Bicycles

>Once you have the know-how, bicycles can be easily pulled off in medieval settings.

You mean the most rudimentary, uncomfortable bicycles, to ride on roads terribly ill-suited for them?

One type of early bike was even called the "boneshaker" and that wasn't a misnomer. And, even on the best roads they were still prone to accidents, leading many cities to fine and ban them.

They would be what they were. A novelty for rich people, rather than a functional alternate mode of transportation.

>peaceful wizards grow bonsai animal homunkuli in small bottles, ever-focused on their charges, catering to their every need, following the writings of Tamagochinomicon

more primitive bikes managed without chains, gears or tubes. pedals were placed on front wheels

This has potential

>ogres on massive plated warbikes
>bike duels consisting of sicknasty BMX tricks
>wood elves riding and hopping their bikes through the treetops

still faster than moving on foot when you have to flank that enemy army fast

and you think wrong. don't ask "what makes it impossible?", ask "what would be needed to make it possible?"
imagine people with stone-hard butts and muscular legs, who rode those horrible bikes all their life - much like real-life longbowmen had deformed arms, with one being longer and stuff

>still faster than moving on foot when you have to flank that enemy army fast
You know horses are both faster, less energy-consuming for the rider, safer and more comfortable, right? All factors except speed need proper infrastructure as well as access to rubber.

So given the absence of rubber wheels and asfalt roads, there's literally no reason not to just opt for a horse. Well, except maybe the fact that horses shit all over the place.

Number one reason bicycles not used widely prior to 20th century:
No vulcanised rubber for tyre
therefore
No pneumatic tyre
therefore
Not called bone rattlers for nothing
therefore
No one would use them

Number 2 reason bicycles not widely used prior to 20th century:
Widespread lack of paved roads
and
Hard wheeled bikes are useless on stone, dirt, grass and softwheeled bikes are better but take a lot more effort to ride
therefore
Too much physical effort to ride in environment where only rich people had luxury to exercise for pleasure when everyone else was too tired and had no need for more physical labour due to brutal work conditions

Once you have the know-how tarmac roads and vulcanised rubber can be easily pulled off in medieval settings.

Why aren't they seen more, then? People carry over lots of stuff from modern into medieval, but so rarely carry over advanced scientific concepts like vulcanisation and modern road building practises.

How would inclusion of the modern scientific method and modern industrial manufacturing techniques change a regular medieval fantasy setting?

>How would inclusion of the modern scientific method and modern industrial manufacturing techniques change a regular medieval fantasy setting?
I know the modern, formalized Scientific Method as we know it today wasn't around until the 16th century or so, but isn't it at its core "see what works and write it down"? The thing humanity has been doing for centuries? I doubt merely formalizing that concept earlier would change a lot. There would still be scientific advances, and there would still be quacks.

>implying men in short shorts and retard helmets don't look rediculous regardless of culture

>why not
Because you can't skateboard on anything other than asphalt and concrete, of which there is usually very little in most fantasy settings, let alone battlefields.

horses are expensive. battle horses are FUCKING expensive.

early bakes were made with wooden wheels, without even those thin wire-thingies, don't know the proper word, sorry, so it could literally be made by village craftsmen

>thick wooden frame held together by both iron nails and leather straps - should the vibrations shake the nails loose, the leather straps will hold the thing together long enough
>cartwheels
>simple pedals based on stirrups on same axis the front cartwheel spins on
>simple handle to turn the front cartwheel
>ox bladder filled with wossname as a seat, so you don't get your balls crushed too fast
>leather straps so you don't fall off during charge
>iron hook to rest your spear's butt against when you charge

sturdy construction, much heavier than modern ones, but still faster than walking, not as tiring as running same distance in same time, and made for trained soldiers anyway
can get to enemy fast, can even charge downhill

I can even imagine the "bikers" taking pride in their extremely strong legs, wearing iron-shod boots and kicking in combat a lot, joking that who needs a stallion, when I can kick harder than any horse

bah, requires somewhat sturdier construction, larger wheels and some sort of non-rocky terrains. maybe glacier-dwelling people skating on ice? using spiked wheels?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocipede

>maybe glacier-dwelling people skating on ice? using spiked wheels?

Well, vikings, or rather ancient Norwegians used skis and supposedly ice skates.

Why do you need short short and retard helmet to ride a bike? Is there a mechanical need that I am not avare of? Am I a wizard for managing to ride a bike withouth those things?

Formal scientific method is
"see thing"
"make testable hypothesis"
"test hypothesis"
"make conclusion"

Precursors were
"see thing"
"make hypothesis"
"assume hypothesis is right and work from that principle, and if things don't work assume it's because of other factors"

Or the Greek philosophical method
"make hypothesis"
"argue with others"
"best argument is correct"

Actual formal testing of hypotheses was actually a huge thing.

>"what would be needed to make it possible?"

The issue is simply the inaccuracy of your statement. If you want bicycles in a medieval setting, you either need to go ahead and accept the fantasy aspect of the idea, or recognize the multitude of challenges you'd have to face to make the idea plausible.

Technical know-how is really not enough to make successful bicycles, and the idea that they'd be used in war is a little silly, because the cost to make even a single, terrible bicycle would be prohibitive, and they would be absolutely useless outside of a well-maintained and level city. Not just ordinarily maintained, but it would require an incredible labor force to maintain the roads to the level of making bicycles practical, which unfortunately would mean slaves and taxes at a scale that would make the pyramid-building Egyptians blush.

Also, biking use different muscles than walking, and your bike-riding specialists would likely be rather inept on the ground. Alongside the damage to their hips and spine, they essentially would be slow cripples that would be relying on a tool that is useless in 99% of circumstances.

You're going to have to hand-wave most of this with "it's fantasy."

Even more basic ideas like the Draisine would require a dramatic evolution of infrastructure to make them viable, which they ultimately never were beyond being novelties.

This is a horrifying exaggeration.
And horrifying here is not an exaggeration.

I'm terrified to imagine what you think past scholars did.

The retard helmets are law in a lot of places and the short shorts genuinely help with range of movement and keeping cool. It's fairly standard uniform for people who bike as amateurs/professionals for a reason.

If you just occasionally ride a bike around, sure, you probably look fine.

Of course, I'm cherry picking at what modern day sensibilities would see as silly. But you can look at stuff like Plato and Parmenides, who ALMOST get it right by telling you that senses can be deceived and you should go by "reality", but then they take it a step too far and go "reality SHOULD be discernable by words alone, and using things like actual results from nature and the world around us are just deceiving us at what platonic ideals of the REAL world really are".

Not to say they didn't have some pretty good advancements.

Since this thread is vaguely related to medieval tech.

If you were a pantheon of gods and had absolute say in the makeup of a world, would it be possible to remove natural resources to allow technological development up to the late renaissance/early industrial age, but no more? Would it otherwise be possible to prevent the creation of weapons of mass destruction? Maybe by getting rid of all the plutonium and uranium?

So a skateboard with blades for wheels, like combat pizza cutters? Sounds good to me!

if you use your godly power to replace their roles - sure, why not? specifically I'm talking about urianium, who's slow fission (or wossname?) is what's heating the mantle. without uranium there won't be any other nuclear elements, so you'll be safe in that regard

if you just BAM and create world with humans and stuff already there, there won't be any stone coal and back oil, so you'll be able to avoid much of technical progress

now I'm not sure if you can just remove sulfur. IIRC, it's considered one of organic elements and as such is important. and having sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter allows you to make gunpowder. that said, if you're a pantheon of gods you can tell chemistry to fuck off and simply forbid gunpowder to combust.

Yes. There's absolutely no reason you couldn't do that.

You're misinterpreting Plato's philosophical treatises for scientific ones. It's not uncommon for people to make the mistake of assuming that science is the entirety of human knowledge, but it is in fact only a tiny fragment of it, the portion that relies on verifiable results from repeatable experiments.

And, while Plato was more concerned with matters like society, ethics, and religion, his own student Aristotle arguably contributed more to the scientific fields than anyone, and I'm sure you'd be forced to agree he was of the "Greek philosophical mind."

Absolutely, take away fossil fuels and you have a society stuck on steam power for ever. (Maybe take away electricity too just to be sure)

>sporty = silly
You have been manipulated by the car industry into thinking that, my friend.

>You're misinterpreting Plato's philosophical treatises for scientific ones
I'm not misinterpreting them, because there *weren't* any scientific treaties as they're currently known as back then.

Feedback mechanisms of formally testing hypotheses didn't get off the ground until the 1800s or so, and before then it was difficult to overturn what was held as common knowledge, or "someone who was smarter than me said this, so it has to hold an essence of truth in it".

Back in grecian times, there was no clear differentiation between hard sciences and philosophy.

Aristotle was a boss, though, I do agree.

now i want a game where you fight grecian pholosophers and Aristotel is a boss

>I'm not misinterpreting them, because there *weren't* any scientific treaties as they're currently known as back then.

You missed the point. Yes, I'm applying modern definitions, but the key to take away was that Plato believed divinity and ultimate truth could not be found through observation, while Aristotle was more inclined towards seeing divinity as a reflection of the natural world. This doesn't mean Plato was leaping into fires screaming "This shit ain't really hot."

>"someone who was smarter than me said this, so it has to hold an essence of truth in it"

Aristotle had no problem disagreeing with Plato, who had no problem disagreeing with the Sophists, who had no problem disagreeing with anyone. It's almost embarrassing to act as if people waited until the 1800's to first say "Hey, that old guy might be wrong."

Formalizing the sciences and the method were great, but it's still largely just defining what people were doing for millennia.

>so why is it called aristotle's screw?
>because he's going in dry

I'm working with a floating chunk of planet that's entirely dependent on godly intervention to survive, so that takes care of the uranium. It was made whole with living creatures and all that jazz, so it does make sense there wouldn't be any fossile fuels.

I'd rather not change the laws of the universe too much, but gunpowder is totally fine (I already houseruled in guns anyway). That's a very productive answer. Thank you very much.

>take away fossil fuels and you have a society stuck on steam power for ever.

Yeah, that's not bad. Even leaves room for some technological progress. Plus, there's always magic to grease the wheels (possibly literally, with no petroleum-based lubricants) if need be.

Just gotta do some research on the uses of fossile fuels in pre-industrial times, and I'll be good to go.

>It's almost embarrassing to act as if people waited until the 1800's to first say "Hey, that old guy might be wrong."
I'd say that's our enlightenment heritage. The enlightenment/age of reason, the only era in history to have named itself, has done a lot to elevate itself as the great turning point in human history. It has mostly done so by diminishing the importance of everything before it, leading to the popularity of the Draper-White thesis and the idea that medieval man (including medieval academics) believed the earth was flat and you'd fall off it if you sailed too far west.

It's understandable why this belief is so common, but it's indeed embarrassing to what degree this myth is being perpetuated. Like our ancestors were morons until one group of enlightened minds overthrew everything and suddenly made us all smart.

Yes, I mad.

there wasn't much use for them, you see. some black oil bubbled to surface in places, but without refining it is really hard to burn, and so all it was used for was mashing it with tar, sulfur and other stuffs and making greek fire. presumably, it can be replicated without black oil

black coal wasn't used much, if at all, since Marco Polo was actually surprised to find that chinese burn "black stones". people used charcoal for all their smelting needs.

You'd also have to take away fermentation, and good luck with that. Fossil fuels are convenient, but ethanol is relatively simple to produce and was enough to bring us all the way past the steam age and all the way into the space age, serving as the first rocket fuel.

>Archimedes attacking you with solar mirrors, and periodically flooding the room with that water-lifting-wossname of his

>Plato is a psychodelic fight against "ideals"

From what I found, large-scale coal mining started in the 1400's in Europe, and was very popular for blacksmithing and similar.

But as for oil lamps and torches and stuff like that, there's both whale oil and vegetable oil.

Can you really have a modern society without plastic, though?

they are much inferior, as they cannot be refined like black oil can

While fossil fuels are a convenient source (with early plastics actually being just a secondary product of the refining process), they are not the only sources. It would be a slower process, relying on refining resins and lacquers, but you can have plastic without fossil fuels.

Make it a mix of Tony Hawk Pro Skater and general wizardy

Perform rad grinds to cast spells

>they are much inferior, as they cannot be refined like black oil can
That should still be fine, as long as you're just making oil lamps and soaking rags to make torches, right?

Would it still be possible to use plastic for just about everything, like we do today?

>party is fighting demon lord
>fight is very hard, party is full on defensive just trying not to die
>retarded wizard just casts cantrips skating around
>demon lord doesn't pay attention to the buffoon
>suddenly party steps back and smiles
>the wizard has drawn a complex demon-sealing circle-pentagram-thingie in the dirt by all the skating

Infinite shred works

>ball bearings
>high-quality springs and wire
>easy

Come WW1, bicycles easily out-performed horses in every field that mattered militarily though.

It's just that, as you said, it takes a shitton of infrastructure to get over all the initial steps that lead up to that point.

I doubt your average late medieval industry has a capacity to mass produce chains.

early bikes didn't have chains

and even if you strived for modern design, a belt or rope transmission would work too, just worse

*strove
(silly me)

The German fechtbooks got you covered there, though they also made those to partially explode into their enemy's faces.

This is a First World War military bicyle, the Raleigh Military.

The >just worse part is the difference between "better than a horse" and "worse than a horse".

Skateboards are a direct by product of humanity covering so much of the world in cement and bitumen.

good point

They're called spokes.

...

That's about a hundred years late to be called "early."

No, I was supporting your point. Early bikes wouldn't be useful.

>Once you have the know-how
You mean Meta-gaming? That's heavily frowned upon.

I disagree. There is one technology unvailable in a medieval setting and it's vulcanized rubber for the tires. Without the rubber, the wheels won't have any good grip.