If the discovery of or at least widespread proliferation of gunpowder was delayed by a few centuries, could industrialization have still occurred and what kind of societies would exists in a non gun-powder world?
Could industrialization have occurred without gunpowder?
- Thread starter Mitchell Hundred
- Start date
RodentRevolution
Banned
Well strictly speaking industrialisation was about utilising sources of power like water and later steam engines most often driven by coal, generally speaking the machinery did not run on gunpowder.
However trying to guess how society would look in many ways depends on how much you believe siege cannon were responsible for disposing of feudalism. OTL is should be noted gunpowder proceeded the Industrial Revolution by several centuries but there were moves to concentrate some kinds of production in what might be considered prot0-factories even before that.
However trying to guess how society would look in many ways depends on how much you believe siege cannon were responsible for disposing of feudalism. OTL is should be noted gunpowder proceeded the Industrial Revolution by several centuries but there were moves to concentrate some kinds of production in what might be considered prot0-factories even before that.
Yes. The Song Dynasty provides a nice example. Albeit they did invent gunpowder.
I'd call that proto-industrialization.Full industrialization requires use of machines.I'm not sure you would have that level of industrialization if some degree of chemistry isn't already known.
Napoleonrules
Banned
In my personal opinion industrialization does not exist until you have- mass production, interchangeability of parts, a wage system (instead of payment for piece work), and intentional and consistent use of the Bessemer process with knowledge of WHY you're getting steel every time (and not just doing it with other decarbinizing methods like the Chinese did which can't upscaled for industrialization; only the Japanese independently arrived at mass production of steel). If you have a few of those above points, then it is proto-industrialization. Gunpowder does allow for guns and cannons which the production of for war can be a big driver in the history of things like mass production and interchangeability of parts and the need for consistent steel making. There is a saying in political science- wars make states, and states make war; I would amend that to add that wars make industrialization and industrialization makes war; Eisenhower wasn't the first person to see the link. It could be without gunpowder there actually is less incentive to move into industrialization. Mass producing plow shares from steel doesn't have the profit margin of guns I'm thinking... though later on yes, manufactoring tractors were a big driver in every aspect of the economy, from agriculture to steel to rubber, in the same line as automobiles did and is why Ford was in the tractor business for so long (and even Lamborghini was started by a man who owned a tractor company).
the industrial revolution was also the result of the agricultural revolution. and i think even without gunpowder industrialisation would be possible.
it was the black death pandemic that pretty much made feudalism no longer viable, labour was in extreme short supply, and allowed people to break their feudal restrictions.
Napoleonrules
Banned
Only in Britain did it contribute to the rise of industrialization, the agricultural revolution you speak of is almost always referred to as the "British Agricultural Revolution"; generally the generic term refers to the Neolithic revolution or to the Green Revolution of the 1960s. The Arab Agricultural Revolution of the 8th through 13th centuries did not produce a like-wise industrialization of an equally knowledgeable and sophisticated culture. There was something different.
If the industrialisation depended on Western European elites having enriched themselves beyond measure by means of exploiting the Americas (and other parts of the world) they had conquered with the help of gunpowder, then the question is: Would Spain, Portugal, England and France have conquered the Americas without gunpowder, too? Would these centralised kingdoms even have formed without mass infantry warfare which depended on firearms for its superiority over heavy cavalry, i.e. knights?
But if no gunpowder leads to no unified Spain, for example, would late medieval Portugal / Aragon / Castille-Leon / Navarra et al. be able to defeat the Inca and the Aztecs, too?
I tend to say think that without the discovery of gunpowder, industrialisation would be at least a lot less likely. Not getting out of feudalist medieval military-political structures might mean not getting out of the sort of subsistence-and-a-little trade way of economics, too.
Of course there were centralised societies without gunpowder, too: Chinese and ROman Empires, the Guptas etc. But would they have arisen in some place which would then be able to amass enormous amounts of foreign resources?
But if no gunpowder leads to no unified Spain, for example, would late medieval Portugal / Aragon / Castille-Leon / Navarra et al. be able to defeat the Inca and the Aztecs, too?
I tend to say think that without the discovery of gunpowder, industrialisation would be at least a lot less likely. Not getting out of feudalist medieval military-political structures might mean not getting out of the sort of subsistence-and-a-little trade way of economics, too.
Of course there were centralised societies without gunpowder, too: Chinese and ROman Empires, the Guptas etc. But would they have arisen in some place which would then be able to amass enormous amounts of foreign resources?
Napoleonrules
Banned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolution
Yes, the Dutch invented quite a bit of the things used, but there was more to it. And history, being written by the victors, determines what we call things. In this case, we call it the British, not the Dutch, Agricultural Revolution.
I definitely think it depends on how necessary you think centralized states with rationalized administration is to industrialization, and the role of gunpowder warfare in bringing that about. The Chinese were able to do it without gunpowder, but didn't really industrialize until well after the proliferation of gunpowder, whereas Europe saw great centralization during the gunpowder age and did industrialize.
I doubt that gunpowder didn't mean jack shit as far as the conquest of the America's went. Most of the native was wiped out by disease, and the Spanish in particular, had an accidental empire based off of unlucky internal issues with both the Aztecs and Incas. Hell in some gunpowder didn't matter at all if the colonists couldn't even fight the natives at all, even with gunpowder.
A united "Spain" wasn't even dependent on gunpowder being a thing, just it only happened to unify when it was, as far as mass infantry goes it doesn't become superior without gunpowder for a long, early guns were only good at scaring more than actual effectiveness as a weapon.
I've heard in terms of pure arms advantage it wasn't until the advent of the repeating firearm, with the revolver that there was an absolute advantage with regards to the musket vs bow and arrow at least.
It was disease by far and of course the resources coming from Europe that played the biggest role in the the decline of native control in the Americas.
Disagree. You're right about the diseases of course. But mass infantry - tercios, Landsknechte, Reislãufer, janissaries, you name it - was what ended the splendid fragmentation of Europe into thousands of counties each centered around castles and their knights, and what required and paved the way for modern statehood.
Now there was mass infantry before firearms, too, of course - in antiquity as well as in Asia. But I don't see how it comes about in Europe - the continent most likely to conquer America in any TL - after, say, 1100 without firearms. Sure, pikes were nice, but only combined with arquebusiers did they actually work decently without long and costly training and xould beat heavy cavalry reliably, bringing about the end of European medieval knightly glory.
No firearms, no tercio, no Swiss mercenaries, no landsknechte. Makes Europe look a lot different. Even if such a Europe does Feature a temporary dynastic Union between Aragon and Castille-leon, and said dual Kingdom conquers disease-stricken and divided native American civilizations, its Empire isn't centralising, it'll fall apart into oh so many duchies and counties across both shores of the pond sooner or later, and the big Gold and silver hoover isn't funneling all the money back into Europe.
RodentRevolution
Banned
I think you should be careful what you hear. I have heard much the same oft repeated but am confronted with the fact that time and time again the actual historical record shows us small numbers of gunmen defeating often larger forces of bowmen. In addition it might be worth noting that guns not only replaced bows but actually marginalised melee weapons by the 18th Century (not eliminated melee weapons still retained their users but they were seen as secondary for most military purposes to firearms).
A good collection of actual historical accounts and some contemporary arguments can be found on this blog here
https://bowvsmusket.com/
https://bowvsmusket.com/
Now as I feel obligated to point out the evidence is not sufficient to amount to proof but there is a lot of evidence that even the arquebus had a profound impact in warfare before the more powerful musket emerged.
I wasn't speaking in broad terms with regards to bows vs muskets but in the context I heard, was that the plains Indians on horseback tended to actually have a weapons advantage firing off their bows in relatively rapid secession on horseback vs the settlers and their single shot muskets and it was the introduction of the colt in the 1840's that really changed that dynamic and gave the settlers the upper hand in arms.
For hunting though even by the natives muskets were preferred over bows.
Flocculencio
Donor
Chemistry is really part of the second industrial revolution. The first was more oriented towards fossil fuel powered machinery, enabling mass production, and is built on a sound financial system.
Flocculencio
Donor
The strategic advantage is that you need very little training to become a reasonably effective fighter with a gun whereas to use a bow effectively requires a lot more training and, to an extent a lot more inherent talent. If you give me six hundred peasants and six hundred guns, in about a month I can give you a block of six hundred men who can at least point their weapons in the right direction and fire them. With bows I suspect the success rate would be much, much lower.
the biggest advantage is that you don't need to stand more than actual training, which while not in relation to Native Americans of the Great Plains, was important for the natives of the Northeast who could defeat settler forces by hiding behind cover much modern warfare at least untill the setters adapted to their tactics with the help of other natives.
You guys seem to be skipping the huge impact of the crossbow, which significantly proletarianized warfare in Western Europe before hand-held guns were prevalent. As with guns, crossbows made long term training unnecessary in order to have an effective range arm, and even more so in siege warfare. The degree to which the crossbow upset the social hierarchy was such that usage of it...not the gun...was grounds for excommunication. Crossbows are underrepresented in historical fiction because so much if that is British oriented, ie the glamour of the longbow...but crossbows played a huge role in undermining feudalism.