Chinese Tech in Medieval Europe

I don't see how Europe owning Egypt would transfer technology.
If anything it'd make contact with the east more unstable and weaken technology transfer.
To better do that...
Well maybe no Islam-thus a Persia which remains strong and grows providing a direct bridge between Christendom and China (assuming it also gains friendly terms with Rome...)

But if you really must have it that late...Getting rid of the crusades and better European relations with Islam would be needed.


Anyway.
I'd agree Chinese weapons weren't suited for Europe.
The repeating crossbow for example; excellent engineering but not very good vs. armour.
 

Hendryk

Banned
I'd agree Chinese weapons weren't suited for Europe.
That's debatable. Gunpowder revolutionized European warfare when it was introduced in the 14th century, and one wonders why the same thing wouldn't happen in the 11th century. But this focus on weapons misses the point. As carlton has said, the most momentous technological transfer would be that of the printing press.
 
wasn't gunpowder already around in Europe in the 12th century? Nobody was really using it yet, but wasn't that the time it got started with experimentation?

It's not known with any certainty, but the earliest gunpowder recipe we can trace dates to the thirteenth century. The twelfth is probably a bit too early, certainly for widespread awareness of the stuff. Some people believe that Sea Fire was an early gun design, but I doubt it, sand Marcus Graecus' work on incendiary weapons does not give gunpowder mixtures, though it uses all ingredients in other combinations.

If gunpowder had been brought in, they'd likely have liked it. Probably not had much use for it initially, but how long till someone figures out you can blow up stuff?

as for Chinese weapons... I'd say no. They worked well for China, but Europe had it's own weapons and warfare that worked well for them. The Europeans had castles, heavy armor, swords, bows, crossbows, pikes, etc, and all these changed and evolved as warfare did. I'm no expert, but IIRC, the main difference between Chinese and European warfare was that the Chinese large states provided large 'conscript' armies who were generally lighter armed and armored than the Europeans, who had small states with small professional armies of generally heavily armored men (exceptions being archers and such)... and of course, neither side stood up well to the Mongols. I don't think Chinese weapons would have done so well for the Europeans, or vice versa, because they fought with different styles and methods.

Yes and no. Chinese armies worked differently from European ones - different doctrines of leadership, higher regard for technology, more mercenaries, much more emphasis on cities and logistics, larger armies with lots of conscripts to use for labour (the kind of thing that in Europe would only happen during a siege). But there were several aspects in which Chinese weaponry could have made a difference to European wars. Siege technology was important in both areas and the Chinese had much better. ESpecially their incendiary weapons, explosives and catapults would have been appreciated. Chinese armour and personal weaponry was no better or worse than European, and wouldn't have been copied except for reasons of fashion. High-end blades or metallurgy could have been imported, though - the best Chinese blades were a lot better than the best European stuff. But what I think could well have become the most successful import is machine-minded warfare, the idea that a military problem has a technological solution. Starting with putting supplies on two-man wheelbarrows.
 
I'd say the late 13hth century, no? When the Khan's men are out and about in Java.

Has anyone mentioned metallurgy? IIRC China's still ahead w/ that.
 
With a quicker introduction of gunpowder in Europe, you get earlier centralization. Castle walls become useless against the variety of gunpowder-based weapons (cannons, mortars, sappers etc), and the power of the nobility that operate within them is broken. Also, armor becomes a burden rather than protection. The knight that could afford to buy such an expensive piece of equipment is killed off by the peasant conscript wielding gun.

All in all, we have the age of chivalry killed much sooner, perhaps by the thirteenth century.
 
That's debatable. Gunpowder revolutionized European warfare when it was introduced in the 14th century, and one wonders why the same thing wouldn't happen in the 11th century. But this focus on weapons misses the point. As carlton has said, the most momentous technological transfer would be that of the printing press.

Gunpowder is not really a Chinese weapon though. It was used very differently in Europe.
 
Europeans could trade salt with Africa for Gold, and then trade the Gold for all sorts of Eastern goodies. Mansa Musa lived about this time didn't he?
 
Europeans could trade salt with Africa for Gold, and then trade the Gold for all sorts of Eastern goodies. Mansa Musa lived about this time didn't he?

But the African kingdoms (Ghana/Mali/Songhai, I presume?) were already huge exporters of salt; why would they want to buy any more?

Also, if Mansa Musa took his pilgramige on time (dubious), I wonder what the effects of the inflation his trip cause on Norman Egypt would be...
 
Europeans could trade salt with Africa for Gold, and then trade the Gold for all sorts of Eastern goodies. Mansa Musa lived about this time didn't he?

A little later. Also, Egypt does not control the trans-Sahara routes, so the trade will remain in Maghrebin hands. I don't think the extra leverage of controlling Egypt will produce enough revenue to suddenly turn Europe into a supershopper four centuries early.

Mind you, European control of the trans-Sahara routes would have interesting implications down the road. I had it happen by sea, but one's as good as the other.
 
didn't Africa have most of the gold and salt around then? IIRC, that's what made Ghana and that area so valuable? I'd think it would be Africa who'd have all the gold and salt, and Europe that would be struggling to find something to pay for it with...
 
didn't Africa have most of the gold and salt around then? IIRC, that's what made Ghana and that area so valuable? I'd think it would be Africa who'd have all the gold and salt, and Europe that would be struggling to find something to pay for it with...

Salt comes from other bits of Africa than gold. That exchange fuelled the trans-Sahara trade - northern salt against southern gold. No reason why European salt wouldn't be as welcome.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
A increased trade with west Africa, could mean that they would adopt techonogies, agricultural and social "improvements", which could mean that they don't get colonised later on or just becomes protectorates like Morocco and Tunisia. The greater transsaharan trade could also mean that the Iberians made a few trading colonies on the west African coast already in the 13-14 th centuries to avoid the middleman.
 

Thande

Donor
The real problem with West Africa is the terrain and the disease, although getting rid of Morocco's destruction of Songhai and the ensuing fallout would certainly improve things from a local point of view. I am trying to do something about this in LTTW, but it takes quite a lot of fortuitous circumstances to get there, and we really haven't completely got there even in OTL.
 
Top