Could Europe have become the dominant continent without gunpowder?

[Fabius Maximus]

If gunpowder had never been invented, could Europe still have become the world's dominant continent?

 

[jahenders]

Not nearly to the same degree. This is largely from two factors:

1) Gunpowder weapons represented a dramatic improvement in killing power and psychological effect over previous weapons. Even if the Europeans had an advantage in terms of betters melee weapons and armor, it wouldn't be nearly as sizable an advantage.

2) Gunpowder and other explosives represent a dramatic advance in destruction per man, per pound, or per period of time. Per-gunpowder weapons just weren't the same. A Spanish galleon pulling up near a native city might have been imposing, but not NEARLY as imposing as one pulling up and shelling the palace to bits. Yes, in theory you could achieve a somewhat similar effect with catapults, but it would take MUCH longer and you could pack FAR less catapult power in a ship than firepower. A big galleon could mount a few large catapults/trebuchets, but it could fit dozens of cannons, each far more damaging than a catapult.

So, European weapons, tactics, and mobility could enable some conquests of less advanced people, but it would all be much slower and the ratio of casualties would be far less one-sided.

If gunpowder had never been invented, could Europe still have become the world's dominant continent?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Not nearly to the same degree. This is largely from two factors:

1) Gunpowder weapons represented a dramatic improvement in killing power and psychological effect over previous weapons. Even if the Europeans had an advantage in terms of betters melee weapons and armor, it wouldn't be nearly as sizable an advantage.

2) Gunpowder and other explosives represent a dramatic advance in destruction per man, per pound, or per period of time. Per-gunpowder weapons just weren't the same. A Spanish galleon pulling up near a native city might have been imposing, but not NEARLY as imposing as one pulling up and shelling the palace to bits. Yes, in theory you could achieve a somewhat similar effect with catapults, but it would take MUCH longer and you could pack FAR less catapult power in a ship than firepower. A big galleon could mount a few large catapults/trebuchets, but it could fit dozens of cannons, each far more damaging than a catapult.

So, European weapons, tactics, and mobility could enable some conquests of less advanced people, but it would all be much slower and the ratio of casualties would be far less one-sided.

I'm inclined to agree, although with regards the psychological effects, could for example a more widespread use of Greek Fire achieve something similar?

 

[Tocomocho]

Many classical/medieval siege machines were terrifying. It wasn't unusual for a castle or even a city to surrender at the sight of a trebuchet or siege tower being built.

 

[leopard9]

I don't think so. It was gunpowder and everything that came with it that allowed Europeans to inflict massive casualties on other peoples without suffering similar losses. You take away guns, then the whole gun-slave cycle of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade is dead in the water, so the New World is largely unexploited. Britain doesn't stomp the Chinese during the Opium Wars. That's just one example.

 

[dandan_noodles]

It's not even necessarily about the deadliness of the weapon, so much as the effect on society; gunpowder weapons provided the necessity and the means for greater state consolidation of power over its territories. Previously, knights and lords, with their heavy armor and murderously strong castles, carved out local power centers that checked the power of centralized states through their martial power.

With the advent of gunpowder, peasants with muskets could kill knights, and kings with cannon could demolish castles. This gave them tighter control over their realm's resources, which they used to reinforce their military advantages. It would be much harder for Europeans to conquer the rest of the world without states capable of harnessing their realm's resources en mass.

 

[Saphroneth]

I'd be inclined to say...

Europe has an advantage over the Americas but not over Asia and Africa under these conditions.

The Americas were primarily conquests of disease, with guns being somewhat less important. You'd probably see Native states recovering and establishing post-disease waves, and they might well be capable of retaking much of the Americas.