Ancient Egypt Gunpowder

[Zyzzyva]

Cool idea, but I think all of you are underestimating how hard it is to make cannon. It's hard. You need to be able to cast a huge block of bronze, evenly strong all around, and sufficiently thick to survive a huge amount of sudden pressure. Repeatedly. Oh, and it has to have a wickhole, which nevertheless does not compromise the integrity of the cannon.

Broz has it backwards - you can't build firearms until you have cannon down to a tee. You might be able to get hand rockets, but firearms are amazingly sophisticated little pieces of machinery. The Egyptians just couldn't do it.

 

[sonicwind123]

I tend to agree if it is the middle kingdom, I also can not see them making cannons, but the Ptolemaic is another story, I can see if they have a knowledge of gun power making cannons. They were a society which had the will to learn to make cannons. I don't think they would be able to make them at the start, but in short time, I think they could find a way.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Actually, Tudor Parfitt's latest book relates tangentially to this POD and some of your speculation.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

If any of the pre-Ptolemaic Kingdoms were to survive without being conquered militarily or dominated culturally, until it arrived to a point in history were it and it's neighbouring countries progressed to the technological level where they possessed the means and knowledge to cast iron and bronze in such large quantities; Then yes.
At the time when they existed; No.

 

[robertp6165]

You need three things necessary for gunpowder: Saltpeter, sulfur, and some form of acid. Plus, you need the know-how. Unless the Ancient Egyptians were
in contact with the Ancient Chinese, then there's no way for them to obtain
the recipe for gunpowder.

You need saltpeter, sulfur, and CHARCOAL. All of which would have been available, or could have been manufactured, by the Egyptians.

 

[robertp6165]

Cool idea, but I think all of you are underestimating how hard it is to make cannon. It's hard. You need to be able to cast a huge block of bronze, evenly strong all around, and sufficiently thick to survive a huge amount of sudden pressure. Repeatedly. Oh, and it has to have a wickhole, which nevertheless does not compromise the integrity of the cannon.

Broz has it backwards - you can't build firearms until you have cannon down to a tee. You might be able to get hand rockets, but firearms are amazingly sophisticated little pieces of machinery. The Egyptians just couldn't do it.

I tend to agree if it is the middle kingdom, I also can not see them making cannons, but the Ptolemaic is another story, I can see if they have a knowledge of gun power making cannons. They were a society which had the will to learn to make cannons. I don't think they would be able to make them at the start, but in short time, I think they could find a way.

Actually, the Egyptians were in possession of bronze-casting technology as early as the Middle Kingdom. By the New Kingdom, it was quite advanced. I agree that it wouldn't happen as early as the Middle Kingdom, but it could definitely happen before the end of the New Kingdom.

For that matter, some form of hand cannon, cast of bronze, might come about before the big guns, simply because the big guns will take more skill in bronze casting to achieve and a lot more bronze.

 

[Gladi]

Actually, the Egyptians were in possession of bronze-casting technology as early as the Middle Kingdom. By the New Kingdom, it was quite advanced. I agree that it wouldn't happen as early as the Middle Kingdom, but it could definitely happen before the end of the New Kingdom.

For that matter, some form of hand cannon, cast of bronze, might come about before the big guns, simply because the big guns will take more skill in bronze casting to achieve and a lot more bronze.

Bright day
Medieval cannons were unreliable for long time and metalurgy was certainly better then.

As for hand cannons. Has anybody here fired one? It is a pretty useless thing overall. It can be usefull in tight formation for the five seconds when you first fire, bt after that you are better of clubbing your enemy rather then reloading.

 

[robertp6165]

Bright day
Medieval cannons were unreliable for long time and metalurgy was certainly better then.

A lot of the unreliablility of medieval cannon came from the fact that they weren't, for the vast majority of them, made of bronze. They were made out of wrought iron, which has a tendency to develop hairline cracks you can't see and then blow up in your face. They also were generally not made in one piece, but constructed in a fashion similar to a wooden barrel, out of wrought iron staves with bands around them to hold them together.

Besides, cannon in medieval times were new technology. New technology almost never works the way it is supposed to, and takes quite a bit of development before it is really effective. The same would, no doubt, be true in ancient Egypt.

Bronze makes an altogether better material for cannon than anything else developed before the late 19th century, and the Egyptians had it going back to the Middle Kingdom.

As for hand cannons. Has anybody here fired one? It is a pretty useless thing overall. It can be usefull in tight formation for the five seconds when you first fire, bt after that you are better of clubbing your enemy rather then reloading.

Again, the fact that they would not be very effective...when first deployed...is not important. Like any new technology, they will be developed and will eventually become effective as the technology evolves.

And, given the extensive use of bronze-headed maces by the Egyptian army among it's infantry, having something that could be fired once, and then used as a heavy mace, might actually be seen by the Egyptians as desireable!

 

[tormsen]

I'm pretty skeptical that the Egyptians would develop cannons, even if bronze is an acceptable material for it. I see it as more likely that it would arise elsewhere, as someone suggested in the Middle East. Perhaps a long time later too. But surely much earlier than in OTL.

I'm more interested in how this would affect the history of ancient warfare. It would likely work in a number of stages, an age of rockets and clay pot bombs, followed by an age of artillery (and naval warfare) and then an age of firearms. Though the pace of change would likely be much longer than the development of gunpowder technologies in OTL's middle ages. It would likely be more analogous to OTL's history of gunpowder in China, India and the Islamic world than Europe.

Many in OTL disdained gunpowder for various reasons, though it often doomed them or was thrust upon them. It is likely the same would happen here. Perhaps the Greeks?

This world will likely never see castles and such as we know them, but perhaps starforts could develop, especially around cities. This could have interesting effects on architecture.

Do firearms give advantages to empires like OTL's Persia, where slave armies armed with guns lay waste to professional armies?

If horse nomad power in Eurasia is indeed curtailed by earlier gunpowder, is it likely that civilization in Central Asia will be stronger and more permanent?

What other technologies would be enhanced, or retarded, by early gunpowder?

 

[Hendryk]

You could have massed formations of slingers hurling these. Could be quite devastating!

Sling-thrown hand grenades sound like the most effective military use of gunpowder absent advanced enough metallurgy for cannon-making or heavy siege engines. In fact it may reach a developmental plateau at that stage, and stay there for centuries, like the composite bow.

 

[Roberto]

Sling-thrown hand grenades sound like the most effective military use of gunpowder absent advanced enough metallurgy for cannon-making or heavy siege engines. In fact it may reach a developmental plateau at that stage, and stay there for centuries, like the composite bow.

It would also be perfect for fighting nomads and tribes as the Egyptians often did. Cannon and even hand cannon wouldn't fit that role so well.

 

[Hendryk]

It would also be perfect for fighting nomads and tribes as the Egyptians often did.

Indeed. In fact, I'm wondering: would horse-mounted warfare be as prominent with gunpowder weapons around? If not, then this may butterfly away the rise of military aristocracies, facilitating the centralization of power.

 

[Roberto]

Indeed. In fact, I'm wondering: would horse-mounted warfare be as prominent with gunpowder weapons around? If not, then this may butterfly away the rise of military aristocracies, facilitating the centralization of power.

Which would in turn make it easier to manufacture gunpowder weapons, considering how much cooperation between different parts of the kingdom would be needed (bronze miners need to cooperate with smelters, who need to cooperate with the chemists who make the stuff, etc.) So with a more centralized Ancient Egypt, you get, in turn, more widely used gunpowder.

 

[Broz]

horse mounted warfare would be ewen more prominent, dragoon stile troops would would olnly become more important, and devolop sooner


was there not well developed alchemy/chemistry and medicine in acient Egipt, that allegdely thought up all sorts of things, and would be definitley able to produce gunpowder, ewen if it never ocured to egiptian chemists to invent it
or is the midlle kingdom in the wrong period?

 

[Hendryk]

horse mounted warfare would be ewen more prominent, dragoon stile troops would would olnly become more important, and devolop sooner

Would they though? Explosive-slinging infantry troops could make mincemeat of cavalry. Given the fact that a grenadier infantryman would be cheaper to equip, train and maintain than a cavalryman and his horse, IMHO sedentary empires would keep horses mostly to pull war-chariots, leaving horse-mounted warfare to nomadic peoples.

 

[Broz]

who said that frase... i cant quote it exactly but il parafrase.. you win if you get the most troops into the fight the fastest... was it custer?

calwary simply has a lot of advantage ower infantry
how fast can a infantry formation move ower terain with no roads or infrastructue?
how far can a slinger throw a granade?
can he throw it faster than a horse can ride?
do granades give an advantage in close combat?

how protected would such slinger troops be against calwary with composite bows? or any form of small arms? or granades thrown by charging calvary? or just ordinary cold weapons like sabres and spears?
they could throw a few salvos of granades and do some damage but the calvary charge would still reach them, and then what? backround pikemen formations?

 

[MarkA]

It is a cold wet day in Syria and the Egyptian grenade slingers are facing Assyrian cavalry armed with their traditional bows. Imagine the Egyptians struggling to light the wicks of their grenades as the Assyrians bear down on them loosing wave after wave of arrows and the feared infantry trudging behind ready to slaughter the remainder.

If the Egyptians had gunpowder in the New Kingdom then Kadesh would almost certainly have had a different outcome, providing the Hittites were not aware of the discovery. Although the Hittites had the advantage as their chariots could carry a driver and two soldiers to the point of battle while the Egyptian ones had only one passenger, if the latter had grenades this advantage would be negated. The battle would probably be a decisive Egyptian victory or at the least a tactical win for Egypt instead of an indecisive victory for the Hittites.

Egyptian domination of the region would mean that the history of the Middle East would be very different. The secret of gunpowder would eventually find its way to other powers and then this new invention would have dramatic consequences on who rose to power.

 

[robertp6165]

who said that frase... i cant quote it exactly but il parafrase.. you win if you get the most troops into the fight the fastest... was it custer?

Nathan Bedford Forrest, actually. He said the secret of warfare was to "git thar first with the most men."

 

[Broz]

but gunpowder would definitley not become a dominant part of warfare, it would be used in combination with other "conventional" weaponry and tactics, and these would develop to better suplement the use of gunpowder, obviously noone would expect a unit armed with olnly crude firearms or granades would have such an advantage ower any given enemy that they would be expected to work alone

development would go similar to OTL china or europe, there would be development of pikemen formations to protect the shooters/throwers, defensive infantry formations with mixed troop tipes etc...

 

[Zyzzyva]

Nathan Bedford Forrest, actually. He said the secret of warfare was to "git thar first with the most men."

I thought it was "be there fustest with the mostest".

And I still hold that cannon are well beyond Egyptian capabilites. The grenade idea, maybe, rockets, even more maybe, but no cannon and definitely no handguns.