized than europeans.

[Germanicus75]

The Europeans were not all barbarians compared to the Muslims (some were but some were not, just as not all Muslims were advanced). I don't think that's a fair comment. By the time of Crusades, the Europeans had achieved a quite respectable level of technology in many places, cf. the Normans for example. And it was the Crusaders who built the massive stone castles in the Holy Land. And several centuries earlier the "barbarous" Europeans had comprehensively defeated the Muslims at Tours. One could even argue that the Byzantines had "European" know-how, as they were using knowledge passed down to them from the Romans. And as I've argued elsewhere, many so-called Muslim technologies and knowledge were not Islamic at all, but taken from the societies the Muslims invaded and conquered, or obtained in some other way such as through trade. Much "Islamic" knowledge came from the Persians, Greeks, Byzantines, Hindus, Egyptians, Romans and Chinese. The original Muslims were not men of technology or science but of war. They were little more than desert bandits and no more advanced than most Europeans. A number of men now claimed as great Muslim thinkers were considered heretics or apostates in their time. We would not consider Gallileo a great Christian thinker or Einstein a great Jewish thinker, so why should these men be considered "Muslim" thinkers? They did not get their knowledge or make their achievements because of Islam. Clearly not, since does not the Koran say it contains the only knowledge worth knowing? These men were great despite their religion, not because of it. We only need to look at truly Islamic societies to see how little scientific research and knowledge is being done in them today to know the truth. It is not Islam that contributed to some men who happened to be born in Islamic societies becoming great. Scientific achievement is not the product of religion but of independent enquiry and research. In fact, religion is often the antithesis of advancement and learning, as we can see from the massive explosion in knowledge and science in the West since it largely cast of the shackles of Christianity. Furthermore, a number of often claimed inventions by Muslims have been shown to be false claims as they already existed elsewhere. Doing your own independent thinking and checking the facts out for yourself means you can quite often find a number of the often repeated claims made about the so-called golden age of Islam to be false. Greatness does not have such a need to proclaim itself.
Sorry, but I couldn't let the stereotype and adoption of an air of superiority made in the first post go unanswered.

[Matty_P]

*applauds germanicus*

[Vagabond]

The Europeans were not all barbarians compared to the Muslims (some were but some were not, just as not all Muslims were advanced). I don't think that's a fair comment. By the time of Crusades, the Europeans had achieved a quite respectable level of technology in many places, cf. the Normans for example. And it was the Crusaders who built the massive stone castles in the Holy Land. And several centuries earlier the "barbarous" Europeans had comprehensively defeated the Muslims at Tours. One could even argue that the Byzantines had "European" know-how, as they were using knowledge passed down to them from the Romans. And as I've argued elsewhere, many so-called Muslim technologies and knowledge were not Islamic at all, but taken from the societies the Muslims invaded and conquered, or obtained in some other way such as through trade. Much "Islamic" knowledge came from the Persians, Greeks, Byzantines, Hindus, Egyptians, Romans and Chinese. The original Muslims were not men of technology or science but of war. They were little more than desert bandits and no more advanced than most Europeans. A number of men now claimed as great Muslim thinkers were considered heretics or apostates in their time. We would not consider Gallileo a great Christian thinker or Einstein a great Jewish thinker, so why should these men be considered "Muslim" thinkers? They did not get their knowledge or make their achievements because of Islam. Clearly not, since does not the Koran say it contains the only knowledge worth knowing? These men were great despite their religion, not because of it. We only need to look at truly Islamic societies to see how little scientific research and knowledge is being done in them today to know the truth. It is not Islam that contributed to some men who happened to be born in Islamic societies becoming great. Scientific achievement is not the product of religion but of independent enquiry and research. In fact, religion is often the antithesis of advancement and learning, as we can see from the massive explosion in knowledge and science in the West since it largely cast of the shackles of Christianity. Furthermore, a number of often claimed inventions by Muslims have been shown to be false claims as they already existed elsewhere. Doing your own independent thinking and checking the facts out for yourself means you can quite often find a number of the often repeated claims made about the so-called golden age of Islam to be false. Greatness does not have such a need to proclaim itself.
Sorry, but I couldn't let the stereotype and adoption of an air of superiority made in the first post go unanswered.

hm , i don't say it's not true, but at that time, while the Europeans tried to burn alive any of their great thinkers ,their "authority" class were a bunch of drunkens barbarians who didn't know how to write even their name (who called " knight"), and if not , they're some demagogics machiavellis( (who called "priest" or "pop") , the Muslims treasured highly everything concern science, art ,... and their leader were often kind of some scholars with much knowledge. We can't deny the fact that by that time, the Muslims had dropped far behind the Europeans in their "so-called" golden-age.
Unfortunately and historically, it's not true that who are more civilized always win , the Mongols vs the bright chinese culture , the Sasanids ( the ancestors of the Muslims ) vs the Persians,...
without the Reconnaisance , the discovery of the America,the Muslim civil war,... today, who know what happened ?

[Phaedo]

hm , i don't say it's not true, but at that time, while the Europeans tried to burn alive any of their great thinkers ,their "authority" class were a bunch of drunkens barbarians who didn't know how to write even their name (who called " knight"), and if not , they're some demagogics machiavellis( (who called "priest" or "pop") , the Muslims treasured highly everything concern science, art ,... and their leader were often kind of some scholars with much knowledge. We can't deny the fact that by that time, the Muslims had dropped far behind the Europeans in their "so-called" golden-age.
Unfortunately and historically, it's not true that who are more civilized always win , the Mongols vs the bright chinese culture , the Sasanids ( the ancestors of the Muslims ) vs the Persians,...
without the Reconnaisance , the discovery of the America,the Muslim civil war,... today, who know what happened ?

Oh my.

I don't recall any criminal charges being brought against Saint Augustine. Nor Aquinas - nor indeed Copernicus, or Macchiavelli.

The early medieval aristocracy was quite educated by the day's standards, particularly in Italy, Lower Germany, and France. Most Italian noblemen, as a result of the communal disputes in Northern Italy, were quite well versed in law and the art of government, in addition to their military pursuits. Indeed, there was a flourishing niche for aristocratic podesta' in medieval Italy.*

I think it's rather silly to make a blanket claim that Muslim leaders were more educated and enlightened than contemporaneous Christian ones. There were good, and bad, leaders in both cultures. Try making a case that Frederick II Stupor Mundi was nothing but a "drunken barbarian" - he that could declaim alongside the best philosophers in Europe!

The Sassanids were a Persian ruling dynasty. They were not the ancestors of the Muslims. After a long war with Byzantium, the Sassanids were conquered by the Muslims. I find it hard to compare the relative civilization of the Sassanids and the Persians, being that they were one and the same.

"Reconnaissance"? I presume you mean the Renaissance.

And a Muslim civil war entails that the whole of the Dar al-Islam was one cohesive body - which, noting the propensity of Sunni and Shia to murder each other even in the Middle Ages, is an utter fallacy.

*Podesta' were specially appointed government officers, chosen to be the executive of the Italian Lombard communes in lieu of a reliable native leader. The threat of civil strife when a native leader took the reins of power was greatly feared in Lombardia, and so they recruited officers from other municipalities to head their governments.

[Black Francis]

Well said Germanicus!

[Burns]

Technology does not equal "civility", whatever "civility" might mean (although you can guess the medieval definition quite well!). Everybody is in some sense a "barbarian", take whatever definition you like. They all apply.

[Censor]

Except that the Arabs didn't totally massacre the Christians. Unlike our feral friend Richard the Lionhearted who decided to slaughter the Muslims of Acre.

It's a pity that people don't realize how much more tolerant Islam was in the Middle Ages of Jews and Christians. Sure, they weren't actually impartial, but at least they didn't have pogroms or eviction.

[ghost665]

interesting but completly irrelevent to technological advancement

[Germanicus75]

Yes, they often were more tolerant - at least after their initial conquests ;-) But remember the Xtians felt they were acting in self-defence and so any measures may have been seen as justified, it was their "holy land" that had been invaded by the Muslims.

[MasterAdnin]

Barbaric in the sense that they relied more on brute strength rather than technology, and to be honest, the Muslims were farther than them in the technological sense.

Salaam,
Adnan

[Miraj]

I think the key to this debate should be for people to understand that the Muslim world was MORE tolerant than the Christians. That doesn't mean that the Muslims WERE tolerant, it means they were MORE tolerant. A very big differnce. Its all a matter of relativity.

Its the equivalent of saying "China is MORE tolerant than North Korea". Its not the same thing as saying "China is tolerant".

[Germanicus75]

Barbaric in the sense that they relied more on brute strength rather than technology, and to be honest, the Muslims were farther than them in the technological sense.

Salaam,
Adnan

No prob. My point was just to point out that much of the Muslim's technology was not their own and that the original Muslims were just as much barbarians as the Europeans you speak of. And the original Muslim conquests did indeed rely mainly on brute strength.

[H_man]

I think this is going off topic and is becoming a religious debate far too quickly. I assume technology will almost be identical to the system in MTW with tweaks and improvements.

EDIT: Also, pertaining to this debate, from the Christian perspective the Muslims were invading and dessecrating their most holy cities. In relativity, if it had been the Christians invading Mecca or other Islamic cities would the Muslims have been as tolerant? Remember they were the invaders so supplying mercy was easier, they had the victory and that's all that mattered in the conquest, the prisoners being released made no difference. No insult to Islam, but in those days it was as equally intolerant of Christianity as Christianity was to Islam. It was simply the difference between the type of men led the armies and the scenario.

[Tovi]

Arabs were stopped at Poitiers, not Tours. And they were not really arabs.

So, technology was pretty equal .

[Germanicus75]

Arabs were stopped at Poitiers, not Tours. And they were not really arabs.

So, technology was pretty equal .

Well, it's generally known as the battle of Tours. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours
It's also called the Battle of Poitiers by some.

The point was they were Muslims, not whether they were Arabs or not.