Alternative To Guns?

You may also get hand-held firework weapons,...

And the Chinese had a fair few of those.

Short of a Shogun-style banning of guns by the Pope, which probably wouldn't work - consider how well that worked in regards to the use of crossbows - someone is going to develop the handgun in some shape or form.
 
And the Chinese had a fair few of those.

Short of a Shogun-style banning of guns by the Pope, which probably wouldn't work - consider how well that worked in regards to the use of crossbows - someone is going to develop the handgun in some shape or form.


I think you're forgetting how completely crappy early guns were. If you improve bows even more, it means less thought and resources go into improving those crappy guns. With compound bows, you hit directly at the main advantage of early guns- the very little training required.
 
I think you're forgetting how completely crappy early guns were. If you improve bows even more, it means less thought and resources go into improving those crappy guns. With compound bows, you hit directly at the main advantage of early guns- the very little training required.
I found an old thread. Interesting quote:

The trouble is I don't think it's particularly intuitive - there was a certain separation at that time between natural philosophers and warfare, so people are unlikely to apply scientific or engineering principles to improving a weapon.
In a "Hellenistic" TL, there would in all likelihood be no such seperation between science and weapon development, in fact this was the case before the Imperial era.
 
Interesting thread. One way I could see guns never being invented is if the Chinese industrialized in the early Song Dynasty, developing OTL mid 19th century British-like technology by the second millennium. With this, even though the Song would have gunpowder weapons in the form of land mines, trebuchet thrown bombs and fire arrows, they could easily mass produce effective repeating airguns by casting mass produced Bessemer steel into air reserves. With a breech loading design for these airguns and the easy invention of rifling, which could be much more easily applied to breech loading airguns than to muzzle loading black powder arms for a variety of reasons, the gun would become superfluous. In addition, metal rifle bullets are far lighter than and about as accurate as crossbow bolts as well as being cheaper to produce.

Another alternative to the gun could be the sling has many advantages over the bow, such as being cheaper and easier to produce and the ammunition being lighter, and can be quite powerful. Indeed, in the Americas, the Inka never had a large scale adoption of the bow due to the favorable position of the sling, while Ancient Hawaii had large naval battles fought between outrigger canoes armed with slingers. I do not think slings have been given enough credit.
 
Well, DValdron's Green Antarctica TL had the inhabitants of Antarctica develop rockets instead of guns. Basically, the Tsalal (native Antarcticans) discovered gunpowder well before they had the metalworking skills to make reliable guns; they developed rockets instead. By the time metalworking had progressed to the point of being able to theoretically manufacture guns and cannons, rockets were developed enough so that no early cannon would be able to match the performance of an easily-available rocket, removing most of the impetus to develop guns. While well-developed guns and cannons would be able to outperform the rockets they had, the early guns and cannons they would have as a precursor would have been ineffective compared to the rockets, so any state adopting them would have met with failure.
 
Guns didn't kill knights, pikemen killled knights. Early guns were ludicrously inaccurate and developing tactics built entirely on firepower moved very slowly.
 
I think you're forgetting how completely crappy early guns were. If you improve bows even more, it means less thought and resources go into improving those crappy guns. With compound bows, you hit directly at the main advantage of early guns- the very little training required.

Aren't compound bows going to be a little difficult to produce with 15th C technology?
 
Guns didn't kill knights, pikemen killled knights. Early guns were ludicrously inaccurate and developing tactics built entirely on firepower moved very slowly.
Why did knights reign so long then, when pike armies were just an evolution of the 3rd-century-BC Macedonian phalanx?
Aren't compound bows going to be a little difficult to produce with 15th C technology?
Not really, in fact the Parthians and Mongols relied primarily on horse archers armed with compound bows. The disadvantage of compound bows is that they were too easily damaged by wet weather, and were thus only usable by powers based in dry-climate regions of the world.
 
Not really, in fact the Parthians and Mongols relied primarily on horse archers armed with compound bows. The disadvantage of compound bows is that they were too easily damaged by wet weather, and were thus only usable by powers based in dry-climate regions of the world.
You are confusing composite and compound bows with each other.
 
Why did knights reign so long then, when pike armies were just an evolution of the 3rd-century-BC Macedonian phalanx?

The Macedonian phalanx was trained to fight in formation. When knights were opposed by unorganized peasant rabbles they could negate the disadvantage of the pike. OTOH Courtrai pitted knights against the more well-to-do Flemish citizens, so the result was for the pike-and-goedendag using Flemish.
 
Oops -- what's the difference?
Simplified:

A compound bow is a bow that uses a levering system, usually of cables and pulleys, to bend the limbs. They're able to fire faster and store more energy than an equivalent longbow, and it's much easier to become a decent bowman.

A composite bow is a bow made from horn, wood, and sinew laminated together. While harder to make because they are composed of more materials and take longer time and more skill to make than a bow made of only wood, and they are prone to disintegrate in humid conditions, they are for a number of factors good for horseback archers.
 
Once someone’s stumbled on the combination of sulphur, charcoal and potassium nitrate that explodes its use as some form of weapon seems to be inevitable.
This inevitability comes from the relative abundance of the ingredients.
1)Charcoal's abundance is unavoidable (without changing too many other things).
2)We could postulate a geological period of major volcanic quiet,
what would do away with most sources of elemental sulphur,
leaving it quite rare.
3)One could do away with nitrate by postulating a fairly ubiquitous bacteria that would derive its chemical energy from recombining nitrate and organic matter, and have it do it very fast. That might have unwanted consequences over food production, since it might make nitrogen less available to plants as well...
So, I'd say leaving sulphur unavailable is our best bet
to do away with guns...
 
As if it ever works. :p
No, it wouldn't. The world isn't like Japan once was, nor has the pope the kind of temporal power Japan's leaders had then. Geology, however,
could banish elemental sulphur, what would work just as well.
 
Why did knights reign so long then, when pike armies were just an evolution of the 3rd-century-BC Macedonian phalanx?

Since the 3rd century Macedonian Phalanx relied on a vast array of complex strategies made obsolete by the Romans thus removing much of their effectiveness, not to mention that Knights are going against peasants, not well armed and well trained opponents. The money required to train a professional army in Medieval Europe where the feudal system was in place is a very daunting task. Therefore, it is hard to find a hard counter to the knight, until the invention of gunpowder which gave the peasants enough firepower to surmount the skill barrier.
 
Guns didn't kill knights, pikemen killled knights. Early guns were ludicrously inaccurate and developing tactics built entirely on firepower moved very slowly.

Guns scared the shit out of early horses, same with cannons. It was the Ottomans, I believe, that first used guns in massed formation against Hungarian cavalry.
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
It may possibly mean martial arts were developed in the west as they were in the far east. Also no guns generally would drastically alter the course of imperialist history.
 
Top