Is medieval stasis really so implausible? There are a lot of cultures that have hardly developed over the centuries...

They weren't but they were basically feudal for millennia.

Hm, could we replace "medieval stasis" with medieval that lasts longer than ours?

It was a guenine attemps at subduing china as the local hegemon the number of boats and soldiers used for the task were way to big to be "just" an internal political scheme. The logistical problems were mostly due to bad weather and their naval tactics and technology being centuries behind their terrestrial ones meaning one korean genius admiral demolished them once and everything was over. The army on land was practically cutting through korean and chinese like butter until they had logistical problems due to montainous terrain, overstretched lines (bear in mind in the 16th century) and obsolete navy with sub par admirals getting gorilla'ed like hell on every occasion.

I meant as a global political structure. China always alterned between mighty overpowered central kingdom that fell appart for reasons followed by feodal fightings for various periods of time but mostly not long due to the country being a gigantic river bassin/plain where it counts.

You don't have that much armor unless guns are already in the scene.

>basically feudal
Only if by that you meant they had an aristocracy, at which point you might as well say the same fucking thing about Europe.

1. I'm not very willing to call cycles a stasis.
2. there was nothing feudal about most chinese civil wars
3. you could say the same thing about Persia, yet somehow I doubt you'd call the achaemenids the same as the safavids.

Why so obsessed with the Medieval? People fought with spears, lances, swords, bows etc. long before the "Medieval age" begun. Just set the setting in an early Medieval-like period, and you have both a recognizable past of heroes and myths, and many centuries ahead of you before gunpowder starts to dominate.

Smaller landmass with smaller populations that has less contacts with other continents.

Mage kings/gods trying to actively suppress technological progress.

Giant monsters wrecking shit up and preventing humans from building large permanent cities. Though this might stop the progress before the medieval period.

The problem with that comparison is the Medieval Europe had already gone through a ton of developments to get to the Medieval era, so it's suddenly imposing stasis on what was a rather quickly technologically advancing society that makes it a bit iffier.

Could do that some recent development suddenly makes communications between countries more rare. Say that AN ANCIENT EVIL RETURNS and fills the coustlines with krakens and shit, so suddenly coastal trade and cultural exchange slows down. Everyone's developments starts to slow down due to less exchange of ideas and inventions and useful regional resources.

Imagine being so much of a brainlet that any discussion of history urges you to give such a response.

Sure, as long as society and technology keeps moving and there's a good reason for the slowdown. You could have a 500AD to 1500AD occur in 2000 years or more, but you need to tell me why.
Honestly, I don't really see the point tho. Unless you've got campaigns spanning centuries and you need to keep the same rules, why bother?

It's funny you should say that, because Europe has been slowly declining socially since the 18th century. It peaked in power just before the French Revolution.

While our technology has been developing, the same cannot be said to be true culturally, politically, nor morally.

The camel that broke the straw's back was the world wars though. Had the Central Powers won the Great War, our technology would still be just as advanced as today, if not more so, but Europe might still be the unapologetic center of power in the World.

I dunno, Africa barely developed Iron technology outside of Mali and Ethiopia by the 19th century.

>sub-saharan Africa has been in stasis for a long time
That's idiotic. SSA developed much slower than Eurasia, but they weren't in a stasis.
San south africa was different from khoikhoi south africa, which was different from bantu south africa.
Archeologists and antropologists can easily see development patterns btween Mapungubwe, Mutapa, Zulu, etc.

The same as in Fiction how Gondor was different from Rohan, Nilfgaard was different than the Northern Kingdoms, or Cirodiil was different from Skyrim.
It's possible to have different technology levels even with 'medieval stasis' (or Iron age stasis as the case might be for South Saharan Africa).

Feodal is litterally having an aristocracy so powerful the central authority is basically not a central authority. The thing is that for Europe it went from Rome to clusterfuck and never really centralized again as a whole. China is a peculiar case because while the rebellions weren't really feodal in nature the downfall of the state was almost always provoked by local rulers be they mandarins or noble subverting so much authority from the centre that a rebellion/retarded mongols "helping" rebels swept through and took power over the whole thing.

As for the stasis thing it is retarded as long as there are pockets of different civilizations in contact with each other. The roman empire didn't see any "real" progress but the second they saw something interesting in a neighbouring nations/tribe/horde they'd adopt it on a whim and vice versa.

The moral of the story is that France ruins everything.

when did a weeb go from a neet obsessed with anime to people with a decent grasp on ancient culture?

>Only if by that you meant they had an aristocracy, at which point you might as well say the same fucking thing about Europe.
They don't even have an aristocracy in the western sense if you think about it.

>Africa barely developed Iron technology outside of Mali and Ethiopia by the 19th century
The bantus were iron age and they spread metalworking as they expanded. The Haya people of Tanzania are known to have been smelting and working iron since the 1st century AD.

Yeah too bad that I mentioned groups temporally spread over 3000 years, not contemporary, each of which brought on social and technological innovations that were built upon by the next one. That's hardly a fucking stasis I'd say.

I think OP means stasis as "no groundbreaking innovation" but in this case history was in stase forever until pike and shot formations because everyone thought with spears and arrows.

The medieval era lasted roughly a thousand years depending on what definition you use, from the fall of the Roman Empire to the invention of the printing press. It was no stasis, but given how much shit happened over that period you hardly need to make it a stasis.

It's like fantasy needs to have these ridiculously long timelines for unknown reasons. Nigga the world can turn around ten times over in the span of a hundred years, you really don't need to accentuate everything by having it drawn out to the point of ridiculousness

>"The war between the elves and dwarves lasted 3000 years"

For God's sake why? Look at the thirty years war, shit got more fucked in half an average lifetime than it had been for centuries.

>hereditary big landholders with titles and social expectations of military service with limited privileges, changing over time
That's pretty much european gentry.

When there stopped being a more informed majority to set such misunderstandings straight, meaning not yet.

>Realize they are scum
>Replace them with eunuchs
>It somehows gets even worse and backstabby

We can't have nice things.

>Feodal is litterally having an aristocracy so powerful the central authority is basically not a central authority.
This is totally wrong, feudalism describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs. What you're describing is an aristocratic oligarchy.

Like many things wrong with fantasy blame Dragonlance for starting that bullshit.

China
> Not inheritable, at least nominally
> Technically everyone is eligible, as long as you pass the imperial exam
> Not necessarily landed
> No social expectation of military service (it was looked down upon)

>There are a lot of cultures that have hardly developed over the centuries, such as japan
For the love of god go read a book. A real one. Not one of those popular histories about how uber kewl sammyrai and ninjers are.

>civil officialdom = aristocracy
Jesus fucking christ.
Why do I even bother discussing history on Veeky Forums?

> Technically everyone is eligible, as long as you pass the imperial exam

The "technically" is the important part here. IT was a clusterfuck of one part of the country always rigging things in their favor and the exam was honestly so pants on head retardedly hard that no lower class could reasonnably pass it. And through the insanely long span of time during which it was established it changed in form and application quite a lot with many times the current holders just making sure their direct heir or person of choice would have it anyway.

Explain

My apology I was using the mundane description of the thing in its rough quite more obvious effects I'm indeed wrong in the purely semantic aspect of it.

'cos you're here forever.

>The army on land was practically cutting through korean and chinese like butter.
Korean yes, Chinese no.

Chinese had trouble taking down Japanese fortresses in short period of time (due to a variety of reasons including bad command and stroke of bad luck), but otherwise they were practically always on the (counter)offensive, while the Japanese were trying to avoid direct confrontation after their first defeat at Pyongyang.

Because you don't know shit about Chinese history?

Funny fact. In the Book of Five Rings, Miyamoto Musashi said a gun was the best weapon you could have. The patron saint of grorious samurainojutsu was a /k/ommando.

There's still some regions in Africa that are in stasis even today.

Despite, China's imperial exam was still considerably more "passable" for the poor folk than, the equivalent system in Joseon Korea. And unlike China, passing the Joseon version of imperial exam can really put you in a hereditary aristocratic status (the Yangban class).

They were already overstretched when arriving at pyongyang due to pushing through too fast too hard after initial successes, it should be taken into account.

Actually, found the statement:

-"From inside fortifications, the gun has no equal among weapons. It is the supreme weapon on the field before the ranks clash, but once swords are crossed the gun becomes inadequate."

Mind, this was with matchlock weapons. Chinese handguns had some admittedly kooky variants too, the "Roman Candle" matchlock being the most amusing.

>China
>Well known for inventing lots of new shit that eventually made its way west
>like gunpowder
>medieval stasis
user pls

Or you can be an illiterate nigger with a turban and revolution your way into the imperial palace. Can't remember if it was the leader of the yellow or the red turbans who was illiterate and would execute the scholars trying to teach him that he didn't like or the authors of books he disliked.

Something like the scenario proposed in myah?
youtube.com/watch?v=ycEZIbQqA8A

I'm no phd holder, but at least I know enough to distinguish between chinese bureaucracy and the titled aristocracy. There's a difference between a mandarin and a marquis, and it's exactly the difference between the people you describe and the people I describe.

Where do I say it meant stasis ?

It's funny because mandarins actually backstabbed the central power way more throughout history than any nobles ever did.

Gunpowder was invented in the middle ages

It was, but that only mean that the Japanese found it harder and harder to push further north. It doesn't mean they would starve to death right then and there, or their grip on the captured provinces wasn't firm. Those defending Pyongyang weren't a bunch of half-starved dying soldiers.

Japan is a bad example. By the end of the 1500s they were producing more guns than anybody else. After closing the country, there was about 200 years of peace where there wasn't a demand for military technology.

>It's funny
More like, it's a given. Giving power to people with no real interest in maintaining the status quo and educated to believe that bad rulers ought to be replaced is a recipe for disloyalty.
Think about Europe: civil and military officials were almost invariably nobles exactly so that they would have no interest in supporting social change.

If their fleet hasn't been annihilated by turtle ship and sheer retardedness of japanese admirals (moreso than by the korean admiral genius honestly) and with supply coming again they may have secured the korean peninsula completely but you can't be on the offense against an enemy litterally sitting on its own supply lines when you are on your current diminishing stock before winter.

I'd even say that the moment the aristocracy declined completely in China everything went to shit with local governors and eunuchs forever ruining everything after the Tang dynasty started to crackle and then collapsed.

That had EVERTHING to do with the outside influence of China and Korea. After normal relations with the main land ended with the fall of the Tang progress in Japan also fully stopped till the Mongol invaded Korea and Japan took in Koreans refugees. Heck a couple of the most famous Japanese families of sword smiths directly originate from that event.

...

Except that the "titles" of the "titled aristocrasy" are often given to civil officials as fancy-sounding award, can be taken back and/or awarded to another person on the emperor's whim, the "aristocrasy" enjoyed no autonomy even in his own land, and they aren't even inheritable most of the time?

Like another user said, you be an illiterate nigger with a turban and still become the emperor.

Wait just a minute. The main Japanese supply route was at Busan, which the Korean never succeed to recapture for the entire war. Korean naval success only damaged other routes and made the days harder for the Japanese, they never managed to completely cut off the supply line.

Think about it. Given the naval technology of East Asia at the time, they couldn't really set up a naval blockade like the European did with their sailing ship. Korean ships were oar-powered, so they had very few storage space compared to European ships, and more mouths to feed. They couldn't stay in the water for too long, plus they were short on supply themselves.

>Heian period and kamakura period
>Progress fully stopped

Are you actually mentally retarded or just korean ? The central authority was falling appart even more than in China due to the nobility absolute and utter incompetence on every matter to the point that currency virtually disappeared yet culture and architecture were developping like there was no tomorrow and the samurai caste way of fighting was a huge improvement compared to what they had before. After that the shogunate was established and a very strong authority was established who only fell appart due to the samurais heritage rules fragmenting domains so much they weren't sustainable anymore while expenditures were exploding for defence against the mongols. Japan was barely even aware of what was happening in China and Korea their only interraction with the rest of asia being a horde of wako pirates fucking everyone's navy shit up including the Yuan's coast.

Nope, he’s correct.
The Tokugawa Shoguns were famous for crushing any new technological innovations they didn’t control because they were terrified of loosing it, including any non-Japanese western tech advancements and medicine.
They kept the country in stasis for almost 200 years DELIBERATELY, after a period in the 15th century of extremely rapid advancement during the Civil Wars period.

>they aren't even inheritable most of the time
Nobility status was very often inheritable, certainly so at least in the Han and Qing (albeit the actual rank degraded between generations until it was just perpetual nobility)
>enjoyed no autonomy even in his own land
This changed between dynasties, but even in Europe was pretty much true for centuries in various countries that still recognized the aristocracy. Are you gonna tell me that a 18th century english earl isn't an aristocrat because he's got no real power beyond ownership of his land?
>can be taken back and/or awarded to another person on the emperor's whim
So what? It still distinguished one social class from the other
>are often given to civil officials as fancy-sounding award
Fancy sounding awards that very often came with attached fiefs.

Are you having fun moving goalposts user?

Hideyoshi also, horribly, needed to find his samurai something to do and a place for them to maybe die in droves or conquer so he basically could NOT have to pay them the enormous number of stipends all were due their station, especially considering his economy was at that point frail to nonexistent in development.

Given that China often went to shit every couple centuries or so, I bet it will be hard to maintain a hereditary aristocracy even if they wanted.

Eh it's not like noble houses lasted more than that elsewhere. For every house of Habsburg, Valois, etc there are hundreds of shitworth lineages that lasted only 2-5 generations. I mean just go look at the titles in the english peerage, a large majority went extinct or abeyant after 50-100 years.

>So what? It still distinguished one social class from the other
Remember when I said that one can pass the imperial exam to be eligible? And the "titles" are awarded to officials?

Add two together, how's something that everyone is eligible and with no special privilege (the privilege come from the bureaucratic position and/or wealth and power, not from fancy title) a "distinguished social class" again?

What he said was; “best weapon for the battlefield, with it’s sole failing being it’s reloading”, so basically great on the battlefield but not so useful in a skirmish.
He likely would have approved of modern guns or extremely disapproved because they sort of invalidated the entire way he chose to live his life.

While the emperor could technically remove civil servants titles in practices it was another story especially with military commander civil servants who basically always made their title hereditary and each time they tried to revoke one it bursted into violent uprising and local or global civil war. Real nobility existed but its decline was paralel to the Tang dynasty's one when to counterbalance it they had to name even more civil servant with military and economic power who turned against them too in the not so long run. When to counterbalance that AGAIN they choosed eunuchs the eunuchs fucked them even more? As for the Song dynasty its very rapid collapse into separate yet strong entities due to constant infighting and plots by generals, eunuch and palace guards/ministers speaks wonder of how efficient the whole system was. Yuan failed because they were mongols and hated even though their administration was very efficient by making an exclusive caste of faithfull mongol and foreigner elite governors and the ming collapsed by letting eunuch being the plotting dickless bastard they are. The last one were retarded mongols with warlords again and hordes of angry anglos knocking at the door.

It was more a constant battle of attrition against an ennemy having to cross the sea, the korean were very efficient at guerrilla and their navy was so superior it basically raped every japanese ship it could find not completely disrupting supply but making that mess even more messier and way too costly in the long run and if you had the shogun's death then its over.

Are you being retarded on purpose? That's fucking equivalent to saying that every soldier was aristocracy because titles were often bestowed on successful generals.
And you also chose to ignore the fact that titles often came with land grants, like the Xiahou family gaining 1000 taxable households upon Xiahou Dun receiving the title of marquis zhong, so your argument about privilege not coming from being aristocracy is wrong as well.

The problem with medieval stasis isn't even the stasis itself but the reason it exists as a trope. Like, why even have medieval stasis? You want your story to be set in the middle ages? That's okay. But that can be easily done without having your world's middle ages last for thousands of years.

Better to have cycles of growth and collapse. At least then, you get the opportunity to play around with ruins and ancient artefacts.

>Like, why even have medieval stasis?

Because that's all they know, and they can't do anything else when it comes to a historical backstory.

we've reached peak american moron.

>why even have medieval stasis
Almost invariably so you can have kingdoms and noble houses going back a very damn long time, or to justify having a legendary ancient weapon being basically just a fancy version of what you've been using since level one.
A few times it exists to accomodate races with drastically different lifespans living side by side. You can't have a hallowed adventurers' guild going back 500 years with all its traditions and shit if ol' drunkard Ironbeard is still pissed in the tavern talking about how hallowed tradition #1 is the fruit of his bestie doing something retarded or despicable. Or if you have a couple elves passing by while laughing at the idea of a period barely encompassing their puberty being in any way "long".

Naw with magic it's not out of the question.

If there is an in setting reason for larger than life heroes being stronger/faster/tougher than normal mortals, ala Hercules and co, it's going to be harder for ideas of equality and suffrage to gain ground.

>Why does that guy get to be king?
>Well, the gods said so.
>Also he ripped the head off the last guy to try and take the thrown with his bare hands.

Stasis is improbable. But there's nothing stopping you from having in setting stuff fuck everything up regularly, so tech never advances beyond a certain point.

>with magic it's not out of the question.

Until someone makes reloading and conveniant magic staffs !

Course not, but then it's not stasis anymore.
Really tho, at that point isn't it better to just opt to remove elements you don't like rather than just have repeated collapses?
Like, I get that people may not like firearms, so let's just remove gunpowder but keep society and history moving on around it. Do you even have a plot reason that requires tech and society to stay put at a specific point?

Seriously? Are you fucking austistic? The so-called "Marquis Zhong" was literally Xiahou Dun's POSTHUMOUS NAME. Now you are arguing that a name is a aristocratic title as well?

Because fantasy writers all want to build a tolkien style mythology without realising that tolkien had huge amounts of social upheaval in his own writings and that his desire for stasis came out of an attempt to replicate the tone of mythology, rather than create a narrative.

Add on the fact that most fantasy is painfully shallow, really being nothing more than a nostalgia based comfort blanket of recycled imagery. The worlds these writers are making are crap and so they write in shitty reasons to not confront basic ideas like social change and technological advancement.

TL;DR , Change is scary for nerds , the recent past is too hard to fantasise about.

If you want to go that way you can do all sorts of stuff.
The printing press for example was a huge leap forward, that didn't require much of anything tech level wise.

This is what I'd do personally. It's a world with dragons and shit, there's no reason that sulfur+charcoal+salt peter has to interact the same way there.

>This changed between dynasties, but even in Europe was pretty much true for centuries in various countries that still recognized the aristocracy. Are you gonna tell me that a 18th century english earl isn't an aristocrat because he's got no real power beyond ownership of his land?
A seat in the House of Lord's, with the ability to vote on legislation and participate in national politics or even become PM isn't exactly nothing. Nor is having access to the old boy's network of fellow aristocrats and upper gentry who run the country, the military and society. Pot's of cash to buy political influence and appointments doesn't hurt either unless he pissed it away on cards.

>Almost invariably so you can have kingdoms and noble houses going back a very damn long time
Yeah, it's not like that ever happened IRL or something.

What do you even think a posthumous name is? It's a title bestown upon death. A title that came with a sizeable inheritable land grant, that joined all the previous land assigned to the marquisate of Gao'an district which Dun's son Chong inherited.

Nah, reread the previous posts. He asked specifically about power over their land, not power in general.

You'd be surprised, there's extremely few lines that lasted more than a couple centuries. As written by , for every Earl of Arundel there are a hundred earldoms that didn't reach a century.

>imagine being dumb enough to post this

So imagine being an african in stasis ?

Was he already a lich when as a marquis of another province he ordered and participated in the building of a great dam ?

>one korean genius admiral demolished them once
He rekt them several times. Hilarious to read about honestly.

>not power in general.

See
>Are you gonna tell me that a 18th century english earl isn't an aristocrat because he's got no real power beyond ownership of his land?
>no real power beyond ownership of his land
My point was that he does infact have political clout directly tied to his status as a peer above that of an untitled landowner of similar wealth.