Could the modern world have developed without gunpowder?

[Salvador79]

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?

Agreed. I would love to see that.
I suppose waterpower and windpower use would continue to increase until reaching an economic upper limit. As for technological advancements, clockworks and wire-drawing come to mind, there`s a lot that can go on here before we stumble upon things like propellents. Mining will be more difficult but still be a big thing. Quality of iron, and ultimately steel, will continue to improve. The only thing to break the power of guilds is the scleroticisation of their hierarchies.
Colonies in the New World might not be THAT big a thing. No gunpowder is certain to butterfly the Ottomans away, so maybe European trade with Asia isn`t blocked / controlled by a dynamic imperialist Islamic superpower. Maybe the discovery is delayed for a century or longer. No centralised nation states in France and Spain arising in the meantime, perhaps Portugal being the most centralised one, for they managed to pull centralisation off without basing it on firearm-mass armies. No Aztec pushover and no Spanish Empire may well mean the union of Castille and Aragon falling apart again.
So maybe colonies in the New World come about later, and maybe they are much smaller and more like Portugal`s, or the Hansa`s, or Novgorod`s, or Genoa`s trading outposts. Gives the natives more time to recover from pandemics, too, and to adapt to the introduction of the horse.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Someone's going to figure it out. It's just too useful of a possibility.

IOTL it was only discovered once, and that was by accident, so probably not.

No gunpowder is certain to butterfly the Ottomans away, so maybe European trade with Asia isn`t blocked / controlled by a dynamic imperialist Islamic superpower.

The Ottomans are over-rated as a cause of exploration, IMHO. The potential money to be gained from cutting out the middleman and shipping direct from the Indies is going to be a powerful motivation, no matter who those middlemen are. IOTL when the first Portuguese expedition came back from India, the King of Portugal boasted of getting one over Venice, not the Ottomans.

 

[Skallagrim]

I also get the impression that some people are treating "industrialisation" and other elements of the idea "modern word" as if they are naturally linked. I think that's not the case. Noting that @Malone referred to a modern world, I get the impression than "an industrialised world" was meant-- not a world that has automatically evolved towards centralised states. As @Saphroneth very astutely notes, the edevelopment of gunpowder weapons was critical in inding the "castle period" (so to speak), and in ending the local hegemony of castle-dwelling nobles. Without gunpowder, we're less likely to see centralised states becoming so ubiquitous, since kings will not have their ultima ratio, after all. (Clarification: the ultimata ratio, or 'final argument', of kings is of course superior military force; Louis XIV famously had the phrase engraved into his... cannons.)

But why do we assume that a lack of centralised states somehow means that the world stays in some kind of unevolving medieval period? Even during the OTL middle ages, there was significant technological innovation. During the Rennaisance, certain decentralised areas dominated by local polities were among the most productive and innovative regions of Europe. Lack of centralisation has the drawback of perhaps resulting in less concentrated funding for science and technology (big states tend to have bigger treasuries), but the corresponding advantage would be a lot of healthy competition. If the government of a big state starts repressing certain ideas or avenues of research, or develops a cultural attitude detrimental to the flourishing of science and industry, that affects the whole domain of that state. If that domain is split into a hundred little fiefts, all competing, there are bound to be some that will welcome and foster the would-be innovators that are hindered elsewhere. This kind of thing made the Netherlands and the cities of Italy great and wealthy.

What I'm saying is: without gunpowder, there may not be centralising states all that much... but I don't think that will hinder the development towards industrialisation at all. (Not on average, at least.) As others have noted, however, it's hard to avoid the discovery of explosive chemicals forver, and once it's discovered, expect the development of large guns to facilitare a later-than-OTL end to the decentralised era of local fiefs after all...

 

[Saphroneth]

In short, what you get with no gunpowder is basically a typical "game" world. Lots of small powers with plenty of independence, kind of steampunk (steam was discovered a lot more times than gunpowder), and swordfighting!

 

[Beausoleil]

IOTL it was only discovered once, and that was by accident, so probably not.

Agreed.

The Ottomans are over-rated as a cause of exploration, IMHO. The potential money to be gained from cutting out the middleman and shipping direct from the Indies is going to be a powerful motivation, no matter who those middlemen are. IOTL when the first Portuguese expedition came back from India, the King of Portugal boasted of getting one over Venice, not the Ottomans.

The other thing to consider is the possibility of gold and the benefit of cash crops to the royal coffers. Portugal was not a great industrial power but it still saw the benefit of a New World empire. Without propellants and innovations in blasting for mines and metallurgy, I don't see any reason that we wouldn't still have sugar, tobacco, spices, silver, and gold be considered lucrative commodities the steady supply of which is worthy of significant investment to secure.

 

[RousseauX]

Castles.

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.

It's wasn't so much hand held guns which ended up nomadic superiority: it was cannons, I don't think ballistas are anywhere near as good as gunpowder cannons (because they existed since Rome and every sedimentary empire had trouble dealing with horsed nomads) at dealing with them.

And nomads don't need eternal victory: they just need one once in a while to completely trash development in the civilized cores: you saw this with the Mongol invasion in Song China and Islamic Middle-East, and reset development back a few centuries.

I really do think you can't substitute for gunpowder, crossbows have being used in China since 4th century BC and China wasn't able to defeat the nomads for 2000 years after that. Europeans had crossbows when the Mongols invaded and they couldn't beat them either.

Between the development of effective gunpowder field artillery around 1650 or so and the permanent victory of sedimentary empires over the nomads took only around 100 years or so (I think the Qing victory over the Dzungar Khanate was that point).

 

[Beausoleil]

In short, what you get with no gunpowder is basically a typical "game" world. Lots of small powers with plenty of independence, kind of steampunk (steam was discovered a lot more times than gunpowder), and swordfighting!

I think that certain areas would still lend themselves to unification, such as the North American interior, which is bound together by the largest navigable internal waterway network in the world. A timeline like this would be similar in some ways to a "WI earlier New World colonization" TL, I suppose, from the standpoint of technological development in American colonies. I also wonder if the thought of colonies would be different, with nations not looking to keep them necessarily but to spread Christendom organically because it's simply a good thing to do and has a more indirect long term benefit.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

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.

The Mongols never really demonstrated an aptitude for siege craft. The taking of walled cities is a different beast from the numerous small fortified dwellings of the nobility. Their own siege craft pales in comparison to the abilities demonstrated by European caste makers, and the complexity of European castles aren't really comparable to the cities the Mongols besieged in China. The experience of the Mongols against upgraded defences in Hungary and Poland in the 1280s doesn't speak well to that.

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.

Crossbows have better range than a bow used by a mounted horseman. Clumps of infantry are a vulnerable, but with discipline and terrain (and range) mounted horsemen are distinctly vulnerable. If they charge a block of infantry they are vulnerable to being hit by heavy cavalry who are better armored than the light horsemen.

As for heavy cavalry, my understanding of the Mongols is that they had heavy cavalry themselves - lancers.

Mongol lancers are not heavy cavalry in the same way as European heavy cavalry. Knights are better armed and armored, and they ride larger, heavier horses. It isn't much of a contest when those two forces collide. That is the advantage mounted archers have over heavy cavalry, speed and mobility. If deprived of that they get shafted pretty quickly due to a literal weight of metal.

 

[RousseauX]

The Mongols never really demonstrated an aptitude for siege craft. The taking of walled cities is a different beast from the numerous small fortified dwellings of the nobility. Their own siege craft pales in comparison to the abilities demonstrated by European caste makers, and the complexity of European castles aren't really comparable to the cities the Mongols besieged in China. The experience of the Mongols against upgraded defences in Hungary and Poland in the 1280s doesn't speak well to that.

What are you talking about? Chinese cities had some of the most complex defenses on earth when the Mongols invaded.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

It's wasn't so much hand held guns which ended up nomadic superiority: it was cannons, I don't think ballistas are anywhere near as good as gunpowder cannons (because they existed since Rome and every sedimentary empire had trouble dealing with horsed nomads) at dealing with them.

And nomads don't need eternal victory: they just need one once in a while to completely trash development in the civilized cores: you saw this with the Mongol invasion in Song China and Islamic Middle-East, and reset development back a few centuries.

I really do think you can't substitute for gunpowder, crossbows have being used in China since 4th century BC and China wasn't able to defeat the nomads for 2000 years after that.

Between the development of effective gunpowder field artillery around 1650 or so and the permanent victory of sedimentary empires over the nomads took only around 100 years or so (I think the Qing victory over the Dzungar Khanate was that point).

Well terrain is also a big factor. Horse nomads ceased to be a threat to West/East Europe by the 14th Century, and the advent of castles in the more wooded and rivrine terrain essentially ended the dominance of horse nomads on the European plains.

I would argue that China could have developed the means to smash the horse nomads as well with similar schemes, but there's fewer choke points with which to funnel the invaders into killing fields which put the horse nomads at a disadvantage. There are infantry formations and combinations with heavy cavalry which could cause them extreme discomfort and discourage raids.

 

[Saphroneth]

That is the advantage mounted archers have over heavy cavalry, speed and mobility. If deprived of that they get shafted pretty quickly due to a literal weight of metal.

The thing is, the Mongols pretty much defeated the entirety of Eastern Europe in one go. I accept they didn't do so well in the 1280s, but that could equally be attributed to a loss of skill - there's nothing that prevents another steppe power rising in the 1400s or 1500s with the same skill level as the Mongols had during the 1240s.

The Mongols would never have defeated the Song if they could be stopped by terrain, of course.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

What are you talking about? Chinese cities had some of the most complex defenses on earth when the Mongols invaded.

Not compared to those developed by the Europeans, which the Mongols proved to be very poor at overcoming.

 

[Beausoleil]

Not compared to those developed by the Europeans, which the Mongols proved to be very poor at overcoming.

Can you give some specifics?

 

[RousseauX]

Not compared to those developed by the Europeans, which the Mongols proved to be very poor at overcoming.

what are you basing this on?

are you saying that you are deducing that European castles were more complex because the Mongols didn't take them? Or are you arguing that the Mongols failed to take the castles because they were complex? You can't have it both ways or it's just circular logic.

do you know anything about the defenses of Zongdu at the time of the Mongol invasion?

 

[RousseauX]

Well terrain is also a big factor. Horse nomads ceased to be a threat to West/East Europe by the 14th Century, and the advent of castles in the more wooded and rivrine terrain essentially ended the dominance of horse nomads on the European plains.

I would argue that China could have developed the means to smash the horse nomads as well with similar schemes, but there's fewer choke points with which to funnel the invaders into killing fields which put the horse nomads at a disadvantage. There are infantry formations and combinations with heavy cavalry which could cause them extreme discomfort and discourage raids.

I think you are discounting a few things:

1) The nomad's adaptability: in China and the Middle-East they fixed their own lack of siege craft by hiring Chinese siege engineers: I think the reason why they didn't take castles in Europe is not that they ultimately couldn't: it's because their attacks on Europe were raiding rather than conquering exercises.

If they actually cared, I know exactly what the solution is: hire some Italian siege engineers to do the sieges for you. I know this because this is literally the exact thing the Ottomans did and it worked out for them.

2) Yes in theory in ideal terrain, you can beat the nomads, but the actual borders don't always correspond to ideal terrain

3) Politics: nomads actually don't tend to win out against unified political opponents: they get dangerous at times of crisis for sedimentary empires. It's very easy for the Mongols to play feudal rivalries of lords against each other. Whats to say the Duke of w/e wouldn't agree to attack his neighbor if the Mongols promise to give him the land he wants and help in defeating his neighbor's field armies?

4) Diseases: what if the Mongols brings (as they did otl) bubonic plague? They don't need to take fortifications, they can just devastate the countryside and leave the population malnourished and vulnerable to the latest wave of diseases they bring, are your castle lords really going to keep staying in their castles forever?

Nomadic invasions tend to be dangerous not just because of their might, it's because of a combination of like 4-5 factors (some of which has nothing to do with the nomads themselves) that make them dangerous.

 

[RousseauX]

Also come on guys European castles were good fortifications but not every single one was helm's deep

 

[RousseauX]

@EnglishCanuck

to give you some idea of Chinese city defenses:

 

[EnglishCanuck]

The thing is, the Mongols pretty much defeated the entirety of Eastern Europe in one go. I accept they didn't do so well in the 1280s, but that could equally be attributed to a loss of skill - there's nothing that prevents another steppe power rising in the 1400s or 1500s with the same skill level as the Mongols had during the 1240s.

Possibly, but possibly not. The effectiveness of steppe horsemen is decreased in comparison to settled peoples as time goes on, and fortifications improve. The horsemen also have to be willing to adopt more settled trappings to be effective conquerors, which somewhat defeats the point. But like the Russians proved at Kulikovo, even larger steppe forces can be defeated with good tactics.

what are you basing this on?

are you saying that you are deducing that European castles were more complex because the Mongols didn't take them? Or are you arguing that the Mongols failed to take the cities because they were complex? You can't have it both ways or it's just circular logic.

do you know anything about the defenses of Zongdu at the time of the Mongol invasion?

The castles of the Europeans are very different from the fortified walled cities of China. Compare the castles constructed at Spis, Sumeg, the fortifications of Krakow in the late 13th century, the fortification of Warsaw, ect. These are less expansive than those at Zhongdu (which was well, much larger than most European cities) and the Mongols never stormed Zhongdu, rather they starved it out, then sacked it. This was much the same with the siege of Baghdad.

The fortifications are also numerous and abundant which deprives the Mongols of mobility, and leaves them open to counter raids, and gives the defenders time to mobilize to smash an invading force. The Mongols can't really afford to detach numerous small forces to contain these garrisons, else they open themselves to defeat in detail.

I think you are discounting a few things:

1) The nomad's adaptability: in China and the Middle-East they fixed their own lack of siege craft by hiring Chinese siege engineers: I think the reason why they didn't take castles in Europe is not that they ultimately couldn't: it's because their attacks on Europe were raiding rather than conquering exercises.

If they actually cared, I know exactly what the solution is: hire some Italian siege engineers to do the sieges for you. I know this because this is literally the exact thing the Ottomans did and it worked out for them.

2) Yes in theory in ideal terrain, you can beat the nomads, but the actual borders don't always correspond to ideal terrain

3) Politics: nomads actually don't tend to win out against unified political opponents: they get dangerous at times of crisis for sedimentary empires. It's very easy for the Mongols to play feudal rivalries of lords against each other. Whats to say the Duke of w/e wouldn't agree to attack his neighbor if the Mongols promise to give him the land he wants and help in defeating his neighbor's field armies?

4) Diseases: what if the Mongols brings (as they did otl) bubonic plague? They don't need to take fortifications, they can just devastate the countryside and leave the population malnourished and vulnerable to the latest wave of diseases they bring, are your castle lords really going to keep staying in their castles forever?

Nomadic invasions tend to be dangerous not just because of their might, it's because of a combination of like 4-5 factors (some of which has nothing to do with the nomads themselves) that make them dangerous.

Well in this we're agreed. Absent those contributing factors though, they aren't nearly so dangerous. Which is just my point, horse nomads become progressively less dangerous to settled societies over time. A centralized state is much better suited to fighting them, and as time goes on, even without gun powder, you're going to get more centralized professional states who can call on professional armies to stop invasions. Even with adaptability the horse nomads (as purely horse nomads) won't have the depth of numbers to carry out campaigns of conquest against these states in most cases.

Sometimes they will, but as time goes by, most times they won't. And more often than not its better to demand tribute from settled states than try to conquer them outright.

 

[Saphroneth]

The fortifications are also numerous and abundant which deprives the Mongols of mobility, and leaves them open to counter raids, and gives the defenders time to mobilize to smash an invading force.

Um

there's ways you can found a centralized state without gunpowder. Ordering the nobility to tear down their fortified residencies for one.

If the fortifications are numerous and abundant, I don't think you get a centralized state in the way you describe.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The thing is, the Mongols pretty much defeated the entirety of Eastern Europe in one go. I accept they didn't do so well in the 1280s, but that could equally be attributed to a loss of skill - there's nothing that prevents another steppe power rising in the 1400s or 1500s with the same skill level as the Mongols had during the 1240s.

Is there any reason to think (aside from the fact that they lost) that the Mongol armies which invaded in the 1280s and later were less skilful than those which invaded forty years earlier?