Could the modern world have developed without gunpowder?
- Thread starter Malone
- Start date
missouribob
Banned
IDK the best you could probably get without major PODs would be to have the Song Empire industrialize and become "modern" without adopting gunpowder in a widespread sense. It could kind of make sense too since the Song didn't prioritize military technology.
Saphroneth
Banned
I don't think you can really manage industrialization on anything like the same scale. You certainly can't get modern technology without stumbling on the concept of a propellant, the very concept is integral to the internal combustion engine.
It's possible that the strange lacunae that really do develop in human societies (e.g. the wheel as transport in America, the moldboard plow in the West) would encompass the concept of the firearm, but I confess I've got no idea what would replace it as the standard industrial weapon. Perhaps pike and arbalest would continue to be the primary weapons of infantry - though that does raise a major problem for civilization.
The problem is this: What Do You Do About The Mongols?
Without gunpowder, the nomadic horse archer is the pinnacle of military science on the open field, and the trebuchet is essentially the pinnacle in siege works. The Mongols effectively combined both, and the result was utterly devastating to their enemies.
Anyway. A modern-ish, industrial world without gunpowder might be possible, but I don't think it could possibly have very advanced chemistry. The first time someone comes up with an explosive mixture someone's going to come up with the concept of the grenade, rocket or cannon, and after that things are off to the races again.
You probably could have a pretty steampunk world without it, though. Trains might be possible, steam rams as the main form of combat ship, I think you could have pretty good intensive agriculture with the export of American crops to the Old World, and possibly even steamcars beginning to replace horses.
It's possible that the strange lacunae that really do develop in human societies (e.g. the wheel as transport in America, the moldboard plow in the West) would encompass the concept of the firearm, but I confess I've got no idea what would replace it as the standard industrial weapon. Perhaps pike and arbalest would continue to be the primary weapons of infantry - though that does raise a major problem for civilization.
The problem is this: What Do You Do About The Mongols?
Without gunpowder, the nomadic horse archer is the pinnacle of military science on the open field, and the trebuchet is essentially the pinnacle in siege works. The Mongols effectively combined both, and the result was utterly devastating to their enemies.
Anyway. A modern-ish, industrial world without gunpowder might be possible, but I don't think it could possibly have very advanced chemistry. The first time someone comes up with an explosive mixture someone's going to come up with the concept of the grenade, rocket or cannon, and after that things are off to the races again.
You probably could have a pretty steampunk world without it, though. Trains might be possible, steam rams as the main form of combat ship, I think you could have pretty good intensive agriculture with the export of American crops to the Old World, and possibly even steamcars beginning to replace horses.
I think the key here is answering two questions: what's the role of gunpowder in the emergence of the modern state, and what's the role of the state in industrialization?
Regarding the first question, it would be useful to try to sort out what came first: the weapons (artillery, bastioned fortresses, muskets) that required so much intensive investment by the state, or the economic and political systems necessary to use them?
Regarding the first question, it would be useful to try to sort out what came first: the weapons (artillery, bastioned fortresses, muskets) that required so much intensive investment by the state, or the economic and political systems necessary to use them?
Flocculencio
Donor
One important factor is that gunpowder empires basically ended the constant cycle of invasion from the Central Asian steppes.
Saphroneth
Banned
Sorry, but no. Trebuchet require a huge amount of setup compared to cannon, are less effective at battering walls than even early cannon, and trebuchet can't serve as field artillery either.
Not any world we'd recognize but if you're asking if industrialization is possible without black powder, the answer is yes. We (civilizations) had industry before gunpowder.
PhilippeO
Banned
as Royal artillery ? in world without gunpowder, it did not have to compete with cannon, it only have to break lords castle walls. the goal is centralized state, not replacing cannon. And Roman and Inca managed to pull that even without trebuchet.
for field artillery, i guess some kind of scorpio could be used, but even without field artillery or siege machinery, som3 'modern' state could be reached. gunpowder helped strengthen state, but its not strictly necesssary.
Isn't the relevant question
Which modern advances and technology are dependent on the discovery or perfection of gunpowder?
After all, gunpowder is used or more than guns and, horse archers aside, I'm not entirely convinced
its use for engineering and mining purposes is less important for creating a modern/industrialised world.
Saphroneth
Banned
I don't dispute that gunpowder is not strictly necessary - though I would argue that if any random castle can last for months it harms state control (because castles are much less costly than star forts) - but to say that a trebuchet is nearly as effective as a cannon is simply false for any reasonable metric of effectiveness. (The cannon forced the wholesale abandonment of the castle, the trebuchet did not.)
I think thats the point: you cant have a modern state in Europe without getting rid of feudalism and quasy independent feudal lords. Reducing their forts and creating a centralised state is a step that must be taken. I dont say thats impossible without gunpowder but it makes it much easier and likelier to happen.
For a solution to the mongols: my only ideas are defensive systems or following the byzantine way and creating your own horse archer army.
While I am pretty sure industrialization could have developed before gunpowder, you will get explosives at some point - probably at the OTL veering from alchemy to chemistry. Too much stuff explodes to avoid forever the question "can I get this to explode in someone else's face".
Castles.
The Mongols never really came up with a solution to the European castles problem. Despite devastating the Eastern European kingdoms in the 1240s, 40 years later their invasions in the 1280s were far less successful. Whenever they came up against castles they lost men to pinpricks, or would have to leave large groups behind to shut in garrisons so they could ravage the countryside. Then more professional and veteran forces who had fought Mongols before, or at least were now used to their tactics, could smash them in the field.
Much like the light Saracen cavalry the crusaders faced, the Mongols were slaughtered if they ever got hit by heavy cavalry. The Europeans figured out how to do that better later on, and advances in crossbows and even the use of ballista as field pieces could be devastating to saddle bow armed horsemen. They might reign supreme on the plains, but that doesn't translate into eternal victory.
A lack of gunpowder does not prevent a centralized state as we know. In a follow up to my earlier point, large numbers of castles is a big problem for a centralized state, but not an insurmountable one. For instance, over time the state has a tendency to centralize power in its hands, especially military power (scutage replacing feudal military service so kings can form a "national army" is an example) which would in time be able to overpower even overmighty vassals. Though we know that even the advent of gunpowder didn't bring on fully centralized states until the late 1600s (the Thirty Years War, the French Wars of Religion, the Fronde, Wars of the Roses, ect) but there's ways you can found a centralized state without gunpowder. Ordering the nobility to tear down their fortified residencies for one. This puts absolute military power in royal hands and leaves the nobility much less opportunity to coalesce into a sizable rebellion with safe harbor to retreat to.
Similarly, the tactics of putting nobility directly in contact with the king all in one place (ala Versailles) to try and curry royal favor works.
Over time the state can shunt the nobility into being a supporting player rather than a full on rival to the ambitions of the state itself.
Similarly, the tactics of putting nobility directly in contact with the king all in one place (ala Versailles) to try and curry royal favor works.
Over time the state can shunt the nobility into being a supporting player rather than a full on rival to the ambitions of the state itself.
Saphroneth
Banned
But that just means they're as good as everyone else at dealing with castles - that is, they have trebuchet, everyone else has trebuchet, the Mongols are on parity.
I'm distinctly unconvinced about the utility of crossbows to pull that off. They take a lot more strength to wind than a gun does to reload, after all.
As for heavy cavalry, my understanding of the Mongols is that they had heavy cavalry themselves - lancers.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
Well, industrialization suppose some fundamental knowledge of chemistry, and it's unlikely that this doesn't lead to the discovery of gunpowder. However, gunpowder might well have been discovered some centuries later. If Rome industrializes through water and wind power, they'll have to do it without gunpowder.
As others have pointed out, gunpowder is not necessarily for industrialisation in and of itself. If, as @G.Washington_Fuckyeah has pointed out, Rome industrialised with water and wind power, that`s neither implausible nor impossible.
The question is whether, if don`t we allow a PoD earlier than the Middle Ages, industrialisation would still emerge from where it did, i.e. Western Europe. Without gunpowder, Europe could remain caught up in endless Middle Ages, with feudalism and guild-dominated towns never being replaced by centralising states and colonialist-mercantilist national economies. Now that would have certainly produced some sort of technological progress, too, like it did IOTL throughout the Middle Ages, but not necessarily the exponential growth of industry as we know it. Maybe industrialisation would have to start somewhere else then.
The question is whether, if don`t we allow a PoD earlier than the Middle Ages, industrialisation would still emerge from where it did, i.e. Western Europe. Without gunpowder, Europe could remain caught up in endless Middle Ages, with feudalism and guild-dominated towns never being replaced by centralising states and colonialist-mercantilist national economies. Now that would have certainly produced some sort of technological progress, too, like it did IOTL throughout the Middle Ages, but not necessarily the exponential growth of industry as we know it. Maybe industrialisation would have to start somewhere else then.
A more drawn out and gradual process of industrialization would be an interesting timeline, actually. Gives the colonies in the New World more time to age. Imagine a timeline where we don't have guns and mercantilism until around 2200. What would happen in the mean time?