so you find yourself in 272 bc....

[Aemilius Paulus]

Sorry i was running on the assumption that you were back in 272bc with the knowledge you have at this point. As for nitric acid from saltpetre its pretty simple, just add sulphric acid, distil the products and voilà!

Ahh, thanks! Now I have extra knowledge!! Ah, Are you a Brit/Commonwealth citizen?

[bobbin]

Yep i'm from Britian, Scotland to be exact and I can tell you it pleases me to see someone use the correct spelling of sulphur! none of this silly "sulfur" business.

[APX]

Unlike Americans, I am a patient person, and do not want everything "fast" and "easy".

Excuse me? Generalization much?

[Snite]

Walking in the forest wtih the Sweboz. Since I think I'm roughly the average height of a barbaroi back then (I'm 5ft 8in) I'll fit in better than I would elsewhere though I would have no clue what they were saying it would still be fun. And I would hope that they have already adopted soap like EB says and if not, introduce it to 'em.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Yep i'm from Britian, Scotland to be exact and I can tell you it pleases me to see someone use the correct spelling of sulphur! none of this silly "sulfur" business.

Yes, that and the fact you spelled "distil" with one "L" at the end, and not "distill". I also choose British English, despite living in America. American is a mere bastardisation, a dialect, deviating from the original and purer British English , 1/2.

Excuse me? Generalization much?

A generalisation, and a true one. I do not know if it is too much or just enough, but I do know that Americans value quick and easy things perhaps overtly so. Just look at their inventions , e.g.: "drive-thru" restaurants, banks, vaccinations, medicine. The vaccinations clearly overstepped it, especially so due to their significantly smaller effectiveness (anywhere from 20-50% less effective)

[Azathoth]

Yes, that and the fact you spelled "distil" with one "L" at the end, and not "distill". I also choose British English, despite living in America. American is a mere bastardisation, a dialect, deviating from the original and purer British English , 1/2.

Who do you think you are, Lovecraft?

Vaccination? Seriously?

[satalexton]

@Ibrahim

Perhaps you could introduce them the steam engine first, I'm sure they'll be overjoyed.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Who do you think you are, Lovecraft?

Huh? Are you referring to my outlandish plans for improving Roman Empire? Then why did you quote that post of mine?

Vaccination? Seriously?

Yeah, just Google it...

[Azathoth]

Huh? Are you referring to my outlandish plans for improving Roman Empire? Then why did you quote that post of mine?

Just Google it.

And I was referring to the part where you said that Americans invented banks, vaccination, and medicine.

[Ibrahim]

Yes, that and the fact you spelled "distil" with one "L" at the end, and not "distill". I also choose British English, despite living in America. American is a mere bastardisation, a dialect, deviating from the original and purer British English , 1/2.

actually, taken from a historical perspective, American english is hardly a bastardization; if anything, one could make a better case for american english being "purer" than the british english of today: some southern dialects in the Carolinas** are the closest living dialects to that spoken by shakespeare*; almost all the dialects retain archaic features and terms (rhoticism being the most prominent), to varying degrees, and lastly, they are older than modern british english, which in only ~200 yesr old. most dialects in the US east of the mississipi, as well as canadian english, are anywhere from ~400 to ~250 years old. so no, pver schwa'd a's and missing postvocalic r's are not features of a "pure" dialect-just the features of one of many dialects. besides, I find the idea of "bastardized" and "pure" to be entirely pointless. am I going to go to an egyptian and tell him my dialect is purer because I use wala instead of yala?




*no, I'm not making it up-they often pronounce things in an archaic manner: check this out: http://www.renfaire.com/Language/ . it is confirmed by wikipedia, and any entry of "great vowel shift")

**some, not all varieties.

@stalexon: yeah, yeah, when you lose you respond with petty jabs

[satalexton]

Yeah, it -can- be done...you're merely accelerating a process that happened during the Ming dynasty (silly Qing nomads and their obscession with HAs)

OT-ish: Can volleys of bolts, destroy a cavalry charge? How did the Seres do it?

[bobbin]

@Ibrahim

Perhaps you could introduce them the steam engine first, I'm sure they'll be overjoyed.

Steam "engines" have been around for ages IIRC the first known evidence of one is is the 1st century AD. It was considered a toy, for some reason none ever had the idea to use for anything else

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile

[satalexton]

the seres might use it =/ they already use natural gas to boil salt...

[Dewirix]

I'm still not convinced it's as easy as picking a side and then giving them guns.

Aside from the cost of mass production of guns, powder and shot and the military and social conservatism you'd have to overcome, once you managed to prove the concept how long would it be before your enemies developed the same weapons? Obviously this is more likely to be the case if you're fighting settled states rather than nomads.

Diffusion of weapons technology is certain to outpace imperial expansion, especially one that's reliant on siege trains and fixed infrastructure like gun foundries and powderworks.

In short, any advantage conferred by guns would be at best temporary and might be outweighed by the costs. In the short to medium-term, I'd imagine that you wouldn't field all-gun armies, but I suppose some units might adopt them.

As to the use of steam engines, I recently read Robert Allen's The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. In it he argues that steam only developed because in coalfield areas of the UK engines could burn cheap, low-quality fuel and could be used to replace relatively expensive labour.

Everywhere else in the world had to wait until the engines became more efficient before it was cost-effective to use them. I would have thought that in the ancient world the relative costs of labour, capital and raw materials would mean that labour-intensive processes were preferred over those that needed investments of money or raw materials.

I think this is why they call economics the dismal science. It always spoils the fun...

[Cute Wolf]

I'd love to simply land myself on any steppe nomads, and create gunpowders and teaching them how to fight with guns and muskets. Well, the nomads are naturally better missile fighters, so I'd expect I could conquer the wolrd in 10 years with my "nomadic dragoon" army.

But I'd also love to land in Athens, and write several scrolls about Chemistry, Physics, and Biology, as well as maybe math...

Oh yeah, to create nitroglyverins, you'll just need a bunch of animal fat, boil them with ash, add some ammount of salts and then you harvest the thick liquid on the bottom, yeah, glycerine.

And about the nitrates, I'll go the nearby saltpeter deposits, and a big jar of redistilled vinegar is more than enough to made nitric acid. BUt hey... I'll start to taught them (either nomads or hellenes) how to create a good fertilizers first, and then made solar cells instead of oil based engines.



And at least, when I got bored, I'll just go to Barbaropolis with my dragoons and start shooting them. And yeah.... create a large, 5 meter deep, 20 meters square pit when a lot of Romaioi barbaroi thrown naked and free to run inside, while they become a moving target practice.

[bobbin]

actually, taken from a historical perspective, American english is hardly a bastardization; if anything, one could make a better case for american english being "purer" than the british english of today: some southern dialects in the Carolinas** are the closest living dialects to that spoken by shakespeare*; almost all the dialects retain archaic features and terms (rhoticism being the most prominent), to varying degrees, and lastly, they are older than modern british english, which in only ~200 yesr old. most dialects in the US east of the mississipi, as well as canadian english, are anywhere from ~400 to ~250 years old. so no, pver schwa'd a's and missing postvocalic r's are not features of a "pure" dialect-just the features of one of many dialects. besides, I find the idea of "bastardized" and "pure" to be entirely pointless. am I going to go to an egyptian and tell him my dialect is purer because I use wala instead of yala?




*no, I'm not making it up-they often pronounce things in an archaic manner: check this out: http://www.renfaire.com/Language/ . it is confirmed by wikipedia, and any entry of "great vowel shift")

**some, not all varieties.

I was aware of that americans used some more archaic parts of the language but surely those dialects changed as much over time as british english did so the notion of one being older than the other is a bit of a moot point?

ps scots english still contains a lot of the old aspects of english, rhoticism being the most obvious.

[Phalanx300]

Well the Sweboz forests, I would fit in best there, maybe even have a chance to do some raids and get filthy rich.

Though I'm not sure whether I would get accepted seeing I don't really speak ancient Germanic it would be very hard to understand. Though I definately have the physical appearance of a Germanic more then any other.

[Whatever Scortamareva]

And I would hope that they have already adopted soap like EB says and if not, introduce it to 'em.

Although the barbarian soap was apparently a carcinogen but feel free, I'm sure it's better than covering yourself in olive oil

[Ibrahim]

I was aware of that americans used some more archaic parts of the language but surely those dialects changed as much over time as british english did so the notion of one being older than the other is a bit of a moot point?

ps scots english still contains a lot of the old aspects of english, rhoticism being the most obvious.

they chaneged since then, as do all dialects, but not nearly as much as British english.

and yes, I did make the point of age(and "pureness") being moot. language is never standardized; even in middle english we find one dialect pronuncing knee as "k-ney" while another has it "k-no" (damn I wish I were making this up)

however, the distinction between dialects is begining to die out, replaced by a "general american" accent, which is modelled on northern midlands english (western Pennsylvania, Ohio, northern Indiana), with western influence (on is pronunced "an" as opposed to northern midlands "oon" or "o-an*"). and the area round the great lake is also going through a "norther-cities shift", with changes almost as extreme as the great vowel shift.


*there has to be a better way of representing this

@Dewirix: even socially conservative society, such as the japanese in the 16th century, will adopt it; an awesome weapon is just that. and as I pointed out, the costs are actually advantageous for cetralized government, placing a premium on more efficient (i.e modern) government structures. In fact, when I get around to installing EB-alex.exe, I'll make an experiment with that in mind.

[Aemilius Paulus]

And nevertheless Oxford English is the world standard. Which is what I use, and which is what I learned since I was five, giving my speech the distinct flavour of accent as well.

[A Very Super Market]

The Tidewater accent is limited to a few islands around Chesapeake bay. All other dialects, be they British or American, are bastardisations.

[Fixiwee]

can you explain this then?

Best post in a while here.

[Azathoth]

But the point is, how are you going to make those guns? The principle alone isn't enough. Then, you can't really mass produce them - the best you can get would be a stockpile of a few thousand primitive firearms after a couple of years.

however, the distinction between dialects is begining to die out, replaced by a "general american" accent, which is modelled on northern midlands english (western Pennsylvania, Ohio, northern Indiana), with western influence (on is pronunced "an" as opposed to northern midlands "oon" or "o-an*"). and the area round the great lake is also going through a "norther-cities shift", with changes almost as extreme as the great vowel shift.

What about the Brooklyn accent, buddy?

And nevertheless Oxford English is the world standard.

Is it? Most seem to use American English.

[bobbin]

however, the distinction between dialects is begining to die out, replaced by a "general american" accent, which is modelled on northern midlands english (western Pennsylvania, Ohio, northern Indiana), with western influence (on is pronunced "an" as opposed to northern midlands "oon" or "o-an*"). and the area round the great lake is also going through a "norther-cities shift", with changes almost as extreme as the great vowel shift.

Interesting, I've always assumed that the american accent came from the dutch. if you've heard dutch people speaking english you'll know what i mean.

*there has to be a better way of representing this

Don't worry i understand what you mean

[Ibrahim]

Interesting, I've always assumed that the american accent came from the dutch. if you've heard dutch people speaking english you'll know what i mean.

nope-its basically english from the english

its, as I said, more archaic than modern british english, with modifications. general American is considered the "ideal" compramise between the dialects. the only reason its based on Northern midlands is because its the dialect with the most features seen as "compramise". the first dictionaries that show "general american" pronunciation was, not surprisingly, from Ohio, where northern midlands is anchored. the closest accent however to GA is in Nebraska/Iowa, since its the area where eastern dialects meet western ones.

What about the Brooklyn accent, buddy?

well, the brooklyn accent isn't from the great lakes now, is it?

and even it has been mellowing-though at a slower rate.

[moonburn]

i would be going to some tartessian beach and try to nail some nice casse or sweboz lady

or is that what i have planed for tomorrow ?

as for a living i would make a living out of being a priest of those nice fertility cults that people had around this area of iberia before those dude with dresses came

[Ca Putt]

i would be going to some tartessian beach and try to nail some nice casse or sweboz lady

:D definitely tomorrow :D

You know what I find interesting? that many people would really like to do the same thing as characters in fiction novels, just more violent and less Idealistic: Introduce advanced Weapons to "primitive" (for all nitpicks: there is a reason I added the "" ) societies(for fun and Profit). In literature the protagonists often just want to support their "good" king/Nobleman/Dictator/whatever at defeating the evil tyrant/dragon/wizard. Here It's far less idealistic. I mean isn't there anything really worth bringing back in time from our age? Is it all just weapons and war? why not smuggle a nuke back in time? and after all, is there a need for "modern" technology in the ancient world? sure a water pump for the fields is always useful so is sanitation and other things that make life longer and less of a fight for survival. If you're keen on technology go to a Greek poleis and build fascinating little things for fun and profit that's probably what I'd do. but to turn 272bc into 2009ad (ok more like 1500 but you get my point) and to conquer the world with Sci-fi Technology no, just as a funny yet feverish dream, not as a real plan. oh and before I forget I'd like to totally out myself as :
I think I'd really like to live in a world just scratched by human civilization, thinking of being able to drink from almost every river, eating food without the fear of pesticides and hormone extras(I'll spare out the Gene stuff as this is to controversial) and all the other things a tree hugger likes to do, of course at the expense of probably being eaten by a wild Predator or stabbed by an equally wild group of bandits
now don't get me wrong, It's not like I greatly regret being born in this period of time. every period has it's pros and it's cons If I was to travel to the EB time I would enjoy It's pros and would not try to turn it into the time I came from. I just don't reckon it a good idea to import modern technology into the past.

man considering It's not Possible to work time travels(Impossible as in a probability with far to many 0s) and Timeline stuff being nothing but theories about a problem that Is not even possible to have, that's a damn long article I just wrote :D I should go to bed.

Ps afteral It's all just a barbarisation of Ape Talk ;)

[Azathoth]

drink from almost every river,

Ew, animals poop in those.

There's a game called Darkest of Days coming out soon that includes a section where you can massacre Roman legionnaries with assault rifles and machine guns.

[Blxz]

@ Ca Putt: Time travel is actually impossible. Time is only a method we use to measure change. So we are in the same world in the same 'time' as everything in history. There is nothing to go back to....we are already there.

And don't bother going on about how 'time' slows down near the speed of light or near black holes etc. Change and the things we use to measure time (vibration of molecules) may slow down...theoretically because we have yet to encounter lightspeed travel or black holes.

But as for Aemilius Paulus, I love your idea. Sure most of it is very hard, and knowing the basic principles doesn't make you able to reproduce something neccessarily, but even if you could impart most of the basics there are many intelligent people (and many unintelligent) who lived in that time with nothing BUT (pseudo)science to do all day. You just need to lay the foundation, convince a few people, LEARN THE LANGUAGE and let them help you out. The technology we have nowadays developed slowly from the basics before that. If you can provide the impetus and a big jump forward and even a few idea's for future research you could have your titanium and nickel and computers and then make a version of Rome:Total war minus all the shitty limitations and historical inaccuracies....which is of course your long term goal in all this I assume?

[Ca Putt]

I would rather see time as a Dimension like length and width. oh but It is theoretically possible with a Worm hole but no one knows IF they really exist or are just a Theory. and leave alone to be able to control where and when you got to :D . so in other words It's possible on paper but will not happen.

and Time "speed down" would only work(if at all) to travel into the future without aging but that too is not probable to happen in the next few years.(or ever)

sorry if I missed the latest publication about this topic.

don't forget: there is Animal poop(and worse) in drinking water today as well they just don't tell you.