WI europe rejects gun powder?

A Random Person

what would happen, if the brittish find that they have twice the rate of fire with the long bow, when the musket is introduced. across the contenant several countries reject the idea of muskets, cannons, and guns.

when will they finally adopt it? how will history be different?
 

Jomazi

Banned
The problem comes at the point in history when mass armies can be conscripted; longbows take lifelong training to master, while any peasant boy can become a decent musket shot and thereby a soldier in the matter of weeks.
 

Carinthium

Not necessarily- there were laws (I believe archery was the only game permitted on Sunday in England) that allowed for large longbowman forces (e.g Agincourt). These forces could easily defeat their numbers in musketmen.
 

Ofaloaf

Carinthium said:
Not necessarily- there were laws (I believe archery was the only game permitted on Sunday in England) that allowed for large longbowman forces (e.g Agincourt). These forces could easily defeat their numbers in musketmen.
Click to expand...
Well, sure. But if I off one longbowman, how long will it take to train another one from nothing? What about an arquebusier? While a single pitched battle between equal numbers of longbowmen and musketeers would likely end up a bowmen victory, how many potential bow-users would there be to tap into a force during a war? How many gun users? It's much easier to toss a firearm to a peasant, train him for a week, and send him off than it is to invest the time and energy into a lifetime of training for a bowman.
 

ferrosol

Also the Longbow was the pinnacle of weapons technology of the period, It just could not be improved on much more. Meanwhile the Arquebus was new and shiny technology which even in the renaissance period was popular and had lots of potential for improvement.
 

A Random Person

ferrosol said:
Also the Longbow was the pinnacle of weapons technology of the period, It just could not be improved on much more. Meanwhile the Arquebus was new and shiny technology which even in the renaissance period was popular and had lots of potential for improvement.
Click to expand...

well, if you count modern times, archery equipment now has scopes and reels for string tention, ability to fire multiple arrows together, string holders...

it can be improved... but for that period, could any of that can be adopted?
 

carlton_bach

You could probably improve bow technology up to a point - composite bows give you more punch that selfbows and the stiff 'ears' of the Central Asian designs improve leverage in favour of the archer. Not sure whether the compound bow is within the capacity of the Renaissance to design (I suspect not), but it is buildable only in small numbers and at relatively low draw weights.

The problem with rejecting gunpowder, though, is not replacing personal firearms. Many European armies long favoured bows or crossbows over handguns without suffering greatly on the battlefield. The problem is that gunpowder offers a game-changing advantage in the field of siege weaponry. Saying no to it means saying no to mines and cannon, and these are irreplaceable. The only way you couldimagine it would be a deliberate renunciation of a new technology, not exactly something medieval Europe did much. Not without a early and very sifgnificant POD., I'd say.
 

Dutchie

Europe rejecting gunpowder is like asking what if Antiquity rejected bronze in favour of keeping the wooden spear. Or if Industrialization rejected the steam engine in favour of manual labour. The benfits provided by the new technology are just too great to be overcome by any sort of traditionalists. Anyone not choosing it would quickly be overcome by someone else that had adopted the new power.
 

john

Those who do adopt gunpowder are likely to keep improving their weapons' distance, accuracy, and size. When the range of guns and cannons outdistance that of bows, Europe is screwed.

Cannons can blow holes in walls, bows can't.
(unless outfitted with explosives :D)
 

CanadianGoose

Banned
AFAIR Japan was the only attempt to consciously reject gunpowder, but their situation was pretty unique (Shoguns had no external threats and were trying to prevent the key change of gunpowder era - viability of peasant militias against professional warriors). Europe's rate of adoption varied, but generally nations which were slower did find itself disadvantaged very soon (Ukrainian Cossack uprising owes it's success in no small part to haughty attitude of Polish szlachta toward arquebuses, Polish musketeer units fared pretty well against Cossack militias).

john said:
When the range of guns and cannons outdistance that of bows, Europe is screwed.
Click to expand...
AFAIR trained bowman was superior to infantryman in weapon range until rifled musket came along.
 

Bmao

CanadianGoose said:
AFAIR Japan was the only attempt to consciously reject gunpowder, but their situation was pretty unique (Shoguns had no external threats and were trying to prevent the key change of gunpowder era - viability of peasant militias against professional warriors). Europe's rate of adoption varied, but generally nations which were slower did find itself disadvantaged very soon (Ukrainian Cossack uprising owes it's success in no small part to haughty attitude of Polish szlachta toward arquebuses, Polish musketeer units fared pretty well against Cossack militias).

AFAIR trained bowman was superior to infantryman in weapon range until rifled musket came along.
Click to expand...

Japan did embrace gunpowder technology during the warring period in the 16th century. Oda Nobunaga utilized it and was able to unite Japan due to the strength of gunpowder. After the Tokugawa closed off Japan to the rest of the world, they didn't improve on the technology, that's all.

Sooner or later, Europe probably would adopt gunpowder technology like the rest of the world, but it is possible that they would employ only cannons and mortars and have the infantry stick with swords and bows, to maintain the influence of the feudal knights and keep the peasants down.
 

Chengar Qordath

It's really not viable for all of Europe to reject gunpowder; as others have said the advantages offered by it are so great that it won't take long for someone to try it and prove just how effective it is. Consider how effective attempts to ban the crossbow during the Middle Ages were.

Also, as others have said a European ban on gunpowder will soon be facing massive pressure from the fact that the Ottomans and other non-Euros would be using gunpowder, and thus winning battles.
 

rcduggan

Dutchie said:
Europe rejecting gunpowder is like asking what if Antiquity rejected bronze in favour of keeping the wooden spear. Or if Industrialization rejected the steam engine in favour of manual labour. The benfits provided by the new technology are just too great to be overcome by any sort of traditionalists. Anyone not choosing it would quickly be overcome by someone else that had adopted the new power.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Those that reject the technology would be defeated by those with more advanced weapons.
 
Hapsburg

Hapsburg

Banned
You're better off having that gunpowder is never discovered at all, than having the extremely impossible scenario of a continent of people outright rejecting gunpowder.
 

tormsen

rcduggan said:
But that is almost as implausible.
Click to expand...

How so? I don't see it as a preordained discovery. The Chinese alchemists who stumbled across it may easily have not, and then the idea doesn't spread.

Changing the timing of the discovery might be interesting.
 

rcduggan

tormsen said:
How so? I don't see it as a preordained discovery. The Chinese alchemists who stumbled across it may easily have not, and then the idea doesn't spread.

Changing the timing of the discovery might be interesting.
Click to expand...
What I meant was that never discovering gunpowder is equally implausible. Just because the Chinese don't invent it ITTL doesn't mean that nobody else will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top