Timeline for Can you have a classical and medieval area in the same world?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13 at 6:14 | answer | added | Julien Ferté | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 13 at 3:48 | answer | added | M. A. Golding | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 11 at 19:07 | comment | added | workerjoe | The question obviously requires a definition of "classical" and "medieval" to be answered. It almost seems like the OP thinks that medieval feudalism pre-dated classical Rome. | |
| Oct 10 at 18:17 | answer | added | Nosajimiki | timeline score: -1 | |
| Oct 10 at 14:00 | comment | added | David R | This condition depends on the age of the main character. I would consider this lack of knowledge of the outside world to be totally appropriate for a young person in any culture but surprising to someone in their 50's. (Yes, there are some in the US who get to more advanced age without learning about the world.) People who are involved with trade have to know about the world. | |
| Oct 10 at 8:25 | answer | added | flox | timeline score: -1 | |
| Oct 10 at 5:39 | history | edited | L.Dutch♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 10 at 2:07 | history | edited | L.Dutch♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited tags
|
| Oct 9 at 20:55 | answer | added | Escaped dental patient. | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 9 at 19:52 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 11 at 13:15 | |||||
| Oct 9 at 19:32 | history | edited | J. Rubio | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 154 characters in body
|
| Oct 9 at 19:09 | comment | added | JBH | Consider the Sentinelese people, who are betimes considered a stone-age people living in the world today. What you won't generally find is a trade-oriented society that won't move forward with their trade partners. | |
| Oct 9 at 18:34 | comment | added | controlgroup | Also, the answer here seems a pretty obvious yes (real life has much worse technological divides). See L.Dutch's answer and my comments therebelow. | |
| Oct 9 at 18:33 | comment | added | VLAZ | "My main character is [...] has trouble comprehending the idea that people can be tied to land." uh, why? Is it because of the "relative social mobility"? It's the only reason I see here but it only means that people can move their status in society. Say, a trader can maybe become a ruler. It's not literally moving around. "Civilised" societies are largely stationary. Sure, with some travelling but they'd have a permanent home. Nomads who do move around still wouldn't disbelieve settled life exists. They'd trade with and/or raid such permanent settlements. So, they'd know such life exists. | |
| Oct 9 at 18:29 | answer | added | L.Dutch♦ | timeline score: 12 | |
| Oct 9 at 18:23 | comment | added | AlexP | ??? (1) Roman roads and barbarian non-existent roads coexisted on this Earth in real history. (No, the Roman Empire did not cover the entire world.) For example, the Roman roads of the Roman Empire coexisted with lack of roads in non-Roman Germania. (2) A Roman who is astonished that people can be tied to land needs emergency psychiatric help. Large Roman farms were worked by slaves, who definitely could not leave the farm, and quite often they were literally tied to the millstones they were pushing. The condition of serfs was an improvement over the condition of slaves. | |
| Oct 9 at 18:16 | history | asked | J. Rubio | CC BY-SA 4.0 |