AHC: Empires By The Sword... Literally

Kooluk Swordsman

Here's a challenge for you guys, make it possible for world-wide empires to appear on Earth, at least equal to those of the European colonial ones (doesn't need to approach the scale of Britain or France, but needs to be an empire with territory overseas, and an empire of France and Britain does not count :p ), without the use of guns or explosives.

Let me be clear, no railguns, or air guns, or water guns. And no cheating either!

The basic military technologies will be the sword and crossbow. These can be improved, but like I said, no guns and no explosives. This includes cannons obviously. Oh, and no rockets either.

And um... I've noticed in some of the AHC's that people seem to like putting "can't be done, too difficult!". I mean, come on guys. Use your imagination! :D
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
OTL, much of the Spanish Empire was conquered in the 16th Century, when muskets were rudimentary enough that they were in many cases less effective than the bows of the native populations -- and it has been argued that key weapon of the conquistadors was not the gun, but the steel blade.

Which is all to say -- that I can see Spain or a similarly disposed European nation achieving a similar empire without the use of gunpowder...
 

Last of the Stuarts

The two super weapons would be the trebuchet, for reduction of town and city walls, and the Welsh Long Bow which was a far better weapon than the cross bow but needed years of practice to use correctly.

The long bow was used almost exclusivily by the English and Welsh so if England stopped warring with France and started to explore at the same time the Spanish did it is possible that they could have started their Empire earlier.

The main trouble is the speed of reduction of a towns defences, it takes a long time for trebuchets to reduce a wall so seiges normally went on until a town was starved or the attackers got bored or disease lowered their number to such an extent they either gave up or where destroyed by the defenders.
 

Kooluk Swordsman

yourworstnightmare said:
No. Screaming natives can be very troublesome if they outnumber you, and you're only armed with a sword or bows and arrows.
Click to expand...

Well, I said they can be improved. Improved to what end I leave to you guys. And it is quite possible to defeat natives armed with justs swords, it has been done before.

Besides that, not only are there other technologies out there besides guns and cannons, but I never said when these empires had to be created or by whom.

But I don't want to be that guy who is clinging to an impossibility. Is it really that hard to conceive?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Kooluk Swordsman said:
Well, I said they can be improved. Improved to what end I leave to you guys. And it is quite possible to defeat natives armed with justs swords, it has been done before.

Besides that, not only are there other technologies out there besides guns and cannons, but I never said when these empires had to be created or by whom.

But I don't want to be that guy who is clinging to an impossibility. Is it really that hard to conceive?
Click to expand...

Yes, the Euroepans usually subjugated people that outnumbered the European expeditionary forces. The European technological advantage was usually enough to a) get local allies, and b) squash a superior force. Without that advantage the natives will have the upper hand since a) there are more of them and b) they know the terrain better.
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
yourworstnightmare said:
Yes, the Euroepans usually subjugated people that outnumbered the European expeditionary forces. The European technological advantage was usually enough to a) get local allies, and b) squash a superior force. Without that advantage the natives will have the upper hand since a) there are more of them and b) they know the terrain better.
Click to expand...

The Romans didn't seem to have a problem (well, not very often - Varus was a dick)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Grey Wolf said:
The Romans didn't seem to have a problem (well, not very often - Varus was a dick)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Click to expand...
Well, the Romans usually weren't as outnumbered as the Colonial Powers were. Of course if this lead to the Colonial Powers creating bigger colonial armies, it's a whole different story.
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
This thread made me think of Vinland surviving, and of a thought I had where French crusaders went on to build castles and estates in the carolinas (fanciful and probably ASB, I know -- still...)
 

The Ubbergeek

isn't it how Russia got Siberia and all? They had guns and canons, but since it started in 16th-century (early gunpowder weapons being unreliable and slow to load..) or so and the nation was still er.. backwater...

The Cossacks had good sabres, I am told.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
John Fredrick Parker said:
This thread made me think of Vinland surviving, and of a thought I had where French crusaders went on to build castles and estates in the carolinas (fanciful and probably ASB, I know -- still...)
Click to expand...
For Vinland to survive you need more than a few settlers the natives could easily wipe out. You need a Norse army in Newfoundland.
 
von Adler

von Adler

the big advantage the Europeans had in conquering the new world was not really gunpowder (although it had a moral effect), it was disease, steel and horses. I don't see a problem for the Spanish Empire to arise even without gunpowder.

The Inkas used obsidian and copper weapons. The Azteks had bronze. Neither had ever seen a horse. The Inkas were in a civil war at the time and the Azteks were vicously hated by their neighbours, vassals and subjected peoples, so finding allies is not hard.
 

Riain

Banned
It is within the capability of any decent medieval army to kick the arse of an American army of the same time. Steel weapons, crossbow/composite bow/longbow missile weapons, metal armour, horses, seige weapons and butchering tactics will give such armies a major advantage and allow them to take on big odds.

The real problem is getting them there.

I think only the Chinese built ocean going sailing ships in the pre gunpowder era, certainly they had big 4 masted junks in about 1000AD. I also think they had the magnetic compass first, and you can see the Pole Star from the Tropic of Capricorn so they could conceiveably navigate as far south as Peru. But as we know, the Chinese weren't much for colonising.
 

Awilla the Hun

von Adler said:
the big advantage the Europeans had in conquering the new world was not really gunpowder (although it had a moral effect), it was disease, steel and horses. I don't see a problem for the Spanish Empire to arise even without gunpowder.

The Inkas used obsidian and copper weapons. The Azteks had bronze. Neither had ever seen a horse. The Inkas were in a civil war at the time and the Azteks were vicously hated by their neighbours, vassals and subjected peoples, so finding allies is not hard.
Click to expand...

Firstly, why are you using Ks? Is there some new spelling style?

And secondly: how overseas is overseas? Athens had an Empire stretching a fair distance away from the home city across the oceans. (Well, the Mediterranean.)
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
Awilla the Hun said:
Firstly, why are you using Ks? Is there some new spelling style?

And secondly: how overseas is overseas? Athens had an Empire stretching a fair distance away from the home city across the oceans. (Well, the Mediterranean.)
Click to expand...

From the ever, er, sort of, reliable Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_civilization
The Inca civilization (or Inka) began as a tribe in the Cuzco, Peru area,
Click to expand...

I'm guessing its a valid alternate spelling, and maybe prevalent in German speaking lands?

There you go
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inka
from German Wiki


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
Last of the Stuarts said:
The Romans used a tactics advancement that their enemies didn't use, i.e. the organization of their legions in battle.
Click to expand...

Well I'm sure that the same could be used against any people, especially since European tactics without gunpowder would not have stood still.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
von Adler

von Adler

Awilla the Hun said:
Firstly, why are you using Ks? Is there some new spelling style?

And secondly: how overseas is overseas? Athens had an Empire stretching a fair distance away from the home city across the oceans. (Well, the Mediterranean.)
Click to expand...

As Grey Wolf pointed out, k for spelling is used in my home country (Sweden), and as far as I knew, it was a valid spelling even in anglosaxon countries.

Anyway, late medieval armies would be superior to the American Indians with or without gunpowder.

However, no gunpowder would have other effects - would Constantinople fall and the Ottoman dominate the Eastern Med without it? If not, then Venice, Pisa and Genoa (or whatever Italian maritime state dominates the Med without gunpowder) would still be major naval and trade Empires, negating the need to find new trade routes and fill the power vacuum left by these powers at sea.

Would Granada fall much later without gunpowder? Would that butterfly the Spanish willingness to fund Columbus? Would that mean that the Inkas would not be in civil war once the Europeans learn how much gold they have?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top