carlton_bach said:
I think it becomes a little less ASBish if we simply postulate that all centers of civilisation (what John Keegan called 'Areas of First Preference') maintain roughly the same technology level. That way, the Samoyed, Wampar and Kayapo will not get steam engines the same year the British and French do, but Persia, Turkey, India, China, Japan and whoever stands in in the Americas do. (the Americas are tough - maybe a much earlier regular contact from, say, around 1200 BC? Technically it would have been possible)
This would very likely result in a society much closer in feel to the later medieval period (the real medieval period, not Hollywood's burping-and-quaffing, they-can't-see-it's-lycra-in-a-group-shot middle ages). THe dominant cultures would look down on the barbarians, but they'd have to find some kind of arrangement to coexist because they have no edge over each other. Trade is far more equitable and diplomatic because if the Pulo Islanders don't want to sell their nutmeg to the Dutch then that's that. No 'civilising missions with a firm guiding hand' allowed. Also, there'd be no third-level ethnicities (clients of clients, so to speak), only first and second-tier nations. There would probably also be a lot more wars (more matched opponents means more people think they have a chance of winning), but also the mechanisms for limiting them. And a LOT more people would be learning Chinese
Well, the "Areas of first preference"
were roughly comparable technologically in the 16th century, at least for Europe, East Asia and the Middle East (The Indian ocean area seems a bit more backward, judging from the way little Portugal blew through the local opposition): the Europeans weren't up to imposing "civilizing missions" on the Chinese or the Ottomans (indeed, the Ottomans at the time were trying to impose a "civilizing mission" of their own in Europe).
Speaking of rough comparability: if we posit _all_major technologies developing at the same time, history rapidly diverges from OTL: for a single example, the stirrup being developed in Rome at the same time as in China will have major effects on Roman military practice, and likely seriously change the nature and timing of the Empire's collapse. Perhaps we can specify a time at which the major civilizations begin to "track?" (For another example: if technology continues to be duplicated, the Japanese get the gun earlier and never give it up, thereby eliminating the Samurai as the central figure of Japanese society centuries earlier, since armies are fought by large masses of peasant recruits with guns, not noblemen with swords and bows).
As per native Americans: well, we might posit an ealier development of agriculture in the Americas. The trouble is that this changes history thousands of years ago, utterly butterflying the Aztecs and Incas away...perhaps we are better off assuming "X" and "Y" cultures centered in South and Meso-America, with whatever cutural characteristics one cares to imagine, but with gunpowder, steel, and the printing press when Europeans arrive in 1492. (Might not have quite the same set of farm equipment, tho': no draft animals. Or do we assume shipwrecked Carthaginians with pigs, cows and horses in 120 BC? This also gives us a reservoir of diseases to build up their immunities).
Re the Chinese: as I said, in the 1500's the Chinese had the technology to compete effectively with Europeans: the important thing was that they didn't wan't to, at least not in the "overseas colonization" gig. OTOH, if the Chinese develop gunpowder technology as fast as Europeans do, they will be rather less concerned with invasion from the Steppes, and may pay more attention to people and influences coming from across the seas.
Thought: when we say technology develops at the same rate, do we mean just the hardware, or institutional and organizational developments as well? The British conquered much of India in the late 1700's with weapons little more advanced than the locals, and indeed with largely local armies: they just happened to be better at the _theory_of the thing, and had the advantage of belonging to a politically sophisticated state they felt loyal to. Better cannon and windmills won't necessarily keep the Ottomans from getting their asses handed to them by 18th century professional armies.
Once again On The Other Hand, it's hard to see how aspects of culture and society don't change profoundly if the technology level is different. Being able to create some item of technolgy is not the same as using it. Various failed efforts took place to create a printing industry in the Ottoman empire before the 19th century. If the duplication of European technolgy by other societies is to mean anything, these technologies must be _used_. And if the Ottomans are using the printing press, that means they are
reading more, which means more rapid distribution of knowledge and ideas, changes in the education system, changes in the beurocracy, etc. (Indeed, if the Ottomans are to keep up with Europe, they will have to have a scientific/industrial revolution, which means BIG changes in society, ways of thought, etc.)
One more thought on the Ottomans: looking at the size of their empire on the map in 1560. If they keep up with Europe both organizationally and technologically, a lot more people are going to be learning
Turkish (Ottoman, rather...) as well.
Bruce