High middleages without gunpowder.
- Thread starter LXEagle
- Start date
Without powder (I don't see how it can NOT develop, but say ASBs magically forbid that chemical reaction from ever happening):
1. Walls stay tall and narrow and perhaps get taller as construction techniques improve. Thick sloped walls are only necessary when dealing with high-energy projectiles with flat trajectories.
2. Plate may or may not develop, but if it does, almost nothing can breach it when worn properly with amortization. Armour remains the way to go for centuries for those who can afford it. Shields may or may not be needed but are still more useful than with bullets around.
3. The cuirasseer/reitar never displaces the gens d'armes because no pistol. Lancers stay relevant.
4. Because lancers are relevant, pikemen are relevant. Pikes stay long. No transition to bayonet. The meta-balance is going to be between offensive and defensive pike use.
5. Sapping walls is hard, hard work and will be done in the old-fashoined way (with picks and shovels).
1. Walls stay tall and narrow and perhaps get taller as construction techniques improve. Thick sloped walls are only necessary when dealing with high-energy projectiles with flat trajectories.
2. Plate may or may not develop, but if it does, almost nothing can breach it when worn properly with amortization. Armour remains the way to go for centuries for those who can afford it. Shields may or may not be needed but are still more useful than with bullets around.
3. The cuirasseer/reitar never displaces the gens d'armes because no pistol. Lancers stay relevant.
4. Because lancers are relevant, pikemen are relevant. Pikes stay long. No transition to bayonet. The meta-balance is going to be between offensive and defensive pike use.
5. Sapping walls is hard, hard work and will be done in the old-fashoined way (with picks and shovels).
I don't think we'd see that, no. That form of warfare was obsolete by the end of the roman empire, why would a lack of gunpowder bring it back?
Peltast-like infantry don't make sense in a medieval environment. As skirmisher's they're outranged by archers and crossbowmen, their lack of a spear and loose-order formation make them vulnerable to cavalry, and their weapons are less effective against armour than either bowshots or crossbow bolts.
What you're likely to see is a continued move towards mass infantry, professional armies as economic power becomes more centralised - lack of gunpowder doesn't butterfly direct taxation, banking, or changes to the legal system.
A shift towards pike formations, with the "shot" in pike and shot replaced by longbows in England and crossbows and arbalests everywhere else.
Cavalry will probably remain heavier for longer, as armour will be rather more effective, but the cost of a full harness will still be prohibitive. Continuing professionalisation of heavy cavalry forces and a move towards lancers.
Siege warfare is the only place a real difference will be notable in the high middle ages - you might see feudalism die back more slowly as nbles can hold out longer against central government.
Really, it wouldn't change much.
Peltast-like infantry don't make sense in a medieval environment. As skirmisher's they're outranged by archers and crossbowmen, their lack of a spear and loose-order formation make them vulnerable to cavalry, and their weapons are less effective against armour than either bowshots or crossbow bolts.
What you're likely to see is a continued move towards mass infantry, professional armies as economic power becomes more centralised - lack of gunpowder doesn't butterfly direct taxation, banking, or changes to the legal system.
A shift towards pike formations, with the "shot" in pike and shot replaced by longbows in England and crossbows and arbalests everywhere else.
Cavalry will probably remain heavier for longer, as armour will be rather more effective, but the cost of a full harness will still be prohibitive. Continuing professionalisation of heavy cavalry forces and a move towards lancers.
Siege warfare is the only place a real difference will be notable in the high middle ages - you might see feudalism die back more slowly as nbles can hold out longer against central government.
Really, it wouldn't change much.
RGB: Without powder (I don't see how it can NOT develop, but say ASBs magically forbid that chemical reaction from ever happening):
It is not a complex chemistry as I understand, yet it took a very long time to develop since people always experimented with stuff. And they did not really try to invent it, so it was kind of an accident? (poff!) Might as well have taken another thousand years then...
RGB 2. Plate may or may not develop, but if it does, almost nothing can breach it when worn properly with amortization.
Plate is an old invention. But apart from the ancient world, the Ottoman turks used javelins and polish Hussitecavalry did well into the 17th century, for instance.
But I agree that a high quality steel armour should be difficult even for a heavy steel javelin. But impossible?
Samrobo :That form of warfare was obsolete by the end of the roman empire
Just to argue a bit
Beacause it took a long time for the roman empire to die, and since javelins survived it, why not. Consider the hispanic Almughavar whom were paid mercenaries armed with heavy javelins, and quite able to take down knights with a throw at point blank range. Also the romans had they not stagnated, might have developed more armoured and better cavalry as in knights, but still used javelins.
Samrobo: As skirmisher's they're outranged by archers and crossbowmen, their lack of a spear and loose-order formation make them vulnerable to cavalry, and their weapons are less effective against armour than either bowshots or crossbow bolts.
The crossbow and longbow are all old weapons as is the javelin, but give the Almughavar a complimantary spear and a steelshield then, and suppose they fight like heavy infantry like the romans. They (the romans) had crossbows, and these were not effective against shields. But the javelins would be effective if heavy enough and outrange the pikes (when thrown). Also, the javelin are more weather-proof than crossbows, easier to learn than the longbow, and cheaper than the knights for purpose of mass-production.
RGB2: Siege warfare is the only place a real difference will be notable in the high middle ages - you might see feudalism die back more slowly as nbles can hold out longer against central government
Yes that is true, architecture improved and castles were stronger in the middlages. But the trebuchet is also an old weapon, right?
Actually basic question is, could javelins break heavy steel plate?
It is not a complex chemistry as I understand, yet it took a very long time to develop since people always experimented with stuff. And they did not really try to invent it, so it was kind of an accident? (poff!) Might as well have taken another thousand years then...
RGB 2. Plate may or may not develop, but if it does, almost nothing can breach it when worn properly with amortization.
Plate is an old invention. But apart from the ancient world, the Ottoman turks used javelins and polish Hussitecavalry did well into the 17th century, for instance.
But I agree that a high quality steel armour should be difficult even for a heavy steel javelin. But impossible?
Samrobo :That form of warfare was obsolete by the end of the roman empire
Just to argue a bit
Beacause it took a long time for the roman empire to die, and since javelins survived it, why not. Consider the hispanic Almughavar whom were paid mercenaries armed with heavy javelins, and quite able to take down knights with a throw at point blank range. Also the romans had they not stagnated, might have developed more armoured and better cavalry as in knights, but still used javelins. Samrobo: As skirmisher's they're outranged by archers and crossbowmen, their lack of a spear and loose-order formation make them vulnerable to cavalry, and their weapons are less effective against armour than either bowshots or crossbow bolts.
The crossbow and longbow are all old weapons as is the javelin, but give the Almughavar a complimantary spear and a steelshield then, and suppose they fight like heavy infantry like the romans. They (the romans) had crossbows, and these were not effective against shields. But the javelins would be effective if heavy enough and outrange the pikes (when thrown). Also, the javelin are more weather-proof than crossbows, easier to learn than the longbow, and cheaper than the knights for purpose of mass-production.
RGB2: Siege warfare is the only place a real difference will be notable in the high middle ages - you might see feudalism die back more slowly as nbles can hold out longer against central government
Yes that is true, architecture improved and castles were stronger in the middlages. But the trebuchet is also an old weapon, right?
Actually basic question is, could javelins break heavy steel plate?
Cheap plate and segmented pieces are however definitely a 15th c. onwards kind of thing. This is not some people in breastplates, this is thousands of men in full harness.
In the East, mobility and scale of warfare meant that lighter armour was acceptable. Javelins can deal with mail and padding sometimes and can hurt unarmoured horses. There's definitely going to be some use, maybe something like djid/jarid - steel weighted and quite expensive. In fact javelins are surprisingly expensive equipment - because they can accept way less production fault tolerance than things like arrows and pikes and stabbing lances. To be effective they have to be produced very consistently. It's not an improvised weapon by any means.
Humans don't generate enough force when throwing though maybe a good steel tip and exceptional circumstances could do the trick. I think they're mostly for disruption/horses/lighter troops though in which scenarios they are very useful.
Actually basic question is, could javelins break heavy steel plate?
Not nearly often enough to base strategy around. Then again without the need to bullet-proof the armour it might stay lighter and arrows/bolts/jarids may have slightly more chances at wounding.
NothingNow
Banned
All you need is someone to re-develop the Atlatl. With a long enough lever, generating the necessary amount of force to pierce armor from the High Middle Ages is fairly easy. Especially if they've got a tip like a Pilum, which will maximise the effective sectional density of the javelin, increasing the chance of armor penetration on a hit.
Brigandines might also be a good option for armor development. They're easy to produce on a large scale, thanks to their constructed elements, and can be properly fitted and repaired on the cheap, even if they are particularly labor intensive, given all the rivetting.
That said, the Crossbowman will probably still rule the roost along with heavy cavalry and the pike. Arbalests will likely be a very big thing, given their potency against pretty much any armor that could be produced (although that potency does rely on having bolts with a very high sectional density, and a lot of momentum.)
I think an interesting point to make is that gunpowder weapons were in a lot of way the bane of nomadic armies. Without them, I wonder who the next batch of Mongols, Huns, Avars, or Sarmatians will arise from the steppes?
Not to derail the conversation, but methinks it is somewhat pertinent.
Not to derail the conversation, but methinks it is somewhat pertinent.
Would a mixed pike-and-crossbow formation be enough? Infantry archers can generally outshoot horse archers, and the pikemen would keep the enemy from charging home.
Originally Posted by Errnge
I think an interesting point to make is that gunpowder weapons were in a lot of way the bane of nomadic armies. Without them, I wonder who the next batch of Mongols, Huns, Avars, or Sarmatians will arise from the steppes?
Not to derail the conversation, but methinks it is somewhat pertinent.
Would a mixed pike-and-crossbow formation be enough? Infantry archers can generally outshoot horse archers, and the pikemen would keep the enemy from charging home.
The romans had trouble with those mounted archers, they did. But the crossbow was invented by then. Also the crossbowman is not an infantryman as a javelinman could be.
But suppose they had had really good shields. then? Could a bolt shoot through it? I am guessing at close range yes, but that they wouldn´t drop enough of them to stop the infantry charge, at 50 metres or less. The javelins however would slow them down, because it is a big heavy spear still hanging stuck, in your shield or armour or body.
Samrobo :That form of warfare was obsolete by the end of the roman empire
Just to argue a bit
Javelins survived in a few, rare cases, into the early middle ages - we have accounts of thrown spear skirmishes between shield walls in germanic infantry combat for instance - and early knights would use thrown javelins.
In the high middle ages though, the javelin wasn't used in western europe. Technology and military tactics had moved on.
The success of the almughavar has more to do with their knowledge of the terrain and assymmetric warefare than their weaponry.
The gastrophetes was known in the roman empire - but that's completely different in terms of efficacy when compared to lever-drawn crossbows, which have a much higher rate of fire and store more energy. By the high middle ages, we're looking at, at the top end, steel-pronged windlass-drawn arbalests. Besides which, the romans never had to contend with the crossbow as a mass-weapon.
The Longbow is a neolithic weapon, but not all advances are technological. The military-cultural complex in medieval England allowed the recruitment of thousands of longbowmen - when previously the weapon had been used by only a highly skilled minority. We have the example of the battle of Najera to see what happens when javelin-armed skirmishers have to contend with massed longbow fire.
Rubbish. Take two infantrymen with identical equipment, save that one has javelins and the other a high-middle ages appropriate crossbow - the latter is vastly more effective.
Professional crossbowmen regularly served as medium infantry - Genoese mercenaries could expect to have a Pavise, an arming sword, and maille or half-plate armour.
Hmmm....no, I think that since the early middleages was a low armor period, it would be more effective to use bows than javelins. But in the high middlages, primitive guns and firearms had already changed the nature of the battlefield. Almughavars were in fact mercenaries abroad and highly successfull albeit used as skirmishers.
That is true but what if they had the same quality in their shields and armor as in the middleages crossbows? They would be updated as well...and just as you say perhaps used not as skirmishers, but as pro-soldiers.
And, the Jinetes at Najera were light cavalry right? Provided armour or steelshields could stop an arrow or a bolt at least at some distance and I kind of think they could, the advantage of a heavy javelin is also that they would break armour, and stay in the armour.
Identical equipment...that is a huge thick shield heavy armor and an infantry weapon, as in a sword or a anticavspear... a) plus a huge arbalest and ammunition on your back or... b) two javelins, that carry no weigth after they were thrown. Obviously, the archer is at disadvantage or would have to toss away his expensive crossbow.
Javelins are less effective against heavily-armoured opponents than bows are.
In any case, we see the javelin dying out in western europe before the introduction of firearms. The onus is on you to provide a reason for it to reemerge.
Theres no much you can do to advance a full-body shield further than the scutum, weight gets in the way.
The Jinetes were cavalry armed with javelins, equivalent to mounted almughavars. Longbow arrows penetrated the knightly armour of the period - to survive to get into range your javelin-armed skirmishers would have to be armoured at the same level as contemporary elite knights.
Steel shields? You mean a buckler? No, those are completely ineffective against missile fire, they're too small.
Once again, Javelins do not pierce armour well, they are too slow moving, too affected by air resistance, and aren't moving fast enough.
A lever-ratchet crossbow and a quiver of 12 bolts (the historical genoese loadout) weighs less than 3 javelins, and takes up less space.
For this we get 6-7 times the effective range, better ability to pierce armour, and greater accuracy, with no downside whatsoever.
There is a reason javelin-armed skirmishers weren't used in western europe at the time, and removing gunpowder won't change that.
Javelins are less effective against heavily-armoured opponents than bows are.
In any case, we see the javelin dying out in western europe before the introduction of firearms. The onus is on you to provide a reason for it to reemerge.
The way I see it the javelin was never dead and re-emerging before firearms. The reason is provided (I don´t really know)..that if it is heavy enough and could penetrate the armor of the time, it would be kind of an anti-tank weapon more primitive than the firearms but with the same function. And firearms outmatched bows and crossbows and mounted archers. But it all depends upon if you can penetrate the armour with a thrown weapon.
Theres no much you can do to advance a full-body shield further than the scutum, weight gets in the way.
My guess is that you could make a better shield with better materials available in the middleages. Perhaps a hoplite like shield but with steelplate insted of bronze.
The Jinetes were cavalry armed with javelins, equivalent to mounted almughavars. Longbow arrows penetrated the knightly armour of the period - to survive to get into range your javelin-armed skirmishers would have to be armoured at the same level as contemporary elite knights.
Well, yes I realize that skirmishers especially mounted ones would be vulnerable but not infantry when raising their shields as umbrellas.
Steel shields? You mean a buckler? No, those are completely ineffective against missile fire, they're too small.
Not really, because the arrows would rain down from above in great clouds. Steel umbrellas?
Once again, Javelins do not pierce armour well, they are too slow moving, too affected by air resistance, and aren't moving fast enough.
Fair enough...if that is true then I surrender,
A lever-ratchet crossbow and a quiver of 12 bolts (the historical genoese loadout) weighs less than 3 javelins, and takes up less space.
For this we get 6-7 times the effective range, better ability to pierce armour, and greater accuracy, with no downside whatsoever.
There is a reason javelin-armed skirmishers weren't used in western europe at the time, and removing gunpowder won't change that.
No, I meant that the crossbowguy would have to throw his bow away to fight in a split second, possibly loosing the weapon. The Javelins weight are nothing, when thrown.
Ah, heres your problem. That's not true.
Contemporary firearms couldn't even penetrate a plate harness - a javelin has less armour piercing capability than either arrows or crossbow bolts.
Actually at least the Pilumstyle javelins were designed to pierce the armor of that day. But if you have tested it, I humbly admit defeat.
I made this estimation of the power using wikipedia...
Weight Range Energy = Weight * Speed
Pilum 5kg 30m 150(?)
Crossbowbolt
Longbowbodkin 0,1kg 250m 25
I couldn´t find stats for the bolt, but my guess is that it would be slightly more armor piercing than the bodkin.
This is kind of interesting.
Classical era and Western Europeans never used an atl-atl, but they did use a finger sling (aka javelin cord) to throw Javelins (gives a little added range, add spin for accuracy).
However in the late middle ages only Spanish, Muslims, Irish, steppe nomads and eastern Europeans (Vlachs, Russians) still used the Javelin to any extent. AFAIK none of them used the cord but threw by hand.
A cord + a steel tip + weighted javelin could definitely be a problem for maille and even brigandine. Interesting idea.
Actually, the archer was usually a well-off professional and travelled with squires and servants believe it or not, who could act as heavy or light infantry depending on the setup and also helped reloading. So the crossbow would be held by the servant (much like, for example, the late medieval Muscovite cavalryman would give away his arquebousse to his servant-at-arms to use to defend the train before going to battle). The archer and the squires if any would grab their shields or polearms and go to fight as infantry.
Eastern cavalrymen used them extensively in an archer-dominant environment but mostly to protect the wrist and hand that held the bow (i.e. passively). It had little other uses for a cavalryman. Even parrying other spear and sword attacks was intended to be done with your own sword or spear.
Late medieval javelins/djids typically came in sets of 3 or sometimes 2. They were also personal equipment and not mass-produced like arrows so they couldn't be carried in bundles in the baggage to be grabbed when you ran short.
An archer carried anywhere between 15 to 30 shots on him either in a quiver or a bundled with a strap. A horse archer would typically carry two quivers.
Last edited:
As everybody concentrated on the Western Europe Mostly I have to look at how "no guns" would have changed some other regions.
First thing that comes to mind is that in no-guns world Constantinople would last at least a few decades longer. And Ottoman Empire would not be that big and successful as in OTL. A lot of victories of the Osmans against their Muslim opponents were due to the Turkish superiority in firearms: against Egyptian Mamluks, against the Persian Safavids and some others.
I wonder how would the Ottoman janissaries be equipped? My guess that instead of firearms they would use crossbows, something like a corpse of the Genoese crossbow men.
Without firearms there is nothing better in warfare than steppe nomadic archers supported by some mounted crack troops. Just give them enough steel hardened arrowheads.
I just cannot imagine who may withstand them.
As far as I remember the Chinese in antiquity used extremely strong crossbows which could be fast reloaded when a man lie down on his back and used his legs and back muscles. They say that these crossbow men could compete with nomad mounted archers. With good training and discipline high quality of crossbows and excellent steel bolts thousands of such warriors might survive the nomad attack.
The siege machinery would be quite sophisticated and impressive with moving towers and the like. I guess ballistaes and trebuchets would throw huge stones at astonishing distances. If the late Roman army had whole corpses of non-powder artillery the late Medieval armies would have even more numerous specialized troops. There will be detachments using scorpions which could accurately pierce a heavily armed man and his steel shield at a huge distance.