PDA

View Full Version : Testing medieval misconceptions and RPG players.



1Forge
2015-10-31, 03:28 PM
https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/story.php?title=mti5mdg3oqap33

Edit: I'm testing to see the difference in knowledge between a control group (some friends of mine) and TTRPG players (table top rpg) and if there is a difference between editions and games. Please post your result and the RPG systems you've used (ex: I play d&d 4e and 5e, pathfinder, and some popular video games)

EDIT: I fixed the URL sorry bout that.

EDIT#3: Thank you for the results this was my first online test, and though it wasn't made very well (sorry I made it late) it gave me some good info and will help me make a better one. Feel free to continue taking this test if you want but I'm going to start on a new one (full citations explanations and with better wording) In conclusion though online forum members did much better than my control group IRL!

Cealocanth
2015-10-31, 03:39 PM
Link doesn't work, and boy oh boy does this look like a spam thread. Maybe work on that.

YossarianLives
2015-10-31, 03:59 PM
The link doesn't work for me either.

nedz
2015-10-31, 04:18 PM
Nah the link works fine — so how do you like your new malware ?

1Forge
2015-10-31, 04:42 PM
ill try to fix the link

1Forge
2015-10-31, 04:46 PM
It should work now.

nedz
2015-10-31, 05:08 PM
Hmm, 9/10
http://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/certificate/certificate.php?id=86043888&qid=1290611&uname=Guest&uname=Guest

Ed: just spotted that you wanted to know what games we play.

I've played all of the early RPGs, but mainly AD&D (1E and 2E) and 3.5. I've also done a lot of LARP.

Templarkommando
2015-10-31, 06:47 PM
I got 9/10. I missed the question about how knights mount their horses. I think I was confused by one of the answers and what was generally used for mounting in tournament armor.

Vitruviansquid
2015-10-31, 06:48 PM
10/10.

It'd help if you adopted a more neutral tone in the Q's and A's. A lot of the snarkiness gave away the correct answers right away.

Iamyourking
2015-10-31, 07:09 PM
To actually answer your question, 10/10 and I play D&D 3.5, Exalted 2.5, and Scion; while being familiar with WHFP 2ed, Riddle of Steel, and Deathwatch. However, I also have a degree in history and a long standing interest in the subject; which probably has more to do with it.

bobthehero
2015-10-31, 09:11 PM
9/10 (due to a last second change to my answer to #6, would've had 100% otherwise :P), I play many 3.5 video games, as well as Pathfinder.

That said I did study for a few years in history, and I've read up a bit on medieval combat.

hymer
2015-11-01, 03:35 AM
Please post your result and the RPG systems you've used (ex: I play d&d 4e and 5e, pathfinder, and some popular video games)

https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/certificate/certificate.php?id=86060283&qid=1290611&uname=Guest

Games played with at least a modicum of relevance (and that I can think of off the bat):
Middle-earth Roleplaying; D&D from the Rules Cyclopedia to 5th edition, though no real 1st edition AD&D experience and very little 4th; Cyberpunk 2020; Baldur's Gate games (and a Little on various following games); Planescape: Torment; Eye of the Beholder 1 & 2; Dragon Age games; The Bard's Tale 1 & 3 (C64)

Ashtagon
2015-11-01, 03:58 AM
Link works. But half the time, I'm thinking "yeah, I know which of these the writer intended to be correct, but that's not quite correct either".

PersonMan
2015-11-01, 04:21 AM
There's a grave mistake in question 6 - D is obviously the correct answer. :smallwink:

I'd also change some of the answers. If I see an answer that sounds like a question it feels like it's supposed to be wrong, even when it isn't.

https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/certificate/certificate.php?id=86062228&qid=1290611&uname=Guest

I play DnD, 3.5 edition, with a bit of other systems thrown in.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-01, 04:54 AM
I was REALLY tempted to answer like this:

Q: "How did knights get on to horses?"
A: "Armoured knights didn't use horses they used Narwhals armed with sub machine guns."

I wonder if the questions were a bit too easy. You could generally guess at the correct answer by how the answers were written.

A couple of the questions might've been a little questionable. For example rapiers were known to sometimes break (I can think of a couple of cases where rapiers broke, when their wielders fell over dead), the question "what trait do swordsmen use most?" could be interpreted in several ways, even comments like "bows were easy to learn weapons used by untrained peasants against unarmoured opponents" can be accurate as small bows were sometimes used in much that way at some points in history.

That being said, I don't mean to demean your quiz. In fact, I would say you have put together something quite excellent. It covers a lot of common misunderstandings, it has some lovely pictures to go with the questions, and it sources and explains the points in the afterword. Also, it had that line with the narwhals. Forgive my picking over it, as it was quite good.


Unfortunately, I doubt my results will help you much. I got 10/10, but I've been studying military history particularly in the medieval era for years. I've also played a little of a whole lot of games. I would be interesting to hear your results in the end, if you'd be kind enough to let us know.


Thanks for making the neat quiz.

Surpriser
2015-11-01, 05:14 AM
Great quiz!
I got 9/10, D&D 3.5, Shadowrun (not medieval, but RPG), various video games.

May I ask what you intend to use these results for? If it's for a scientific evaluation, I see two problems that will skew your results:
- As already remarked by others, quite a few of the questions and answers were suggestive in tone. I would recommend rewriting them to a more neutral format. In general, there is no problem to include a few joke answers (that way you can filter out those participants that give wrong answers deliberately), but most of the time, one should not be able to guess the answer from the way it is worded. True/False questions avoid this sort of problem (although the question itself can be worded in a problematic way) and are easier to evaluate.
- By asking us to post our results here, you will definitely get a wrong representation of of RPG gamers in general and even of the users of this forum.
Many of those taking the test will do so only if they are already confident that they can answer most of the questions correctly. And of those, few who achieve bad results are going to post them here.
If you want to get a more representative sample, I would suggest adding the game systems as a separate question at the beginning (possibly along with demographic questions like age, gender, region,... if you want to analyze these too) and posting the survey on various other sites to get answers from different groups.

oshi
2015-11-01, 05:17 AM
9 / 10 (As much as I thought 4-7kg was probably too much for a sword, 1-1.5 seemed too light. My bad!).
My answers were from personal research / random YouTube-ing not role playing games though, I'm sorry to say.
I do agree with what's been said above though, some of the answers were pretty leading, I would recommend shorter and more factual answers, the sarcasm kind of guided me a little when I was unsure.

Anonymouswizard
2015-11-01, 06:51 AM
7/10, two questions wrong from double guessing myself (fighting an armoured opponent and bows verus crossbows) and one from just not knowing (mounting a horse). I've played D&D 3.5, 5e, Pathfinder, and BECMI (well, B).

I would recommend cutting down on the explanations for some of them though, as they can often be misleading.

AvatarVecna
2015-11-01, 07:56 AM
10/10.

I play 3.5 and 5e mostly, although I've done more than a little bit of research for games in the past, so I'm not sure how that messes with your statistics. I will mention that there's a couple of questions that feel kinda too vague to really test your knowledge, since they're almost a matter of nuance (like the "what do swordsmen use most" question). Also, I found it amusing that a couple questions had their correct answer marked with a question mark in order to trick people into not selecting it; of course, the joke answers were also a bit peculiar for somebody seeking actual results; it's obvious people won't take the "they rode narwhals" answer (at least not seriously), so including answers like those make it easier to guess the answer randomly, since you can eliminate the obviously wrong joke answers.

That said, this test seems like a good test to give out at, I dunno, the beginning of a Medieval War History class, or something like that; the professor wouldn't even grade it, just tell the students the correct answers after they'd taken their best guess. It's a good way to clear away some of the misconceptions, so that's something.

TheTeaMustFlow
2015-11-01, 07:58 AM
This thread is giving me deja vu.

Steampunkette
2015-11-01, 08:06 AM
10 for 10.

Mostly D&D, all editions. But also Hackmaster, Tunnels and Trolls, Mutatns and Masterminds, the Marvel FASERIP system, White Wolf Storytelling systems, d20 Modern, Shadowrun, most Western MMORPGs developed after Ultima Online, dozens of JRPGs, several years of LARPing, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Aetol
2015-11-01, 08:18 AM
The questions and answers definitely need a rephrasing. Here's my modest proposal humble suggestion :



1) How much did swords usually weigh?
- from 2 to 4 lbs (1 to 2 kg)
- from 5 to 10 lbs (2 to 5 kg)
- from 10 to 15 lbs (5 to 7 kg)
- 60 lbs (30 kg) and more
I put the answers in numerical order, cut the joke and added a intermediate answer (since oshi says he expected one). The weights in kg are a very rough conversion, but the order of magnitude is what's important anyway.


2) True or False: While Japanese swords were very sharp and nimble European swords were heavy and dull so they could crush armour.
- True
- False
I don't see anything to change here.


3) Rapiers were...
- Thin, light swords designed only for the thrust that would break if used to cut. They were primarily used in civilian life.
- Thin, light swords invented to counter the eastern katana. Swords of all kinds were illegals for commoners, as nobles feared an armed revolt.
- Ceremonial swords not intended for combat. At the time they appeared, guns were making swords of any kind obsolete.
- Swords designed for thrusting, though some could also cut, used mostly by civilians. They were no thinner or lighter than other swords at the time.
Here I put the information that were in the question into the first answer, to make the "misconception / joke answer / debunking" structure less obvious. I also trimmed down some answers, especially the "too detailed to be wrong" correct one.


4) Katanas were superior to longswords due to the lengthy folding the high quality steel was given during forging. They were sharp enough to cut through armor plates.
- True
- False
I toned down the hyperboles in the question to make it more credible.


5) True or False: Greatswords were often used like a short spear, by putting one hand on a dull portion of the blade.
- True
- False
Nothing to change here, just a minor rephrasing.


6) When fighting a fully armoured opponent a swordsman would...
- Cut through the weak plates on the shoulders.
- Lunge with full force to try and pierce the armor.
- Grab the blade and either direct the point in the gaps or use the hilt as a mace.
- "End him rightly", as described in old medieval texts : hit him with the pommel to distract him, then stab him through the visor.
Not much to change. Maybe this question should not be placed right after the one that suggests that grabbing the blade was indeed a thing.


7) Bows were easy-to-use weapons used by untrained peasants to kill unarmored opponents.
- True
- False
Just a bit of rephrasing here.


8) What trait was crucial in sword-fighting?
- Strength
- Dexterity
- Endurance
- All of the above
There was a bit of confusion over whether "all three" could be a valid answer to "which is used most", especially since the explanation calls dexterity a prime factor. I rephrased the question to remove that ambiguity, though I'm not sure "crucial" is the best word.


9) Crossbows shot farther than bows but were less accurate.
- True
- False
Nothing to change here. I'm not entirely sure that it is true, but this is not what I'm here for.


10) How did armored knights get onto horses?
- A crane was used to hoist them into the saddle.
- They just pulled themselves up, perhaps with the help of a stool.
- They didn't use horses, but narwhals armed with submachine guns.
- Horses were trained to kneel to make it easier to mount.
Just some rephrasing. Of course I kept the correct joke answer. :smallbiggrin:

So, tell me what you think of that ? Overall your test is great, the form just needs some work. And I'm happy to help. :smallsmile:

Also, maybe this could use some more language-checking. I'm not sure everything is correct idiomatic english.

EDIT : 6.C was in fact a joke that I didn't get. Changes made accordingly.

Gamgee
2015-11-01, 08:43 AM
8/10. I find the Katana being superior a loaded question. Since yes it its environment the Katana was amazing for the types of armor, foes, and battlefields it had to go up against. Is it completely superior? No. Does it have some advantages over a longsword? Yes, but not necessarily the quality of iron.

Also some of your "All of the Above?" had question marks. It's grammatically incorrect and weird. I'm not asking you the quiz taker if all of the above is the answer, I'm stating that's what I think it is.

Mastikator
2015-11-01, 09:10 AM
Question 1:
Answer B) "That light naw I read they were at least 60lbs at the lightest!"
What does that even mean? "That light naw I read" is gibberish.

Question 6:
Answer D) "end him rightly"
dat inside joke tho

Got 9/10, the missed the last one.

Aetol
2015-11-01, 09:20 AM
Question 1:
Answer B) "That light naw I read they were at least 60lbs at the lightest!"
What does that even mean? "That light naw I read" is gibberish.

With proper orthography and punctuation, I believe it would be : "That's [too] light ! Naw, I read they were..."

Also, inside joke ?

Mr. Mask
2015-11-01, 09:33 AM
Aetol: One complication, is there are a few swords in the 10 to 15 pound range. The heaviest sword I remember finding in archaeological record was a 16 pound Zweihänder, and there were a few swords almost that heavy. A question like, "how heavy is a sword usually," is rather vague, is the problem. There are a lot of possible swords. Statistically, the 2~4lbs answer is probably the most valid.

nedz
2015-11-01, 10:22 AM
Aetol: One complication, is there are a few swords in the 10 to 15 pound range. The heaviest sword I remember finding in archaeological record was a 16 pound Zweihänder, and there were a few swords almost that heavy. A question like, "how heavy is a sword usually," is rather vague, is the problem. There are a lot of possible swords. Statistically, the 2~4lbs answer is probably the most valid.

Yes, I had that problem with Q1. What kind of sword I thought ? Then I looked at the picture: it was a two hander. I went with 10-15 lbs: which is a reasonable answer.

AvatarVecna
2015-11-01, 10:25 AM
Yes, I had that problem with Q1. What kind of sword I thought ? Then I looked at the picture: it was a two hander. I went with 10-15 lbs: which is a reasonable answer.

Nearly second-guessed myself on that one; only got it right because I remembered some old article arguing the realistic-ness of 3.5 mechanics, where some guy got quoted as complaining that sword weights were exaggerated.

Mastikator
2015-11-01, 10:38 AM
With proper orthography and punctuation, I believe it would be : "That's [too] light ! Naw, I read they were..."

Also, inside joke ?

Skallagrim on youtube did a video discussing the tactical value of unscrewing the pommel and throwing it on the enemy.

Eldan
2015-11-01, 10:53 AM
10/10.

Those were some really, really badly asked questions.

D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, D&D 5E, Pathfinder, Mutants and Masterminds 2E, FATE (various), Shadowrun 3E, Shadowrun 4E, Old world of Darkness (various), Gamma World, I'm probably forgetting some.

Partysan
2015-11-01, 11:55 AM
A pommel joke? Really? 10/10, but everyone who knows even a little bit about questionaire design would call the bicycle cavalry on you.

Susano-wo
2015-11-01, 05:04 PM
10/10, though I agree with folks that you should make the questions more neutral, despite the narwhal answer being quite amusing.

I play primarily Pathfinder with varying amounts of 3.5 allowed depending on campaign. I also play Big Eyes, Small Mouth occasionally, and I am in a D&D 5E campaign. I cut my teeth on Iron Crown Enterprises' Middle Earth RPG, and have played some limited 2E, one Apocalypse World mini campaign and a session of Dogs in the Vinyard. Oh yeah, and a session or two of Capes. Though I am familiar with a number of other games.

As for video games, I have played a ton of JRPGs, much much much time logged on Elder Scrolls games, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Everquest for a while, Final Fantasy XI....I'll stop there, because I'm not sure how many you want me to list. If your goal is to see how many games have possibkly shaped my understanding of how medieval combat an weaponry worked, a lot of games (including some I've already listed) are too far removed from notions of realism to possibly influence the way I would think about the subject.

TeChameleon
2015-11-01, 06:18 PM
8/10 here- also got thrown off by the horse-mounting question. Apparently answer a) is a very, very prevalent myth lingering from Victorian times (and it's doubly frustrating for me to have gotten wrong, since I know perfectly well that a fully-armoured man can be remarkably agile, having observed an acquaintance leap clean over the first row of seated spectators and land in a shoulder roll while wearing full plate >.O).

I also got question 6 wrong. Partly because I wasn't sure what the actual answer would be, since the question is a frustratingly broad one for multiple choice, and the actual answer could vary wildly depending on the type of both armour and sword used... heck, the illustration given was why I eventually picked answer a), as it clearly shows weak points at the shoulder/neck join. The other reason was because the 'correct' answer made no sense whatsoever with the way it is phrased. How are you supposed to stab anyone while you're holding the sword by the blade? Rather than 'Hold the sword by the blade and either stab in the gaps or use the hilt like a mace with the blade as the handle.', it should read 'Either stab in the gaps or use the pommel like a mace with the blade as the handle.'

As to Tabletop Gaming, D&D 3.5 and 4e, and Shadowrun. However, I have a longstanding interest in history, and will occasionally participate in Renfaires/Medieval Festivals, so the gaming is only a minor aspect of things and did surprisingly little to shape my understanding of this stuff.

nedz
2015-11-01, 06:34 PM
I also got question 6 wrong. Partly because I wasn't sure what the actual answer would be, since the question is a frustratingly broad one for multiple choice, and the actual answer could vary wildly depending on the type of both armour and sword used... heck, the illustration given was why I eventually picked answer a), as it clearly shows weak points at the shoulder/neck join. The other reason was because the 'correct' answer made no sense whatsoever with the way it is phrased. How are you supposed to stab anyone while you're holding the sword by the blade? Rather than 'Hold the sword by the blade and either stab in the gaps or use the hilt like a mace with the blade as the handle.', it should read 'Either stab in the gaps or use the pommel like a mace with the blade as the handle.'

It's an allusion to Half-Swording; which is a technique from the German School of Fencing; which was the standard method of sword fighting in the (long) 15th Century: using Longswords (Zweihanders).

Honest Tiefling
2015-11-01, 06:44 PM
I think question numero dos needs some work.


"True or False: While Japanese swords were very sharp and nimble European swords were heavy and dull so they could crush armour."

Usually, if a question asks if something is true across a variety of cultures and/or time periods, the answer is going to be 'No **** Sherlock, that's wrong'.


Also, why is this test geared towards what appears to be medieval Japan and Europe? I'm pretty sure China is, like, a thing. A pretty big thing in many ways. If the test is meant to focus on the areas that most RPGs themselves tend to focus on, I'd still say China has a shot at being quite popular.

5ColouredWalker
2015-11-01, 06:49 PM
9/10, I play DnD 3.5+5e, Pathfinder, Heroes 5thE Revised and 6E.

Missed the last one. I knew plate is lighter than you think, but the kneeling sounded right.

Edit: Videogames as well. NWN 1+2 is probably the only one that'd actually apply knowledge wise though.

comicshorse
2015-11-01, 06:51 PM
9/10 Terrible with weights so I got No. 1 wrong

DnD (pretty much all editions), Warhammer FRP, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Vampire the Masquerade. Changeling the Lost, Serenity

Anonymouswizard
2015-11-01, 07:13 PM
Also, why is this test geared towards what appears to be medieval Japan and Europe? I'm pretty sure China is, like, a thing. A pretty big thing in many ways. If the test is meant to focus on the areas that most RPGs themselves tend to focus on, I'd still say China has a shot at being quite popular.

I'd definitely argue that, for RPGs, Japan has traditionally been more common, but China is generally more interesting (and in my opinion better). If I remember correctly, the 1e Oriental Adventures was focused on Japan as was the third edition, and the early 'asian' RPGs were slanted towards Japan. Also, most people probably wouldn't recognise a jian or dao, let alone the less sword-like Chinese weapons (I can't remember the correct names for Chinese halberds or staffs myself), while you show someone a katana and they'll at least realise it's a 'samurai sword'. However, I'll agree that China definitely has a lot of traction in the RPG circles these days (although not as much as Dungeons and Dragons, man I hate that game's popularity), and most RPG players are nerdy enough to at least realise a jian is not an arming sword (it is a different shape, slightly, but I use the two as equivalents when trying to explain Chinese swords), so more Chinese questions wouldn't have been bad, I agree on that point.

1Forge
2015-11-01, 08:04 PM
Thank you for the results this was my first online test, and though it wasn't made very well (sorry I made it late) it gave me some good info and will help me make a better one. Feel free to continue taking this test if you want but I'm going to start on a new one (full citations explanations and with better wording)

1Forge
2015-11-01, 08:08 PM
The questions and answers definitely need a rephrasing. Here's my modest proposal humble suggestion :



I put the answers in numerical order, cut the joke and added a intermediate answer (since oshi says he expected one). The weights in kg are a very rough conversion, but the order of magnitude is what's important anyway.


I don't see anything to change here.


Here I put the information that were in the question into the first answer, to make the "misconception / joke answer / debunking" structure less obvious. I also trimmed down some answers, especially the "too detailed to be wrong" correct one. The who


I toned down the hyperboles in the question to make it more credible.


Nothing to change here, just a minor rephrasing.


Not much to change. Maybe this question should not be placed right after the one that suggests that grabbing the blade was indeed a thing.


Just a bit of rephrasing here.


There was a bit of confusion over whether "all three" could be a valid answer to "which is used most", especially since the explanation calls dexterity a prime factor. I rephrased the question to remove that ambiguity, though I'm not sure "crucial" is the best word.


Nothing to change here. I'm not entirely sure that it is true, but this is not what I'm here for.


Just some rephrasing. Of course I kept the correct joke answer. :smallbiggrin:

So, tell me what you think of that ? Overall your test is great, the form just needs some work. And I'm happy to help. :smallsmile:

Also, maybe this could use some more language-checking. I'm not sure everything is correct idiomatic english.

EDIT : 6.C was in fact a joke that I didn't get. Changes made accordingly.

Pretty good stuff I'll keep this in mind for the next test I make on this subject.

LudicSavant
2015-11-01, 08:39 PM
https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/certificate/certificate.php?id=86109031&qid=1290611&uname=Guest

I mostly play 3.5e, Legend of the Five Rings, some other stuff I guess. Lots of videogames too.

I feel like the test could have stood to include more common misconceptions, such as when guns were invented and how they affected the era of knights and swords. If this is directed specifically at RPG players, I would add more questions about things that fantasy tropes train audiences to expect (which aren't actually reflective of the real thing). I'd also try to give less clues to the right answer from tone.

Also, when comparing to your control group, are you only relying on reported scores? Because I suspect that people with high scores will report more often.

1Forge
2015-11-01, 09:23 PM
https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/certificate/certificate.php?id=86109031&qid=1290611&uname=Guest

I mostly play 3.5e, Legend of the Five Rings, some other stuff I guess. Lots of videogames too.

I feel like the test could have stood to include more common misconceptions, such as when guns were invented and how they affected the era of knights and swords. If this is directed specifically at RPG players, I would add more questions about things that fantasy tropes train audiences to expect (which aren't actually reflective of the real thing). I'd also try to give less clues to the right answer from tone.

Also, when comparing to your control group, are you only relying on reported scores? Because I suspect that people with high scores will report more often.

true but I cannot affect whether or not people will lie about their scores or if they don't post due to low scores (or re-takes). And this was only my first quiz, I plan on making another with full citations, quotes, further misconceptions, etc. When I'm done with the new one I'll be sure to post it for more constructive criticism.

Aetol
2015-11-01, 09:33 PM
Doesn't your quiz engine record the scores ?

Dienekes
2015-11-01, 09:49 PM
Yes, I had that problem with Q1. What kind of sword I thought ? Then I looked at the picture: it was a two hander. I went with 10-15 lbs: which is a reasonable answer.

Eh, combat ready bidenhanders weighed in at 5-7.1 lbs. Show swords that were not meant to be used in a fight could weigh in at 15 lbs.

The picture isn't a bidenhander, it's a longsword at most, meaning it'll be around 2-4 lbs, unless it's a really crappily made model, those can weight as much as 10 lbs.

Anyway, I got 10/10. And play 3.P most often.

Actually, random note, a few years ago I went to a lecture on Medieval Law that explained the "end them rightly" thing.

Aetol
2015-11-01, 10:25 PM
And what is the explanation then ?

Terrador
2015-11-02, 02:35 AM
8/10, picked the best wrong answer on swordsmen qualities and archery each. I've played only 3.5e, with a tiny handful of Legends of the Wulin.

Brother Oni
2015-11-02, 02:51 AM
10/10 but then again, I'm a regular contributor to the Real World Weapons, Armour and Tactics thread, plus I've done Norman times re-enactment and I shoot with a bow regularly.

Game system wise, I've played the original Red Box D&D, Shadowrun 2nd ED and a bit of L5R. Video games, too many to count, but Bushido Blade on the PS was the first game that opened my eyes to how light weapons really were.

BWR
2015-11-02, 03:26 AM
10/10

Many of the questions were too obvious or vague (even if I didn't need the snark to answer correctly).

My gaming experience is mostly 3.5 and PF, with a fair amount of Ars Magica and L5R (3ER) thrown in. Have also played BECMI/RC and AD&D 2e some years, and dabbled in numerous other games like VtM, Kult, CoC/Laundry Files, Deadlands, All flesh must be eaten, HtR, and a few sessions of various otherse.
Video games: all the Infinity Engine games, Mass Effect series, AvP series, Dead Space series, KOTOR 1/2, Dark Forces/Jedi Knight series, TOR, FF VI and X, NWN 1/2 + expansions, Republic Commando, Serious Sam series, Doom series,
Several others but I think those are the most important ones.

Roxxy
2015-11-02, 03:37 AM
10/10. I mostly play Pathfinder. I should disclose that I watch Skallagrim, Schola Gladiatora, and Lindybeige, though. I also feel that the questions were a bit leading.

nedz
2015-11-02, 05:12 AM
Eh, combat ready bidenhanders weighed in at 5-7.1 lbs. Show swords that were not meant to be used in a fight could weigh in at 15 lbs.

The picture isn't a bidenhander, it's a longsword at most, meaning it'll be around 2-4 lbs, unless it's a really crappily made model, those can weight as much as 10 lbs.

Well my experience is with Weapons made out of Foam and Latex :smallamused:

Also, scale.

Hybridartifacts
2015-11-02, 06:32 AM
It would be interesting to see what misconceptions people have generally about the middle ages - do people really think they all thought the earth was flat (no, they knew it was a sphere), were the middle ages technologically primitive (they actually had a mini industrial revolution and two earlier examples of a renaissance), didn't people refuse to bathe (no -bathing was actually popular and there were public bathhouses where members of both sexes shared baths) and so on.

While roleplayers may possible pick up some more knowledge by playing about things like weapons I suspect most of what they think they know about the middle ages generally is probably wrong.

Joe the Rat
2015-11-02, 09:16 AM
He should be able to get the response choice frequencies and see where the "good" distractors were and what the most common (or biggest splits) were.

9/10. Booched the horse, but that has more to do with my own inability to hop up reliably. (And was one with some good distractors.)

You've got some good (and common) misconceptions, but your flat distractors could use a little tightening. If you'd left he thing about machine guns off on the katana one, it would be more believable for non-fanboys.

I've played... a lot. Most flavors of D&D and related OSR games, Palladium systems, Rolemaster, WoD, L5R & 7th Sea, A smattering of Shadowrun many ages past, plus some universal systems. Mostly I'm a D&D guy.

JAL_1138
2015-11-02, 09:52 AM
10/10, although I think there's more of a distinction between side-swords (spada da lato), espada ropera, "sword-rapiers" (admittedly an ahistorical term, and a category of side-sword rather than rapier, oddly enough) with compromise blades somewhere between the side-swords and rapiers, and true rapiers than the question suggests.

Saying they were "no thinner than other swords" is an odd and potentially tricky choice when the picture shows a rather slender-bladed weapon compared to, say, a schiavona, a weapon in contemporary use. Although perhaps you meant thin in cross-section rather than narrow, in which case sure--a spada da lato or an espada ropera is broader (though often not much--though a schiavona is considerably broader) from one edge to another, without being especially thicker from one flat to another. They sometimes were a bit thinner in cross-section--and sometimes thicker, with a sort of diamond cross-section with unsharpened edges, though not nearly as heavy and inflexible as a tuck (estoc).

Delta
2015-11-02, 09:53 AM
It would be interesting to see what misconceptions people have generally about the middle ages - do people really think they all thought the earth was flat (no, they knew it was a sphere), were the middle ages technologically primitive (they actually had a mini industrial revolution and two earlier examples of a renaissance), didn't people refuse to bathe (no -bathing was actually popular and there were public bathhouses where members of both sexes shared baths) and so on.

Actually, stuff like that doesn't really help a lot because it just leads to even more misconceptions, just different ones. The first misconception you need to clean up with is that "the middle ages" is not a monolithic block of history. We're talking about a period of history spanning pretty much a thousand years (give or take a couple centuries depending on which definition you like most) and millions and millions of people living in hugely different geographical, economical, political and cultural environments. Literally any statement of the kind "in the middle ages, people did <x>" is pretty much meaningless. At some point, yeah, someone during that time probably did that if it was at all possible, because in the span of a thousand years, millions of people are bound to do pretty much anything.

Did a northern european naval navigator in the late middle ages believe the earth is flat? Most certainly not, he couldn't have performed his job otherwise. Did an uneducated eastern european farmer from the early middle ages believe the earth is flat? We either have no clue or we have to assume that he just didn't care because he could live his whole life without the question of the shape of the earth ever coming up.

Same goes for stuff like technological progress, personal hygiene and pretty much everything else. As soon as you ask someone a question of the type "did people in the middle ages do <x>?" and you get any other answer than "well, that depends..." assume the answer you just got is either plain wrong or at the very least massively oversimplified.

snowblizz
2015-11-02, 10:10 AM
10/10 but then again, I'm a regular contributor to the Real World Weapons, Armour and Tactics thread, plus I've done Norman times re-enactment and I shoot with a bow regularly.
10/10, but then again I'm a regular reader of said thread.

Dienekes
2015-11-02, 11:30 AM
And what is the explanation then ?

spoilers because it's not relevant to the discussion.
So among the myriad of ways that judicial duels could be organized, one of the more common ones, specifically during the late 14th to early 15th century, had the following rules.

Each of the combatants are given the same equipment: armor, dagger, longsword, buckler, and spear.
The issuer of the challenge had to throw something at the challenged opponent to start the duel.

So, the challenger would, usually, throw their spear. And since it's the very beginning of the fight, the combatants are wearing armor, and have a shield ready, this would in most cases be completely unsuccessful. It just left one of the fighters without their spear, putting them at a disadvantage in the rest of the fight.

After awhile of having the challenger losing more fights than they're winning do to these conditions, we start to see over-sized partially detachable pommels in longswords appear in weapon collections. Admittedly, they were still very very rare. But it seems to have been a way to get around the restriction. The challenger would now unscrew their over-sized pommel, leaving only a regular pommel remaining. Throw that at their opponent, and then fight the judicial battle on even footing.

The Gladiatoria manual corroborates this, as after the end him rightly passage the author doesn't give explicit detail on what move will actually kill the opponent, only that he can now use sword or spear whichever he feels more comfortable with. Since now that option is available to him.

Segev
2015-11-02, 11:45 AM
7/10, and I think most of my problem was overthinking them a bit. The only one I was really surprised by the correct answer to was the one about swords vs. armored opponents. I had no clue what the right answer was.

Human Paragon 3
2015-11-02, 12:10 PM
I scored well, but I think a lot of the questions are guessable by the tone of the questions. In most cases, you can tell which sounds right (with notable exceptions, like when you put a question mark after the correct answer)?

If you really want to know if people know the answers, you should also have a "don't know" option on most of these.

Aedilred
2015-11-02, 11:41 PM
10/10, of which I'm oddly proud, but I agree with the criticism above of many of the approaches used in questioning. Having said that, there were usually at least two plausible answers for anyone trying to make an educated guess, which isn't bad for a multiple choice. It is however fairly obvious that it's worked backwards from misconceptions, which might make it easy to "game" even if the answers weren't known. As mentioned, a more neutral questioning style would help: some of these are very leading.

I would note that despite the quiz purporting to be a medieval one, the rapier is a largely post-medieval weapon.

I've played Warhammer and WFRP, D&D (AD&D2 and 3.x) and a few video games. I do however also have a history degree (but non-medieval in focus).

Brother Oni
2015-11-03, 07:53 AM
Did a northern european naval navigator in the late middle ages believe the earth is flat? Most certainly not, he couldn't have performed his job otherwise. Did an uneducated eastern european farmer from the early middle ages believe the earth is flat? We either have no clue or we have to assume that he just didn't care because he could live his whole life without the question of the shape of the earth ever coming up.

It gets complicated. I've seen historical maps drawn by travelled clergyman who state that the world is in the shape of the Tabernacle (link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Topography)).

Delving into it further probably breaks board rules, but that makes the counter misconception that all medieval folks knew the world was round, a misconception. :smalltongue:

Segev
2015-11-03, 09:05 AM
It gets complicated. I've seen historical maps drawn by travelled clergyman who state that the world is in the shape of the Tabernacle (link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Topography)).

Nonsense! We know the Earth to be banana-shaped!

nedz
2015-11-03, 10:58 AM
Did a northern european naval navigator in the late middle ages believe the earth is flat? Most certainly not, he couldn't have performed his job otherwise.

For distances of less than 600 miles the error is negligible. Assuming your vessel is capable of travelling further than that then the error increases in a non-linear fashion.

Delta
2015-11-03, 11:04 AM
It gets complicated.

That's exactly my point, thank you ;)

Delta
2015-11-03, 11:34 AM
For distances of less than 600 miles the error is negligible. Assuming your vessel is capable of travelling further than that then the error increases in a non-linear fashion.

I picked that example because I read in a book on naval warfare in the middle ages that the round shape of the earth had become at least moderately common knowledge among northern european seafarers of the time, or at least among those more educated (I think the examples they cited were Dutch and Danish, but I might be wrong there it's been quite a while since I read it)

But it illustrates the point well: It's complicated. Did some people during the Middle Ages know the Earth is round? Most definitely. Did some believe it was flat? Just as definitely. It's always necessary to give some more geographical and temporal context to any question that includes the term "...in the Middle Ages...", otherwise it's just impossible to answer.

Hamste
2015-11-03, 11:52 AM
I got a 5/10 though it should be a 6/10 I just accidentally selected the wrong weight for number 1. I play d&d 3.5 and pathfinder. Most of my wrong answers stem from studying Mongolian history and not really knowing much about Europeon history.

Spiryt
2015-11-03, 01:03 PM
10/10

https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/certificate/certificate.php?id=86273924&qid=1290611&uname=Guest


I've played some D&D 3.5, Warhammer, etc. but very small amounts.

Some tr00ly classic cRPG of course, Baldur's Gate, Fallouts etc.

Some nitckpicks:


It's the opposite bows shot much farther but crossbows were better at aiming and especially good at sniping.

I don't think, that you, or anybody, can really prove it TBH.

In fact, at least to according Sir Ralph Payne Gallway (http://www.crossbowbook.com/page_21.html), very powerful crossbows could send lighter bolts very far. At least as far as from heavy selfbows.

Crossbow bolts are generally thicker and shorter for given mass, obviously. So they are on average worse aerodynamically - thicker cross-section per volume/mass means more air resistance.

On the other hand they would be much stiffer, so they would lose WAY less energy due to vibrations, shaking etc. in air.

Further details about comparison of exit velocities from crossbows and bows, as well as exact trajectory of bolts vs arrows are rather complicated matter, and sadly I don't think anybody had managed to research it very well.

So in short, it's better to not make absolute claims about 'ranges' of bow vs crossbow.

Anonymouswizard
2015-11-03, 01:44 PM
Nonsense! We know the Earth to be banana-shaped!

Really? Wouldn't have been eaten by monkeys if that was the case? I'm fairly certain recent studies have found it to be more pear-shaped.


I picked that example because I read in a book on naval warfare in the middle ages that the round shape of the earth had become at least moderately common knowledge among northern european seafarers of the time, or at least among those more educated (I think the examples they cited were Dutch and Danish, but I might be wrong there it's been quite a while since I read it)

But it illustrates the point well: It's complicated. Did some people during the Middle Ages know the Earth is round? Most definitely. Did some believe it was flat? Just as definitely. It's always necessary to give some more geographical and temporal context to any question that includes the term "...in the Middle Ages...", otherwise it's just impossible to answer.

To put is another way, asking 'what shape did people in the 13th century believe the world was' is as bad a question as 'in the 20th century, how old did people believe the universe was' in that you'll get common answers (round versus flat, 6000 versus 13.7 billion) and uncommon answers (like a shallow dome, the universe actually came into existence fully formed last week*).

* Oh yeah, I hate 'the universe came into being with age' arguments because from the point of view of the universe it has existed all those years.

Hamste
2015-11-03, 04:23 PM
Really? Wouldn't have been eaten by monkeys if that was the case? I'm fairly certain recent studies have found it to be more pear-shaped.



To put is another way, asking 'what shape did people in the 13th century believe the world was' is as bad a question as 'in the 20th century, how old did people believe the universe was' in that you'll get common answers (round versus flat, 6000 versus 13.7 billion) and uncommon answers (like a shallow dome, the universe actually came into existence fully formed last week*).

* Oh yeah, I hate 'the universe came into being with age' arguments because from the point of view of the universe it has existed all those years.

What do you mean last week let a lone over a billion year? That is preposterous how would it even keep cohesion that long? No, the world has existed for but a split second when by pure unlikely chance every molecule happened to line up resulting in what we view as the world before it disintegrates into a random mess again. All our memories never existed and instead we just think they did because the molecules lined up in such a way that we came into being with them. The tiniest fraction of a second later we cease to exist. If you think you found a way to disprove this, you didn't you just happened to have memories that says you have a way to disprove it but inherently doesn't work as it is based off the flawed understanding that the particles gives us.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-11-03, 06:19 PM
For distances of less than 600 miles the error is negligible. Assuming your vessel is capable of travelling further than that then the error increases in a non-linear fashion.

The main problem with the idea that people thought the earth is flat to me is not how big the error margin would be, it's that the whole method of navigation they used is based on the fact that the world is round. That's how you can have a latitude that can be calculated from how high the sun, the moon or the pole star stand above the horizon. It's also why that same trick doesn't work for longitude. Not only was the fact that the world is round well known amongst the kind of people who had a form of education for which is was remotely relevant (it had to be well known because the knowledge these people used makes no sense without it), the old Greeks already used the idea behind latitude and the angle of the sun to come up with an estimate for how big the earth is, and they came pretty much scary close to the actual value. Yes, Columbus screwed up, he figured the world was a lot smaller than that and Asia much bigger than people reported, but Columbus was a **** who's only remembered because he got really, really lucky.

But yeah, as a question that's too broad. There were probably plenty of poor farmers, ignorant clerics and eccentric noblemen who would have gladly joined our modern day flat earth society.

LudicSavant
2015-11-03, 06:59 PM
What flat earthers believed about the shape of the earth is about as relevant to ancient navigation as what parade enthusiasts thought looked pretty is to the weight of medieval war swords. The notion that the earth was round is ancient, and we're not just talking about a hypothesis in a sea of hypotheses here. Erastosthenes accurately measured the dimensions of the earth some 2000 years ago.

Perhaps most importantly, the whole narrative about Columbus discovering that the earth was round and dealing with the superstitious fears of his sailors who thought they'd fall off the edge of the world... is complete fiction.

That said, Delta is right to suggest that questions should not be phrased in such a way that they present the middle ages as a monolithic block.

ko_sct
2015-11-03, 08:47 PM
I got 9/10

I play mostly 3.5, played some oWoD and nWod, as well as paranoia.

But let's be honest, if I never played 3.5, I would probably have got at least 7/10 since most answers were obvious jokes....

Thrawn4
2015-11-04, 05:44 AM
Explanation
It's the opposite bows shot much farther but crossbows were better at aiming and especially good at sniping

Did that not depend on the kind of era?

Brother Oni
2015-11-04, 07:45 AM
Did that not depend on the kind of era?

Spiryt has already explained the complexity behind the range issue, but the aiming isn't really in dispute; with a self or recurve bow (especially heavy draw weight ones), you aim before you draw the bow as holding that weight under tension is tiring, which affects your accuracy (how likely you are to hit the target)and precision (how close together your shots are).

Crossbows do the holding under tension for you, thus you can take your time to aim, improving accuracy.
Since the crossbow also has a fixed span (pulls back to the same distance every time), it imparts the same energy into the bolt every shot, which improves your precision and to a lesser extent, your accuracy.

Of the two elements, poor precision is far harder to fix, since if you're inaccurate but precise, you can adjust your sights accordingly, but poor precision is either a variable fault with the weapon or inconsistent technique.

https://www.withfriendship.com/images/c/11229/Accuracy-and-precision-picture.png

This is also not including advantages of the crossbow in firing while prone or from behind cover (crossbowmen were known to carry large shields called pavises with them to hide behind while they reloaded.
The main advantage of a bow over a crossbow is a superior rate of fire, depending on the crossbow spanning method. One test I've seen (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagCuGXJgUs&feature=grec_index)) compared a light crossbow (130lb, hand spanned with a stirrup only) versus a 110lb longbow and the longbow shot 10 arrows to the crossbow's 6.

Training is a tricky comparison as while it's true that you need significant time, infrastructure and cultural focus to create a good force of longbowmen, it's false to say that it's quicker to train a crossbowman, especially with heavy draw (minimum of 250lb depending on era) military crossbow (loading and firing accidents with such high powered crossbow were dangerous and sometimes fatal).

The issues with training and replacing casualties were part of the reason why early flintlocks and other early gunpowder weapons became popular. One quote I remember was that you could train a musketman in a day and a unit in a few weeks.

nedz
2015-11-04, 08:00 AM
The main problem with the idea that people thought the earth is flat to me is not how big the error margin would be, it's that the whole method of navigation they used is based on the fact that the world is round. That's how you can have a latitude that can be calculated from how high the sun, the moon or the pole star stand above the horizon. It's also why that same trick doesn't work for longitude. Not only was the fact that the world is round well known amongst the kind of people who had a form of education for which is was remotely relevant (it had to be well known because the knowledge these people used makes no sense without it), the old Greeks already used the idea behind latitude and the angle of the sun to come up with an estimate for how big the earth is, and they came pretty much scary close to the actual value. Yes, Columbus screwed up, he figured the world was a lot smaller than that and Asia much bigger than people reported, but Columbus was a **** who's only remembered because he got really, really lucky.

But yeah, as a question that's too broad. There were probably plenty of poor farmers, ignorant clerics and eccentric noblemen who would have gladly joined our modern day flat earth society.

Hmm, well I'm pretty sure navigators have always known this even if Mercator Sailing wasn't developed until the mid 16th century. Before that people just used Plane Sailing — which assumes a flat earth and has the 600 mile accuracy thing. Plane sailing is perfectly adequate for most seas — just not oceans.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-11-04, 08:36 AM
Hmm, well I'm pretty sure navigators have always known this even if Mercator Sailing wasn't developed until the mid 16th century. Before that people just used Plane Sailing — which assumes a flat earth and has the 600 mile accuracy thing. Plane sailing is perfectly adequate for most seas — just not oceans.

O, my mistake then. I honestly though people had used instruments like quadrants or a Jacob's staff much longer than that to get their latitude. And this method works because the earth is round. It's also the method the Greeks already used for their estimates of the round earth's size. (Although a flat earth with a sun at a really short distance would produce a similar effect up to a point, the major difference would be that the sun would also stand lower in the sky if you'd travel far enough east or west. You'd need to live on the inside of a cylinder to get anywhere near close to the effect we observe, and that would leave you with way more north-south space than east-west space, which means time zones would vary a lot more over the same distance. Maybe use some sort of half eaten apple shape? Does that still count as flat?) But now that I google it, the earliest evidence I can find is 14th century in Europe and 11th in the far East. So maybe I've been overestimating people all along.

nedz
2015-11-04, 09:44 AM
O, my mistake then. I honestly though people had used instruments like quadrants or a Jacob's staff much longer than that to get their latitude. And this method works because the earth is round. It's also the method the Greeks already used for their estimates of the round earth's size. (Although a flat earth with a sun at a really short distance would produce a similar effect up to a point, the major difference would be that the sun would also stand lower in the sky if you'd travel far enough east or west. You'd need to live on the inside of a cylinder to get anywhere near close to the effect we observe, and that would leave you with way more north-south space than east-west space, which means time zones would vary a lot more over the same distance. Maybe use some sort of half eaten apple shape? Does that still count as flat?) But now that I google it, the earliest evidence I can find is 14th century in Europe and 11th in the far East. So maybe I've been overestimating people all along.

No no, Plane Sailing is just the mathematical model — they knew it was wrong. Most long distance sailing in the Age of Discovery, pre-columbus, involved hopping down the coast of Africa. Being able to work out your latitude from the Sun or the Stars is invaluable for this — though star charts were very rudimentary so you'd just have Polaris. Tycho Brahe did his work in the 16th century also. To work out your latitude you need: Sextant/Quadrant/etc., Almanac (Sun and Star data) and a calculation method (Log tables/Slide-rule help here — John Napier, again 16th century). For Longitude you also need a Clock.

The real issue with ocean sailing is knowing the winds i.e. how to get back. It doesn't really matter if you are 200 miles up the coast, what matters is not getting stuck. IIRC Columbus just used Dead Reckoning.

Anonymouswizard
2015-11-04, 11:15 AM
What do you mean last week let a lone over a billion year? That is preposterous how would it even keep cohesion that long? No, the world has existed for but a split second when by pure unlikely chance every molecule happened to line up resulting in what we view as the world before it disintegrates into a random mess again. All our memories never existed and instead we just think they did because the molecules lined up in such a way that we came into being with them. The tiniest fraction of a second later we cease to exist. If you think you found a way to disprove this, you didn't you just happened to have memories that says you have a way to disprove it but inherently doesn't work as it is based off the flawed understanding that the particles gives us.

Well, I would argue that, from the point of view of the people in the universe, they have lived as long as they have memories for, but that's an academic distinction.


No no, Plane Sailing is just the mathematical model — they knew it was wrong. Most long distance sailing in the Age of Discovery, pre-columbus, involved hopping down the coast of Africa. Being able to work out your latitude from the Sun or the Stars is invaluable for this — though star charts were very rudimentary so you'd just have Polaris. Tycho Brahe did his work in the 16th century also. To work out your latitude you need: Sextant/Quadrant/etc., Almanac (Sun and Star data) and a calculation method (Log tables/Slide-rule help here — John Napier, again 16th century). For Longitude you also need a Clock.

The real issue with ocean sailing is knowing the winds i.e. how to get back. It doesn't really matter if you are 200 miles up the coast, what matters is not getting stuck. IIRC Columbus just used Dead Reckoning.

Ah, dead reckoning. I remember reading about the attempt to replace it with something better. There were two ideas of what to use: clocks or star charts. It was soon discovered that, although stars were great when on land, the deck of a ship was too unstable. Meanwhile, our artisan John Harrison made three clocks which solved the issue (due to their design countering the affect temperature had on them, which was the big problem with using clocks), but kept refusing the reward money because he wasn't satisfied with them.

By the time he had made one that made one that worked and was satisfied with it, the academics in charge of the reward refused to admit it worked. Captains of vessels started asking watchmakers for them. :smalltongue:

I just love the story. The problem with dead reckoning was that is assumed the current conditions had lasted for 24 hours, whereas a clock just said 'you are here. No, not there, definitely here'.

Delta
2015-11-04, 11:27 AM
If I had to sum it up in one general sentence, it would be something like "For at least the last couple thousand years, those people who have concerned themselves with issues for which the shape of the earth was relevant, either already knew or discovered sooner or later that it was round." (and of course, there would still be plenty of exceptions to that rule) The thing is that that group of people tended to be highly limited and specialized since obviously, the shape of the earth isn't really relevant to that many things that most people do in their daily lives. So it was neither an unknown secret nor was it common knowledge.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-11-04, 03:35 PM
For Longitude you also need a Clock.

That's taking too long to invent, especially since those idiots keep stopping John Harrison's invention from being used. Just dead reckon it.

But as I said, I'm pretty surprised that people before roughly the 14th century didn't have a good instrument/way to determine their latitude. Or am I missing a method?

Aetol
2015-11-04, 03:56 PM
The kamal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_(navigation)) was invented by the Arabs in the 9th century ; the sea astrolabe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariner%27s_astrolabe) was invented somewhere between the 13th and the 15th century. Before that, navigation was apparently done by using stars to follow the right bearing.

See here for details. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_navigation)

nedz
2015-11-04, 06:17 PM
Ah, dead reckoning. I remember reading about the attempt to replace it with something better. There were two ideas of what to use: clocks or star charts. It was soon discovered that, although stars were great when on land, the deck of a ship was too unstable. Meanwhile, our artisan John Harrison made three clocks which solved the issue (due to their design countering the affect temperature had on them, which was the big problem with using clocks), but kept refusing the reward money because he wasn't satisfied with them.

By the time he had made one that made one that worked and was satisfied with it, the academics in charge of the reward refused to admit it worked. Captains of vessels started asking watchmakers for them. :smalltongue:

I just love the story. The problem with dead reckoning was that is assumed the current conditions had lasted for 24 hours, whereas a clock just said 'you are here. No, not there, definitely here'.
Dead reckoning is just keeping a track of your course and how long you have been sailing it. It basically involves adding lots of vectors. The trouble with it is that you have to guess the current's direction and speed which can be hard in the ocean and the cumulative errors build up.

To resolve this you should periodically take a fix. This is easy if you are in sight of land with know landmarks, but harder elsewhere. The fix tells you exactly where you are, within a fixed error, and you can carry on tracking your course, with dead reckoning, from you last fix.

That's taking too long to invent, especially since those idiots keep stopping John Harrison's invention from being used. Just dead reckon it.

But as I said, I'm pretty surprised that people before roughly the 14th century didn't have a good instrument/way to determine their latitude. Or am I missing a method?
They had methods, they just weren't very accurate.

With a cross-staff (Jacob's staff) you can only measure angles to within about a degree — and the device is hard to use. These were introduced on ships in the 16th century, but were replaced with various devices leading ultimately to the Sextant — which can measure angles down to about 1/10th of a second of arc.

What you are trying to do is measure the apparent altitude of the Sun or a Star and use that to determine your position. The apparent altitude is the angle between the horizon and the object. This involves quite a bit of maths: mainly corrections and trig. They just didn't have the knowledge, or technology, to do this prior to the 16th century.

1Forge
2015-11-04, 06:31 PM
I see the next quiz i make needs to touch on the earths real shape (obviously a double helix)

Eldan
2015-11-04, 08:09 PM
How about technological progres in the middle ages? That's one I always like. The wrong answer being "they are called dark ages because they lost almost everything the ROmans knew and technology only came back in the Renaissance".

Raimun
2015-11-04, 08:53 PM
10/10. Some things would be debatable but I could see what you were after with these questions.

What RPGs I play? In a nutshell: I play Savage Worlds, Pathfinder and I have played editions 1-5 of D&D. I also play many other systems, sporadically but still enough be more than proficient.



So in short, it's better to not make absolute claims about 'ranges' of bow vs crossbow.

Bows have a range of 24 inches. Crossbows have a range of 30 inches. That's absolute.

Satinavian
2015-11-05, 05:16 AM
That's taking too long to invent, especially since those idiots keep stopping John Harrison's invention from being used. Just dead reckon it.

But as I said, I'm pretty surprised that people before roughly the 14th century didn't have a good instrument/way to determine their latitude. Or am I missing a method?
Latitude is easy. A simple quadrant or any other primitive Inclinometer and a simple star chart does the job. You don't even need tables or complicated math if you are willing to wait for the night and use stars instead of the sun. That has been successfully done since ancient tymes and never forgotten.

Was it used a lot in Navigation ? Not really. Coastlines and landmarks were more important than latitude without langitude (and there was no way available for langitude). Few shipping routes really were that far from the coast.

As for longitude :

What you are trying to do is measure the apparent altitude of the Sun or a Star and use that to determine your position. The apparent altitude is the angle between the horizon and the object. This involves quite a bit of maths: mainly corrections and trig. They just didn't have the knowledge, or technology, to do this prior to the 16th century.

Basically you need to compare local time (which you can get from the sun if you know your latitude and the date and one table... or a full day of observation) to time of some other place. That is why you use a clock. And not only a clock, but a movable clock. And here is the complication.
You can get the same information also from differing ascension descension times of stars measured with local time at the same date... which requires a bit of math and a long measurement on the exact same place. Which can be used on land and was used on land, but not on sea.

Also the math gets only complicated if you have less than a day of observation.

Satinavian
2015-11-05, 05:22 AM
That's taking too long to invent, especially since those idiots keep stopping John Harrison's invention from being used. Just dead reckon it.

But as I said, I'm pretty surprised that people before roughly the 14th century didn't have a good instrument/way to determine their latitude. Or am I missing a method?
Latitude is easy. A simple quadrant or any other primitive Inclinometer and a simple star chart does the job. You don't even need tables or complicated math if you are willing to wait for the night and use stars instead of the sun. That has been successfully done since ancient tymes and never forgotten.

Was it used a lot in Navigation ? Not really. Coastlines and landmarks were more important than latitude without langitude (and there was no way available for langitude). Few shipping routes really were that far from the coast.

As for longitude :

What you are trying to do is measure the apparent altitude of the Sun or a Star and use that to determine your position. The apparent altitude is the angle between the horizon and the object. This involves quite a bit of maths: mainly corrections and trig. They just didn't have the knowledge, or technology, to do this prior to the 16th century.

Basically you need to compare local time (which you can get from the sun if you know your latitude and the date and one table... or a full day of observation) to time of some other place. That is why you use a clock. And not only a clock, but a movable clock. And here is the complication.
You can get the same information also from differing ascension descension times of stars measured with local time at the same date... which requires a bit of math and a long measurement on the exact same place. Which can be used on land and was used on land, but not on sea.

Also the math gets only complicated if you have less than a day of observation.

nedz
2015-11-05, 06:37 AM
Latitude is easy. A simple quadrant or any other primitive Inclinometer and a simple star chart does the job. You don't even need tables or complicated math if you are willing to wait for the night and use stars instead of the sun. That has been successfully done since ancient tymes and never forgotten.

Was it used a lot in Navigation ? Not really. Coastlines and landmarks were more important than latitude without langitude (and there was no way available for langitude). Few shipping routes really were that far from the coast.
Which can be used on land and was used on land, but not on sea.

It's about accuracy. Simple instruments are fine if you're happy with answers of the form We are roughly in the latitude of Spain. This isn't useful for Navigation — which is why it wasn't used.

Also it's a lot easier in the northern hemisphere. Observing Polaris gives you the direction of North and also your Latitude, Even in the tropics this becomes less reliable and there is no southern pole star.

Satinavian
2015-11-05, 06:58 AM
Oh, you could get pretty accurate on land. There have been quadrant-like structures the size of houses made of stone. They stand perfectly still and the size helps with accuracy too.

And of course it's about northern hemisphere if we are talking "middle ages" a concept which does not really extend beyond Europe and the mediterranian countries. But you could do without Polaris, of you able to measure the highest point other stars reach. Which, again, is easier, if you have several nights in one place and some kind of local clock.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-11-05, 07:21 AM
With a cross-staff (Jacob's staff) you can only measure angles to within about a degree — and the device is hard to use. These were introduced on ships in the 16th century, but were replaced with various devices leading ultimately to the Sextant — which can measure angles down to about 1/10th of a second of arc.


Latitude is easy. A simple quadrant or any other primitive Inclinometer and a simple star chart does the job. You don't even need tables or complicated math if you are willing to wait for the night and use stars instead of the sun.

I know that. The amount of degrees the pole star (or in the south the bit of sky the southern cross points at) sits above the horizon is the amount of degrees you're away from the equator is your latitude. The same thing in reverse with a correction for the time of year with the highest point the sun reaches, if you're not in a hurry to know. Even without a table one can do all that really simply. What I was surprised about is that apparently Jacob's staff wasn't used in Europe before the 14th century. It's really handy to have at least some form of confirmation of your dead reckoning. It helps a lot in compensating for inaccuracies and how much you drift because of sea currents and the wind. It also helps in figuring out which coastline that is you're seeing, and is therefor a great addition to those books with pictures of coastlines in them. And it's not very hard to do, or to figure out.


That has been successfully done since ancient tymes and never forgotten.
Which is what I always figured. So that's what I was surprised about, that apparently it hasn't been continuously done since ancient times, unless I'm missing at least one instrument.


Was it used a lot in Navigation ? Not really. Coastlines and landmarks were more important than latitude without langitude (and there was no way available for langitude). Few shipping routes really were that far from the coast.

That is at least some sort of explanation. It just seems kind of stupid to not have much of a backup. As I said, I was kind of surprised that apparently people were dumber than I like to give them credit for.


As for longitude :


Basically you need to compare local time (which you can get from the sun if you know your latitude and the date and one table... or a full day of observation) to time of some other place. That is why you use a clock.

Exactly, and they didn't have any that could travel well on ships and keep good track of time, so unlike any modern person with a watch, knowledge of what time zone their watch is set to and some time on their hands to figure out at which point the sun is at its highest altitude they couldn't determine longitude, which is why they had to dead reckon using their heading, speed and previous location. Which gets a lot easier if you can also determine your latitude, like later sailors did. We're all on the same page here I figure.


Oh, you could get pretty accurate on land. There have been quadrant-like structures the size of houses made of stone. They stand perfectly still and the size helps with accuracy too.


The kamal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_(navigation)) was invented by the Arabs in the 9th century ; the sea astrolabe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariner%27s_astrolabe) was invented somewhere between the 13th and the 15th century. Before that, navigation was apparently done by using stars to follow the right bearing.

See here for details. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_navigation)

Thanks, so I was missing at least one instrument and people did use this very simple method for determining your latitude on a spherical earth at least a bit earlier than my previous searches led me to believe. That's a relieve, I'm glad people weren't imbeciles back then, and I'm especially glad that I can keep pointing to navigation at sea as a reason why it's impossible that people just a few centuries ago thought the world was flat.

Aetol
2015-11-05, 11:50 AM
Imbeciles ? Definitely not. Maybe ignorant is what you wanted to say. Homo sapiens sapiens has had the same intelligence since the Paleolithic. And while some technologies and notions seem obvious in hindsight, they certainly weren't before they were discovered.
</rant>

Spiryt
2015-11-05, 12:07 PM
Imbeciles ? Definitely not. Maybe ignorant is what you wanted to say. Homo sapiens sapiens has had the same intelligence since the Paleolithic. And while some technologies and notions seem obvious in hindsight, they certainly weren't before they were discovered.
</rant>

Well, I obviously agree about general premise, I wouldn't be sure about 'same intelligence', especially since there can be no real data.

But human intelligence, as with anything, was experiencing natural selection together with other traits.

It's entirely possible that with the advance of general culture, there was more and more pressure producing more intelligent generations, on average.

Or, at very least, different 'kinds' of intellect, suitable for different lifestyles.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-11-06, 11:49 AM
Well, I obviously agree about general premise, I wouldn't be sure about 'same intelligence', especially since there can be no real data.

But human intelligence, as with anything, was experiencing natural selection together with other traits.

It's entirely possible that with the advance of general culture, there was more and more pressure producing more intelligent generations, on average.

Or, at very least, different 'kinds' of intellect, suitable for different lifestyles.

We have the Flynn effect, where every generation over the last 7 decades or so gets higher scores on IQ tests. However, this is most likely mostly cultural in nature. In fact, it has been suggested that current trends which seem to indicate an end to the effect may mean that genetically we've been getting stupider during this time, and just didn't notice it because of the effect of culture and education.

I agree however that genetic changes probably don't make a whole world of difference over just a thousand years (tens of thousands of years is a whole different matter, I'll gladly believe that it would be hard to raise a kid from say 20.000 years ago as a normal kid from today). So maybe I should rephrase: I'm not calling them stupid, I'm accusing them of behaving stupid. And it's kind of worrying that they're my ancestors. (Grain of salt people, grain of salt. :smalltongue:)

Aetol
2015-11-06, 01:14 PM
I'll gladly believe that it would be hard to raise a kid from say 20.000 years ago as a normal kid from today

Now that's an interesting question... I'm inclined to disagree with you, but I have no idea where to get an answer.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-11-06, 01:46 PM
Now that's an interesting question... I'm inclined to disagree with you, but I have no idea where to get an answer.

Okay, maybe take a step back.

I think we'll agree that if you go back about 1.5 million years people are going to be really different. That's about the time at which people start using stone hand axes and fire. They keep using those stone hand axes for a million years. In that time, humans adapt both physically and mentally to tool use, and even just sitting around the campfire was probably a major stepping stone in our social development. (If you've ever wondered why it's fun to stare into a campfire or watch a substitute like late night TV, this is it. Your ancestors spent over a million years getting together around the fire as their most important social activity, which also kept them safe from predators.)

Language is a lot harder to pin down, but Neanderthals, which split of from our line about 600.000 years ago, seem to have all the bits and pieces needed for complex vocalizations. (I think researchers still haven't found one tiny piece of bone or something they would have needed, but the simplest explanation for that missing is probably that it's such a small and fragile thing, not that they didn't have it.) The only reason for us to already have all those bits and pieces 600.000 years ago is that we could use them, we had a language. We also develop whole sets of tools around about that time, replacing our do it all swiss army biface/hand axe.

In the same period we start seeing evidence of art, a sense for the aesthetic. There has been stuff found from as far as 500.000 years back. It doesn't approach the details seen in cave art and statues from say 40.000 years ago, but it's the same thing in principal. A human from 100.000 years ago would clearly be a human, as would a Neanderthal from that era.

But, some changes came later. The earliest forms of writing show up 5.000 years ago. There's a good chance that any person from before that time would be dyslectic by todays standard. Instantly recognizing rows of small symbols and figuring out what word the sum of them represents is simply not a skill anyone at the time needed, so it hadn't evolved. The reason most of us today are not dyslectic, or only mildly so, is that we have been naturally selected on having that particular skill since that time. In fact, for large parts of the population the skill didn't become relevant until just a few hundreds of years ago. And still here we are, reading this forum like it's the most normal thing in the world.

Intelligence is a lot like reading, we have been using it a lot in the last few thousand years. People who could out think others have had a pretty big advantage in the race for survival during most of that time, especially if they were smarter without using more energy with their brains and without requiring a larger head (which makes birth so dangerous in humans). Some intelligent behaviors we showcase today simply couldn't properly develop until a few thousand years ago. It helps a stone age hunter if he can construct a wooden hut, but he doesn't need to figure out mechanics a lot further than that, and a bronze age bookkeeper might find himself using the kind of mathematical insight nobody in his entire ancestry has ever used or needed before. I'm not saying I know how smart people were 20.000 years ago, but I'm pretty sure this whole civilization thing we've gotten going since then has had some sort of impact.

Aetol
2015-11-06, 02:28 PM
The anatomically modern humans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human) (i.e. us) emerged 150-200,000 years ago. However, behavioral modernity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity) appeared around 50,000 years ago. This is the point where humans were able to invent human-specific behaviors, though that does not mean earlier humans wouldn't be able to adopt them. Writing wasn't invented until much later, but that doesn't mean the human mind couldn't handle it until then. It was just not needed ; for the longest time, simple tallies were enough for accounting (and they were used 40,000 years ago).

TL;DR version :
- 150,000 years ago, our ancestors were physically identical to us, presumably including brainpower.
- 50,000 years ago, humans were demonstrating behaviors that were the first steps on the road to civilization.

So, an infant from 20,000 years ago raised from birth in the modern world ? He would definitely fit in.
100,000 years ago ? Probably, but it's not certain.
200,000 years ago ? He would most likely be mentally impaired (by H. sapiens standards, of course), though to what extent I don't know.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-11-06, 03:00 PM
Writing wasn't invented until much later, but that doesn't mean the human mind couldn't handle it until then. It was just not needed

And in evolution, form follows function. You can randomly develop basic capabilities, or even have them come into existence as the side effect of another development, but you're going to get good at it if you use it, you don't randomly get good at things.

In the case of intelligence, people have been using that for quite some time. But they've been using their brains especially well for the last 20.000 years. That's close to a thousand generations in which smart people generally had an advantage on the fields of survival and reproduction. That's going to have an effect. No matter how smart people were at the start of that period, by the end they're going to be smarter, because smarter was better.

And I probably was overstating the difference earlier. You could take an average kid from that period, raise them and put them in school, and nobody would suspect a thing. But they would probably be a bit slow, especially in areas that have little to do with stone age life, like reading. They might not even be the slowest kid in the class. But the average child from then would rank below the average child from now. Fossilized bones might not be able to tell that story, but it's only logical that it happened. A rapidly changing environment often puts much more selective pressure on a species then an environment that stays the same, and we have been changing our environment.

If you look at the current time the picture is probably reversed. The population has been growing rapidly recently because we've managed to take much of the selective pressure off. We're in a diversifying period now, where we mix new genes into our gene pool to get ready for an eventual new bout of selection. So right now we should not be getting much smarter. But semi-explosive population growth hasn't been a continuous factor for 20.000 years.

Also: I'm probably way better at derailing threads than any of my ancestors from the neolithic period.

Aetol
2015-11-06, 05:10 PM
If the kid is "transplanted" as an infant, before he has the time to learn anything from his era, I don't see how "areas that have little to do with stone age life" would be more difficult for him specifically. Yes, maybe he is a sliver more likely to be under average intelligence. But intelligence is a multi-purpose and very malleable thing. Before education comes in, his brain won't fine-tuned for "stone age stuff", just like ours aren't fine-tuned for "modern stuff".

Nightcanon
2015-11-06, 08:59 PM
It gets complicated. I've seen historical maps drawn by travelled clergyman who state that the world is in the shape of the Tabernacle (link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Topography)).

Delving into it further probably breaks board rules, but that makes the counter misconception that all medieval folks knew the world was round, a misconception. :smalltongue:
A lot of early maps weren't really topographical, more a list of places to head to in order: leave the village past the church towards the town of Woolpit. In Woolpit, ask for the Abbey of St Edmundsbury. When you get to the Abbey, ask for directions across the river to the next place, and so on. Jotting down things in the margin or arranging them in an instructive shape gave an indication of the purpose of the map or a record of a journey rather than a literal indication of how the maker thought the world was shaped.
Given that the ancient greeks believed that the Earth was a sphere, it's reasonable to think that people of learning after the Dark Ages were of the same opinion. Common folk who rarely travelled beyond their pocal market town may well have believed the world to be flat, apart from the hills and ditches. To all intents and purposes it was.

Nightcanon
2015-11-06, 09:07 PM
How about technological progres in the middle ages? That's one I always like. The wrong answer being "they are called dark ages because they lost almost everything the ROmans knew and technology only came back in the Renaissance".

The Middle Ages aren't called the Dark Ages at all.

Aetol
2015-11-07, 04:17 PM
The Middle Ages aren't called the Dark Ages at all.

They definitely are. By laypeople. The kind of people who believe this :

https://fromthegardenintothecity.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/darkages.gif

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-11-08, 09:46 AM
If the kid is "transplanted" as an infant, before he has the time to learn anything from his era, I don't see how "areas that have little to do with stone age life" would be more difficult for him specifically.

Because his ancestors haven't been selected on being able to do those things for a few hundred to one thousand generations. Sure, that's not a lot in terms of evolution, but especially for brain capacities that we've only started using since then it makes a difference.

Aetol
2015-11-08, 02:06 PM
Because his ancestors haven't been selected on being able to do those things for a few hundred to one thousand generations. Sure, that's not a lot in terms of evolution, but especially for brain capacities that we've only started using since then it makes a difference.

Again, you're assuming that over the last 200,000 years, humans have been selected on being able to do specific things, even though those specific things were changing quickly, instead of just being able to outsmart their way out of anything. As I said, it's education that make us better at tasks we need to do often and not as good at tasks we never do. Evolution gives us a blank slate of raw brainpower (with some low-level reflexes left over from our hunter-gatherer days), then culture and education shape it to fit our needs.

Tobtor
2015-11-09, 06:34 AM
Also: I'm probably way better at derailing threads than any of my ancestors from the neolithic period.

That has nothing to do with intelligence. But with learning. They might be better at other, brain-powered, tasks than you. ->You can not equate IQ with skills.

There is however some things that affect brain power. A recent study have shown that medieval city dwellers would have getting so much lead in their food (from various sources, including glazed pottery), that it would have caused small scale brain damage to their children. Other effects are also in play (getting enough of the right nutrients).

So we might see mesolithic or palaeolithic people scoring slightly higher on IQ than city dwellers from the medieval period (unless they are from a period with high stress).

The important part of human evolution is that it have developed us into the ability to adapt. That is we do not need to evolution us self to the ability to read (that would take ten of thousands of years), but evolution has offered us a brain that can adapt quickly to new innovations.


In the case of intelligence, people have been using that for quite some time. But they've been using their brains especially well for the last 20.000 years. That's close to a thousand generations in which smart people generally had an advantage on the fields of survival and reproduction.

Have you any studies that back the statement up that we have used the brain more in the last 20.000 years? It could be argued that for instance, a hunter need more intelligence than a farmer (tracking requiring more brain activity than ploughing), and that for the last 10-6.000 years the majority of the population time would have been farmers (baring the last 200years, but that is only 3% of the time if 6.00 years is chosen).

"smart" is not the only trait selected for, larger brains also require more energy, and if the energy isn't put to use it could be argued that smaller brains are selected for. Evolution is not "survival of the best", but survival of the most efficient at surviving. That is why we still have "dumb" animals around, as well as smart ones. Only if IQ is important it will be selected for, and only until the required level. Evolution can develop equilibriums (states where developments are not going in either direction within a specific area, like size, strength or IQ).

I cannot prove that, and I think the difference is almost non-existing. But if you look at the development in the last 300 years, it is clear than humans can develop new skills extremely fast, way beyond anything evolutionary. In any area, when writing is introduced, people learn it in a few generations (lets say, modern day Sami from northern Scandinavia, or Inuit from Greenland can all read and writing, but they have only been exposed to writing for less than 200 years or less).

Remember that many population groups where basically hunter-gatheres 100 years ago, and even more groups 500-1.000 years ago, and unless you wish to defend the stance that native americans have lower IQ than us, you cannot argue that stone age people have (since native americans was stone age people until quite recently).

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-11-09, 08:08 AM
That has nothing to do with intelligence. But with learning. They might be better at other, brain-powered, tasks than you. ->You can not equate IQ with skills.


The important part of human evolution is that it have developed us into the ability to adapt. That is we do not need to evolution us self to the ability to read (that would take ten of thousands of years), but evolution has offered us a brain that can adapt quickly to new innovations.
And how did we get such a brain, if not from evolving to adapt to new innovations?


Have you any studies that back the statement up that we have used the brain more in the last 20.000 years? It could be argued that for instance, a hunter need more intelligence than a farmer (tracking requiring more brain activity than ploughing), and that for the last 10-6.000 years the majority of the population time would have been farmers (baring the last 200years, but that is only 3% of the time if 6.00 years is chosen).
Good point. Although I do think you're underestimating (neolithic) farming there. There's more tool use than in hunting, there's animal handling, knowing the needs of plants and animals, raising buildings, living in larger communities and interacting with more people, making bread and beer. Also, as much as science fiction writers like to assume that the smartest creatures are always predators it's no coincidence that we're apes, or that crows and parrots are the smartest birds, or that elephants are so smart, or pigs. Hunting is not that hard, mentally. Gathering high quality plant material is often more demanding on the brains, for one thing. (And yes, there's a big opening there for speculating on the differences in intelligence between men and women. I'll just leave it here for whoever wants it.)


"smart" is not the only trait selected for, larger brains also require more energy, and if the energy isn't put to use it could be argued that smaller brains are selected for. Evolution is not "survival of the best", but survival of the most efficient at surviving. That is why we still have "dumb" animals around, as well as smart ones. Only if IQ is important it will be selected for, and only until the required level. Evolution can develop equilibriums (states where developments are not going in either direction within a specific area, like size, strength or IQ).


People who could out think others have had a pretty big advantage in the race for survival during most of that time, especially if they were smarter without using more energy with their brains and without requiring a larger head (which makes birth so dangerous in humans).

Brains are a major energy drain. They take up 2% of our weight but use 20% of our energy. That doesn't mean they're not adapting to the task at hand. In fact, if our brains were not adapting to our circumstances they would quickly become more trouble than they're worth. Nobody wants to spend 20% of their budget on something they cannot use because it didn't stay up to date.


I cannot prove that, and I think the difference is almost non-existing. But if you look at the development in the last 300 years, it is clear than humans can develop new skills extremely fast, way beyond anything evolutionary. In any area, when writing is introduced, people learn it in a few generations (lets say, modern day Sami from northern Scandinavia, or Inuit from Greenland can all read and writing, but they have only been exposed to writing for less than 200 years or less).
Good point.


Remember that many population groups where basically hunter-gatheres 100 years ago, and even more groups 500-1.000 years ago, and unless you wish to defend the stance that native americans have lower IQ than us,
Reductio ad racisticum.

I'm not arguing that the differences that have built up between the color varieties of our species over the last 60,000 years or so are in any way large. What I'm saying is that evolution does not stop under rapidly changing circumstances. If anything, selection speeds up in those times. It's been a short time, but a short time does not mean no differences, or no mental differences. Dogs that grow up in the wild are similar to wolves, but not exactly the same thing.

In the case of humans intelligence it would at the very least be semi-reasonable to assume that intelligence is one of the things that was being selected for. And with humans I don't mean Europeans, because civilization and circumstances where being intelligent is a good thing were king of wide spread.


you cannot argue that stone age people have (since native americans was stone age people until quite recently).
Technically they were stone age people, but not the way people imagine it when you use those words. You're stepping over a long tradition of large empires here. Even after the plague killed 95% of the humans on the continent, there were still states left, like the Iroquois Confederacy, that were impressive enough that the founding fathers took them as an example when they wrote their constitution. Native Americans would have been subjected to the same selection pressures as white people, or whatever "us" you're using there.

In fact, if you do want to presume this line of reasoning that selection must have led to differences between human varieties, Middle Eastern people would probably be the smartest humans, A lot of the important basics were pioneered there before they got anywhere else. People in Eastern China would probably rank second. North West Europe was in the middle of the pack at best. It only took the lead role in the last few hundred years, some dozens generations at best, compared to the thousands we're talking about since the neolithic.

Tobtor
2015-11-09, 01:31 PM
And how did we get such a brain, if not from evolving to adapt to new innovations?

But there is no indication that we got this brain in the last 20.000 years. In the contrary it seem the last many years the brain is roughly the same size and form. What I am saying is: the brain did develop, mainly from those other humanoids before us, around 200.000years ago, perhaps with small further development. But at some point it is possible that "we" reached a level where increased brain-power did not increase our survivabillity anymore. Its the same with size: some earlier hominids was shorter and got larger, but not really over the last many millenia (stone age man is roughly the size of 1800th century man, if not taller.


Although I do think you're underestimating (neolithic) farming there.

I hope not. I am doing a PhD in north European neolithic.


There's more tool use than in hunting, there's animal handling, knowing the needs of plants and animals, raising buildings, living in larger communities and interacting with more people, making bread and beer.

Yes and no. Neolithic is a very diverse state, with a range of living conditions. So is "hunter gatherers". Some (many) neolithic societies consisted of single family settlements, while others where extremely large. From a north European perspective, flint technology is better in the mesolithic than the first neolithic. Though examples such as this (http://www.biopix.dk/photos/jcs-tyndnakket-flintoekse-16187.jpg) are very nice to look at, it isnt particular difficult to make. (however late Neolithic/Early Bronze age "swords (http://www.museum-sonderjylland.dk/BILLEDERNE/Museerne/Arkeologi/Maanedens-fund/Flintsvaerd.jpg)" are likely the most difficult to make).


Also, as much as science fiction writers like to assume that the smartest creatures are always predators it's no coincidence that we're apes, or that crows and parrots are the smartest birds, or that elephants are so smart, or pigs. Hunting is not that hard, mentally.

I agree with the first part. And the part abouth gathering, also very demanding, especially of memory, recognition etc. But hunting also requires some "IQ" skills, quick decisions, fast adaptability etc. Especially human hunting, that dosnt rely on speed or big claws etc, but cooperation and trapping. The mental task of laying out a trap, you need to "imagine"
how the animal will act. This is a hard mental task. The ability to plan is what makes us talk of birds such as parrots and ravens as "clever".


Brains are a major energy drain. They take up 2% of our weight but use 20% of our energy. That doesn't mean they're not adapting to the task at hand. In fact, if our brains were not adapting to our circumstances they would quickly become more trouble than they're worth. Nobody wants to spend 20% of their budget on something they cannot use because it didn't stay up to date.

I agree, but its likely/probable that the brain also used 20% of our energy 50.000years ago. The question is if it is "worth" it for it to use more of the energy than the 20%. If not, it would stop getting bigger.


In the case of humans intelligence it would at the very least be semi-reasonable to assume that intelligence is one of the things that was being selected for.

To some degree yes. At least enough that other traits is not selected more for (like size or whatever), otherwise out IQ would drop. The question isn't whether being smart is a good thing, but if its required to be smarter than your peers to have off-springs. If they are really dumb, then yes. But at some point it might not be worth it, over other abilities.


Technically they were stone age people, but not the way people imagine it when you use those words.

Thats because people imagine the stone age wrong. I am aware that North America is a big diverse thing, with many kinds of stone age people (from small scale settlements to empires). But hey, so was the stone age.
This little site is roughly 12.000 years old:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe,_Urfa.jpg

4.000 years ago people build stone henge and the pyramids, back then that site was already 8.000 years old. Its called Göbekli Tepe if you want to google it. Complete with amazing stoneworks, natural and figurative art etc.


In fact, if you do want to presume this line of reasoning that selection must have led to differences between human varieties, Middle Eastern people would probably be the smartest humans, A lot of the important basics were pioneered there before they got anywhere else. People in Eastern China would probably rank second. North West Europe was in the middle of the pack at best. It only took the lead role in the last few hundred years, some dozens generations at best, compared to the thousands we're talking about since the neolithic.

Well exactly. It dosn't seem to be evolutionary who was leading technology wise, but a matter of "other" reasons. That is: historical, political, geographical, social reasons. The fact that Europe could go from backwards to leading in a few centuries (or even if it too a milena), indicate that our technological capabilities was already present "then". But as other cvilizations such as the Egyptians and Romans etc, also did amazing stuff (and so did the Globekli tepe people whoever they where, and at Çatalhöyük a "town" had grown 9k years ago.

The ever shifting technological advantages of different regions/people, suggest that the really clever "trick" human evolution took was the capability to adapt and imagine new things, since it allowed for a technological development far faster than any evolution. We can argue if this happened 200.000years ago, or before, and some like to point to the time 80-50.00years when complex art appears (the whole "imagination" part), but after that the evolution is "left in the dust" from a racing technological and social development. Or rather, the trick evolution gave us, was the trick of changing our life without evolution.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-11-09, 04:11 PM
It dosn't seem to be evolutionary who was leading technology wise,

I think I'll sum up my standpoint as response to this line then. I don't think evolution decided where cultural breakthroughs took place over the last few tens of thousands of years. As you said, the basic capabilities were present everywhere, and much too close to each other, if even different at all, to make that difference. Who's leading when can be traced for an big part by environment. (Like how the Mediterranean lands take over from the fertile crescent ones trade becomes more important and the important species have been domesticated and exported anyway, and how the countries bordering the Atlantic Ocean take over when the technology for long sea voyages becomes available.) Influence from other human made events and random chance are other factors.

But, I do think cultural breakthroughs in part decided where evolution took place, in the broadest and vaguest sense of the word. If genes came up during this time that made our brains more efficient, that made us better at social interaction with groups larger than about 300 people, that made us better at doing calculations or at reading then those genes would have been selected for. Genetically we're a very poor species. One primatologist ones said that you can find more diversity in a family group of chimpanzees than in the entirety of our species. We don't have a lot to select on. But we have seen circumstances that apply selective pressure recently. And pressure is what molds us.

*Looks back* I'm not very good at summing things up nice and short, am I?

Talakeal
2015-11-09, 06:27 PM
So to add to my growing list of nonsense my DM says:

Last night we were treated to a lecture about how European swords were basically clumsy clubs that were used to beat your opponent to death and weren't even sharpened unlike the elegant blades of the East.

Spiryt
2015-11-10, 11:57 AM
So to add to my growing list of nonsense my DM says:

Last night we were treated to a lecture about how European swords were basically clumsy clubs that were used to beat your opponent to death and weren't even sharpened unlike the elegant blades of the East.

At what longitude does meridian border happen? Is it sharp, or more fluid one?

Brother Oni
2015-11-10, 12:37 PM
At what longitude does meridian border happen? Is it sharp, or more fluid one?

It most likely starts from the Sea of Japan eastwards. :smalltongue: