Ancient Gunpowder?

Early gunpowder was fairly basic, just needs the right combination of charcol, sulfur and saltpeter, and to me it seems suprising that it was first discovered in China in the 9th century AD. Now I am wondering:
a) are there any reasons why it could not have been discovered during the Classical era by one of the assorted nations boardering the Med?
b) Assuming such a discovery happened early (lets say 300BC) in the existance of the diodochi ('sucessor') kingdoms what effect would have it had?

Edit to add: here is a potentially useful link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder

1. Far more gunpowder was used in mining than war.
a. Think coal and global warming.
b. Think of coal and cheap iron, brick, and glass for windows and telescopes.
c. Think gold and silver. Inflation.
d. Think zinc and copper. Electricity.
e. Think tunnels and bridges. Faster transport.
2. No armor and no castles leads to far earlier democracy. Voting rights came with rifles.
3. Pumping out coal mines gave us steam. Steam gave us civilisation, eventually.

I forgot another important one. Cannon made sailing ships more powerfull than galleys. Galleys were faster and more maneuverable than sailing ships, and had bigger crews that could swarm aboard and capture them. Then came cannon...
So exploration becomes possible...

1. Far more gunpowder was used in mining than war.
a. Think coal and global warming.
b. Think of coal and cheap iron, brick, and glass for windows and telescopes.
c. Think gold and silver. Inflation.
d. Think zinc and copper. Electricity.
e. Think tunnels and bridges. Faster transport.
2. No armor and no castles leads to far earlier democracy. Voting rights came with rifles.
3. Pumping out coal mines gave us steam. Steam gave us civilisation, eventually.

Click to expand...

1. True
2. This doesn't kick in for some time, while at this point in history the Greeks, etc. had a significanet knowlage of how to work with bronze I get the impression that they were not so up to scratch with Iron hence while it is practicle to produce cannons it is not so practicle to produce muskets, rifles, etc.
3. As with 2. I would expect some delays for this to kick in

I forgot another important one. Cannon made sailing ships more powerfull than galleys. Galleys were faster and more maneuverable than sailing ships, and had bigger crews that could swarm aboard and capture them. Then came cannon...
So exploration becomes possible...

Click to expand...

Equally true

Cockroach said:

...at this point in history the Greeks, etc. had a significanet knowlage of how to work with bronze I get the impression that they were not so up to scratch with Iron hence while it is practicle to produce cannons it is not so practicle to produce muskets, rifles, etc.

Click to expand...

Wrong on 2 counts...1) good ironwork is not necessary to produce muskets. They could just as easily be made of bronze. Indeed, there are extant examples of bronze "handguns" (primitive muskets) made in China. They would not have been able to make bronze rifles, because bronze is too soft to hold rifling, but muskets could definitely have been done; 2) Greek ironwork was actually pretty good and would have been fine for making muskets or rifles.

The most significant difference would be that with rifles barbarians (in particular horse nomads) have no chance of winning against civilized states. So, this means that all the people who came out boiling from central Asia actually stay put where they are. Don't have a clear idea of where this goes, but for sure it changes history quite a lot.

I disagree with equating rifles and democracy. Rifles (and cannons) mean that there is no strong rebellious aristocracy. OTOH, it would probably mean that central states would be stronger, not necessarily more democratic. My feeling is that they would be more similar to water empires (less the nomadic problem): early gunpowder would bring scientific progress, but no social progress.

Oh, I found the thing about democracy and rifels consistant. To be a fighter using a sword, probably a horse, a cuirass and all that stuff needs first of all a lot of money.
but even if a bunch of underdogs accidantly gets a large amount of swords and things, they can not fight with them as a long education is needed. This is much less the case with guns-mind the child soldiers in africa. (Maybe not the best example for democracy but I made my point)

LordKalvan said:

The most significant difference would be that with rifles barbarians (in particular horse nomads) have no chance of winning against civilized states. So, this means that all the people who came out boiling from central Asia actually stay put where they are. Don't have a clear idea of where this goes, but for sure it changes history quite a lot.

I disagree with equating rifles and democracy. Rifles (and cannons) mean that there is no strong rebellious aristocracy. OTOH, it would probably mean that central states would be stronger, not necessarily more democratic. My feeling is that they would be more similar to water empires (less the nomadic problem): early gunpowder would bring scientific progress, but no social progress.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, social 'progress' is an interesting thing, especially when applied to history. Is it progress to go from Roman Empire times to feudal society ? In many respects that seems to be ANTI-progressive. Therefore, if your change to history prevents this then it is progress in a convoluted way, because it prevents society regressing.

Grey Wolf

Alayta said:

Oh, I found the thing about democracy and rifels consistant. To be a fighter using a sword, probably a horse, a cuirass and all that stuff needs first of all a lot of money.
but even if a bunch of underdogs accidantly gets a large amount of swords and things, they can not fight with them as a long education is needed. This is much less the case with guns-mind the child soldiers in africa. (Maybe not the best example for democracy but I made my point)

Click to expand...

That argument goes for every simple weapon system (and the tactics that go with it - they are usually more important anyway.) The spear and phalanx is 'democratic', so is the bow and crossbow, the halberd and the musket. Sword and shield, horseback lance and chariot are 'aristocratic'.

LordKalvan said:

I disagree with equating rifles and democracy. Rifles (and cannons) mean that there is no strong rebellious aristocracy. OTOH, it would probably mean that central states would be stronger, not necessarily more democratic.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. The most likely political consequence of a country using gunpowder weapons is increased centralization, as armies of musket-toting enlisted commoners replace the horse-riding or chariot-riding aristocracy.
China invented gunpowder, and that hardly made it democratic. In fact the Chinese case illustrates another dimension to the issue: technological breakthroughs don't happen in a vacuum, their long-term impact depends on the political and societal context. Gunpowder brought little change one way or another to China, because it was already a big centralized empire, and it was ruled by a civilian bureaucratic corps that disregarded military concerns as unseemly. So even though Chinese engineers came up with such nasty weapons as the fragmentation grenade, the flamethrower and even the missile launcher (at a time when the West barely knew about crossbows), their use on the battlefield was not systematized, even when the Mongol hordes came crashing in.
On the other hand, once gunpowder reached Europe some 400 years later, it spelled doom for the feudal order, as noblemen's castles could now be breached by cannon fire and armored knights could be gunned down by muskets. So, depending on the political context in which you introduce gunpowder, the effects can be marginal or tremendous. Musket-toting legionnaires would not have made Rome that much more powerful or stable; but phalanxes of musketeers in the Hellenistic context might have altered the political map of the Mediterranean and Middle East rather dramatically.

This topic has come up before on this Board. I will recycle my previous thought that rather than pistols, rifles, rockets and cannons, a form of grenade is likely to be the first military use (point made above about commercial use is well taken). Using grenadiers to break up a phalanx would be very appealing to the Romans. Likewise the use of gunpowder by sappers in siegecraft would likely predate cannons by a century.

a form of grenade is likely to be the first military use

Click to expand...

Great Big ones trown by Catapults.

In OTL they had grenades in the Middle ages with "Greek Fire" in them. There were large versions to shoot from catapults and smaller versions that could be thrown by hand.

Speaking of Greek Fire, what if the man who invented it in the early medieval period had experimented with a different mix of substances and ended up making gunpowder instead of Greek Fire?

Paul Spring said:

Speaking of Greek Fire, what if the man who invented it in the early medieval period had experimented with a different mix of substances and ended up making gunpowder instead of Greek Fire?

Click to expand...

Unlikely under the circumstancves (the point was to mix stuff into refined oil, so the liquid component can't well be left out), but there is a theory that Greek Fire projectors from around AD 800 onwards actually used a primitive gunpowder charge to shoot their incendiary mixture. I am not sold on it, but field experiments show it works at least.

Grey Wolf said:

Hmmm, social 'progress' is an interesting thing, especially when applied to history. Is it progress to go from Roman Empire times to feudal society ? In many respects that seems to be ANTI-progressive. Therefore, if your change to history prevents this then it is progress in a convoluted way, because it prevents society regressing.

Grey Wolf

Click to expand...

Well, a case could be made for Middle Ages and feudalism. After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

And then we should choose which kind of Roman Empire we consider most deserving: there is quite a difference between Augustus, Diocletian, Theodosius and Justinian (I've refrained from choosing the worse emperors).

In any case, my point was that even the most perfect society created on Earth (we should make a poll on that, btw. At a guess, it must be some period of Chinese history: the Middle Kingdom has always been great in organizing and finding a place for everyone and anyone) is not worth preserving without changes. Life is change. Sometimes the living get lucky, sometimes they don't.
You cannot play too many tricks with evolution, and the same applies to history. Gunpowder and firearms were a positive instrument of change, bringing ultimately freedom and democracy, in the Europe of Renaissance and Reformation. I would expect that the same tool would have a negative impact in a more stable situation (Roman or Chinese empires).

It might be argued that firearms are a kind of catalyst, reinforcing and maximizing the trend already in place (in a chaotic situation they increase the chaos, in a stable situation they tend to freeze everything in place)

LordKalvan said:

It might be argued that firearms are a kind of catalyst, reinforcing and maximizing the trend already in place (in a chaotic situation they increase the chaos, in a stable situation they tend to freeze everything in place)

Click to expand...

I agree with that analysis.
One should keep in mind that there is an element of self-fulfilling prophecy in the extent to which technological innovation brings about change. Basically, to some degree, things change as much or as little as the members of a given society want them to. As I wrote above, China invented gunpowder but did not change a bit as a result. Another example is Japan, in which firearms were introduced by the Spanish in the 1500s, without much impact on society in general and warfare in particular.