Development sans gunpowder

Assume a world in which nobody has discovered gunpowder by 1900. Obviously, it would be nearly unrecognizable to us, and trying to nail down the specifics would be a fool's errand.

That said, what developments might still proceed more or less on pace with history, in a world with no gunpowder? Technological, cultural, economic, political, etc.

For example, the printing press is likely still on pace to come about around the same time, so you'd still have widespread knowledge and literacy vastly changing society, and leveling it. However, gunpwoder was also a great leveler that worked in tandem with pritning.

Compasses are still a go, so Eurasian discovery of America is still likely, and the disease exchange is still massively in favor of the Eurasians. That said, gunpowder certainly helped maintain that edge.

Just two starting points for discussion.
 
"Eurasian discovery of America" might not look recognisable, though. Without gunpowder, feudalism could endure much longer in Europe and centralised state could emerge much later, if at all. Without them, though, there won`t be any massive transatlantic colonial empires. How feudal-age societies would deal with the discovery of America has a historical precedent from OTL: the Vikings.

Printing press I´m not sure. Needed economically vibrant towns in the late middle ages. Would everything which contributed to their emergence still exist in a world where even the Mongol invasion isn`t certain anymore, let alone the Black Death and the imperial reforms of the 14th century in teh HRE?
 
I am sure LSCatilina will drop by shortly to correct me or add nuance, but my biggest concern in a gunpowder-less universe is castles and how it relates to centralisation. No powder means no cannons. No cannons means serious fortifications can keep out royal armies for months or even years at a time (trebuchets are good but not as good). Places that ended up looking like England or Spain (or Muscovite Russia for that matter) end up looking a lot more like the HRE in practice. France definitely had powerful feudal lords who could resist royal will for a long time. The English might even keep a continental presence if the French don't have guns to take their possessions in reasonable timeframes.

In Asia and Africa, nomadic armies probably stay relevant a little longer, and forts established by settled societies are a little more vulnerable or at least less able to fight back effectively.

And as a final, early, knock-on, while armour will retain relevance for a very long time, the classic plate harness might never develop since there's no incentive to develop shot-proof plate. That probably has all sorts of implications for long-term direction of metallurgy.

How feudal-age societies would deal with the discovery of America has a historical precedent from OTL: the Vikings.

The Greenlanders weren't feudal, really. They also were forced to trade through Norway and that caused all sorts of problems. I think the conquest of the Canaries is a much better example of how a feudal society without royal control over individual actors deals with the problem (answer: slowly).
 
I am sure LSCatilina will drop by shortly to correct me or add nuance, but my biggest concern in a gunpowder-less universe is castles and how it relates to centralisation. No powder means no cannons. No cannons means serious fortifications can keep out royal armies for months or even years at a time (trebuchets are good but not as good). Places that ended up looking like England or Spain (or Muscovite Russia for that matter) end up looking a lot more like the HRE in practice. France definitely had powerful feudal lords who could resist royal will for a long time. The English might even keep a continental presence if the French don't have guns to take their possessions in reasonable timeframes.
Guns until the XVth century weren't that effective against fortifications (long story short, cannons tubes weren't resisting enough, and stone bullets weren't really good gunpowder artillery projectiles against stone walls), and the french edge on artillery was more of a battlefield thing (as in the Battle of Castillon in 1453).

Now, it did bring an important change in the XVth, less that castles and semi-private fortifications couldn't handle the changes or be protective enough, but it costed a lot to turn your average fortification into this or this. In France, only two nobiliar estates besides the king could afford it, Brittany and most of all Burgundy. In a TL where gunpowder is still not invented (regardless of the plausibility or butterflies), it does indeed means that other secondary families and entities would be able to assert more strongly their autonomy such as Bourbon or Armagnac.
But let's not forget that most of the hegemonic build-up of Capetians happened before gunpowder was a reality, efficient or not.

And as a final, early, knock-on, while armour will retain relevance for a very long time, the classic plate harness might never develop since there's no incentive to develop shot-proof plate.
I don't know, the sophistication of crossbow is probably going to be at the very least attempted stronger than IOTL, maybe up to the return to tended artillery.

How feudal-age societies would deal with the discovery of America has a historical precedent from OTL: the Vikings.
Besides the mistake, IMO, to equate feudalism and gunpowder, I think it would look a bit more like actual manorial management such as how it happened with Altantic islands : meaning cash-crops plantation economy partially supported by slavery.
 
How advanced do you think crossbows could be in such a world?
I'm not quite sure, but I was thinking at least to an adaptation of chu-ko-nus in european warfare the same way gunpowder weaponry was, both the handed and mounted versions (which was essentially defensive).
A springed, rather than corded, crossbow could be reappearing as well. Maybe as well some contraptions around the Polybolos?

Of course, there's technical limits that would make mechanical artillery and weaponry not as efficient as gunpowder equivalent were after the XVth century. That said crossbow were used relatively late, up to the XVIth century, so without gunpowder I wouldn't see why they wouldn't be used and gradually changed or adapted ITTL.
 
I'm not quite sure, but I was thinking at least to an adaptation of chu-ko-nus in european warfare the same way gunpowder weaponry was, both the handed and mounted versions (which was essentially defensive).
A springed, rather than corded, crossbow could be reappearing as well. Maybe as well some contraptions around the Polybolos?

It is my understanding that repeating crossbows were generally not particularly practical, given their complexity and cost. Do you think that a few centuries of refinement across Eurasia would solve that?
 
It is my understanding that repeating crossbows were generally not particularly practical, given their complexity and cost.
Actually, I was under the impression that they were relatively easy to produce and use, and represented an interesting variation on accuracy vs. barrage dispute. I entierely agree that its main weaknesses were in the feeble projection strength (I doubt it would be able to really pierce an armour), but I think (maybe wrongly, anyone with more basic knowledge is welcomed to say I'm wrong) the metallurgical advances of the XIVth provided a basis to make it more strong, altough not as much as regular or heavy crossbows.

I think it may open more possibilities than "simple" quantitative augmentations. I'm especially interested on larger, wall-mounted versions personally.

Eventually, technological development tends to follows the needs : serependity does exists (gunpowder is probably a testimony for the ages on its favour), but if people tought along the lines of mechanical weaponry, I wonder how advanced it would get (I promised myself I wouldn't say pulley-crossbows, but you see what I mean).
It's one of these TL we really need reconstructionists and people with a specific knowledge of medieval to modern metallurgy to really set plausibility.
 
How long before air rifles got invented? Are pneumatic or hydraulic cannons feasible?

Well, there we get into an interesting discussion of metallurgy in a world w/o gunpowder. The drive to build better gunpowder weaponry certainly helped drive advancements in metallurgy. Would air weaponry be practical enough with less refined metallurgy to help feed into that cycle?
 
Actually, I was under the impression that they were relatively easy to produce and use, and represented an interesting variation on accuracy vs. barrage dispute. I entierely agree that its main weaknesses were in the feeble projection strength (I doubt it would be able to really pierce an armour), but I think (maybe wrongly, anyone with more basic knowledge is welcomed to say I'm wrong) the metallurgical advances of the XIVth provided a basis to make it more strong, altough not as much as regular or heavy crossbows

Wikipedia seems to agree with you. Any chance anyone has a good academic source on comparing repeating crossbows vs regular crossbows?
 
Well, there we get into an interesting discussion of metallurgy in a world w/o gunpowder. The drive to build better gunpowder weaponry certainly helped drive advancements in metallurgy. Would air weaponry be practical enough with less refined metallurgy to help feed into that cycle?
To be honest, if possible (I've no idea how it is or not, while madly interesting) I'd expect a certain period of trial and error, such as with gunpowder : it took ages would it be only to figure out good mix ratios, and of course tube mettalurgy. So if an earlier version, while flawed, is possible I think people would at least make a go at it and then devellop metallurgic technicity.
 
Are there any alternative hitherto unknown routes technology could take? Any sort of weapons that would have been strange or fantastical to us?

Or would it simply be a consolidation of the medieval model?
 
Are there any alternative hitherto unknown routes technology could take? Any sort of weapons that would have been strange or fantastical to us?

Or would it simply be a consolidation of the medieval model?

It's harder to think of what else is possible rather than what isn't :p

But naval weapons capable of harming ships would be a felt need, as would be the need for siege techniques that don't require blasting; same with mining for metals and such. I would imagine incredibly sophisticated mechanical and torsion engines would be the way forward, throwing arms or hammers or something like that.
 
Any musings on societal development? What changes from the the post-gunpowder eras might we see? What would ideas like the enlightenment and nationalism look like in such a world?
 
Any musings on societal development? What changes from the the post-gunpowder eras might we see? What would ideas like the enlightenment and nationalism look like in such a world?
I'd think the feudal system would endure and the crown would never be able to fully subdue the nobility or at least the process would take much longer. The enlightenment will probably be delayed though secular intellectual movements may arise, nationalism probably will be delayed or won't come to be. Or it may arise as a part of the identity of certain groups.
 
I don't think the feudal system would continue much longer in the traditional form. With the massive demographic shift caused by the Great Mortality the farming communities and cities had bargaining chips to get more rights and freedoms, so that aspect of feudalism is probably gone. But without cannons, putting down rebellious vassals is going to be a chore. Plus even before the mass introduction of gunpowder into Europe the idea of using large armies of conscripted peasants rather than small ones of highly trained nobles was beginning to catch on, with polearms and crossbows being the weapons of choice for the early mass armies. The most populous areas will be the most powerful, and if the ruler of one of these places decides to rebel they very well might achieve independence. Even if their armies fail, sieges are a long and costly tactic.

Without gunpowder, I think that the centralization of the state in Europe is going to take a lot longer than OTL, if it indeed happens at all. The resources and manpower Europe used OTL to conquer the Americas is going to be spent keeping vassals in check, and the Americas are likely to be discovered later than in OTL. Colonization is also probably going to be pretty different. Unfortunately the Americas are still going to be decimated by disease, but there's going to be fewer Europeans to take advantage of the situation. I expect that any colonies will likely be de facto or even de jure independent with a small ruling class of Europeans ruling over natives and Mestizos. The colonies will probably remain pretty light in terms of population since there are less opportunities for people to leave Europe. Though if there is another population crisis they might.

Another possibility is that without Spain and Portugal (and later the Netherlands, England and France) taking the Americas, the colonization efforts might be placed under the domain of the Church. It's unlikely, but it would pretty cool to see a crusader order based around bringing Christ to the heathens of the New World (cool to read about, not to live through obviously). Maybe they'd call themselves the Knights of Saint Brendan or something.
 
Top