Flintlocks and Roman legions?

[RGB]

I don't know anything about it, but was the metallurgical knowledge of the Romans good enough to be able to make guns?

Yes, or almost. They had metal lathes, bores, and high-carbon iron. They produced lots and lots of it. There's some evidence they may have rolled tubing from steel sheets too.

So the individual components are there, it's a matter of putting that together. But that's far from trivial, and no guarantee it would happen within the timeframe required.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

i think we could assume that someone would come up with Nobunaga's tactics when it comes to using Roman firearms. i mean, it's a pretty simple tactic. defending with spears, definitely, but eventually someone will come up with what Nobunaga did

That's what I would expect for later Roman developments, crude handcannon/spears to break up an enemy charge followed by a charge of either infantry or cavalry.

The Romans had good technology for bronze. Perhaps artillery develops first (as in late Middle Ages Germany.) Alternatively, some Byzantine genius comes up with the rocket. The Chinese used rockets effectively against Mongol raiders at Kaifungfu.

That's what I'd see. Honestly when imagining Romans adopting gunpower I see them using it as a sort of field artillery to break up barbarian charges or to cause fear. I honestly picture them lobbing gunpowder filled bombs over or into walls like you see in Lord of the Rings.

 

[dgharis]

I don't know anything about it, but was the metallurgical knowledge of the Romans good enough to be able to make guns?

Yes, it was. Ever gotten a close look at a gladius? Beautiful weapon.

The problem is two-fold. First, the gunpowder itself. Black powder is touchy stuff at best; manufacturing, storing, and transporting it would be problematic. Add to that the fact that the powder needed for cartridges is a different mixture than that used for priming, and the powder used for artillery is different than either of the above, and it will be quite a headache until they get it sorted out.

Secondly, the amount of iron and steel required for the legion's weapons and armor is roughly doubled, which means that the manufacture of iron and steel will have to be hugely increased, which means less workmen available for other uses. The economic butterflies will be huge.

Okay, assume the Romans have gunpowder weapons. How will they use them?

At first, probably much like the Highlanders, who simply supplemented their swords and shields with pistols and muskets. They fired their weapons to soften up the enemy before closing in with their swords. Was that effective? Definitely. And it would suit the Romans perfectly. Better, in fact, since the Romans would use volley fire, which would be devastating at the short ranges they're accustomed to.

The New Model style of army really doesn't suit the Roman mindset; the legions are all about offense and mobility. Muskets would be used by light troops, including cavalry, and supporting troops for the purpose of softening up the enemy prior to closing, or on the rare occasions when Romans defended prepared positions.

So, here's our legionary, circa 100 A.D. Same gladius, armor, and shield, but the pilum, javelins, and darts are gone. In their place are two pistols, which are used just as the pila were, just before closing with the enemy. At point blank range the pistol ball goes right through the enemy's shield and armor; just point and shoot and down he goes. Drop the pistol, draw the gladius, and advance to the next enemy, who is likely to turn and run rather than face the same fate. Roma victor!

Of course Rome's enemies are not stupid; they will catch on and adopt these weapons themselves, and adopt tactics to counter them as well. And the Romans will in turn adopt new tactics, especially when facing enemies such as the Persians, with their reliance on cavalry. The development of weapons and tactics will be much like OTL; same game, just different players at a different time and place.

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Roman-era metallurgy isn't good enough to make muskets, and probably
not even cannon. They could make grenades, but those would be more
useful for Rome's enemies (who tended to be unorganized skirmishers)
to throw at Romans (who relied on precise infantry formations). Form
a wedge, get blown up. Form a square, get blown up. Scatter amidst the
barbarians, now you have no tactical advantage over them.

 

[dgharis]

Roman-era metallurgy isn't good enough to make muskets, and probably
not even cannon. They could make grenades, but those would be more
useful for Rome's enemies (who tended to be unorganized skirmishers)
to throw at Romans (who relied on precise infantry formations). Form
a wedge, get blown up. Form a square, get blown up. Scatter amidst the
barbarians, now you have no tactical advantage over them.

On the contrary; as stated above Roman metallurgy was quite good. A culture that can make steel swords (by 100 A.D. most gladii were steel, not iron) can certainly make iron musket barrels. The issue is not whether they had the materials or the skills; they definitely had both.

The question is whether they could afford to redirect enough of their economy toward producing such weapons in quantity. As of 100 A.D., to use one example, there were 33 legions, with nearly 300,000 legionaries and auxiliae, not to mention the navy and various other forces, which brought the total to nearly half a million. That's a lot of firearms and ammunition; diverting enough resources to supply that demand is going to strain the Roman economy.

Your example of Romans standing mindlessly in clumps waiting to be blown up vastly underestimates those Romans. First, they have access to the same weapons themselves; it might well be the barbarians who get blown up instead. Second, the Romans have missile weapons; they have archers and slingers, and the legionaries have javelins, pila, and now pistols and muskets. Stand there lighting and throwing your grenade and you're a target. (Bad news if you get hit and your lit grenade drops at your feet!) Last, the Roman legion was anything but a stationary target; the Roman way was to close rapidly with the enemy to bring their superiority in close combat to bear. Think you're going to stand there calmly lighting and throwing grenades while a mass of angry shouting Romans charges straight at you? Maybe, but your buddies won't; they'll run, and so should you.

This is not to say that grenades are ineffective; used properly they're very effective. But they're not a magic button that can be pressed to negate all Roman advantages.

EDIT: One other thing; Rome's enemies were NOT mostly "unorganized skirmishers"; different cultures used very different tactics. The Persians were every bit the equal of Rome in military organization, training, and tactics (in some ways even superior); they simply lacked the numbers and resources to do more than hold them off. Cultures such as Gauls used massed formations in battle and had effective cavalry. Gauls and Britons fought from prepared positions where possible. And as time went on, not being idiots, many of Rome's enemies adopted Roman methods in many cases.

 

[Malta]

The fault in this is...the Sassanids were a lot closer to the Chinese and actually had ties with them.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The fault in this is...the Sassanids were a lot closer to the Chinese and actually had ties with them.

Soooooo.....we have the Sassanids get the technology first, and the Romans simply copying it and modifying it for their own purposes.

 

[fscott]

Soooooo.....we have the Sassanids get the technology first, and the Romans simply copying it and modifying it for their own purposes.

Could Rome had made Landmines? If used properly the can be assault weapons as well as defense.

 

[dgharis]

The fault in this is...the Sassanids were a lot closer to the Chinese and actually had ties with them.

Which is probably where the Romans would get that technology; from cultures in contact with the Chinese. If the Sassanids obtained and used it the Romans would be doubly likely to adopt it; they habitually adopted military technology from their enemies and neighbors (like the gladius hispaniensus from Iberian Celts).

 

[dgharis]

Could Rome had made Landmines? If used properly the can be assault weapons as well as defense.

And how do you ensure they will detonate when you want them to? The Romans don't have electricity or any means of making pressure-sensitive devices, so they have to be detonated by means of lit fuses, which would make it nearly impossible to use them on mobile targets.

Demolition charges, for blowing up things, sure; that was one of the earliest applications. But proper land mines? Not in the Roman era.

 

[Michael Douglas]

Roman-era metallurgy isn't good enough to make muskets, and probably
not even cannon. They could make grenades, but those would be more
useful for Rome's enemies (who tended to be unorganized skirmishers)
to throw at Romans (who relied on precise infantry formations). Form
a wedge, get blown up. Form a square, get blown up. Scatter amidst the
barbarians, now you have no tactical advantage over them.

By late Western Empire, the "barbarians" are roughly equivalent (sometimes superior) to Rome in technology and tactics. Somehow everyone seems to forget that.

 

[Mitchell Hundred]

How would armor have been affected? Most European states saw the gradual reduction of armoring their forces as guns became more prevalent. Would the romans have kept their traditional armors, modified or just got rid of them?

 

[eliphas8]

Roman-era metallurgy isn't good enough to make muskets, and probably
not even cannon. They could make grenades, but those would be more
useful for Rome's enemies (who tended to be unorganized skirmishers)
to throw at Romans (who relied on precise infantry formations). Form
a wedge, get blown up. Form a square, get blown up. Scatter amidst the
barbarians, now you have no tactical advantage over them.

Is this some kind of odd history related poetry?

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

On the contrary; as stated above Roman metallurgy was quite good. A culture that can make steel swords (by 100 A.D. most gladii were steel, not iron) can certainly make iron musket barrels,

But the gladii were hammered from bar steel reduced in a bloom furnace;
as far as I know the Romans did not have the capability to actually melt
steel or even cast iron. They could try hammering hot steel strips together
over a mandrel to make musket barrels, but I bet such a weapon would
burst and kill the user the first time it was fired.

http://www.jaysromanhistory.com/romeweb/glossary/timeln/t10.htm

I suspect you need the blast furnace (c. 1200 AD) before you can reliably
make firearms.

 

[The Kiat]

Would the Romans even use their musketeers the same way later European armies did, or would they use them in auxiliary roles like they did with archers and crossbowmen?

 

[dgharis]

But the gladii were hammered from bar steel reduced in a bloom furnace; as far as I know the Romans did not have the capability to actually melt steel or even cast iron. They could try hammering hot steel strips together over a mandrel to make musket barrels, but I bet such a weapon would burst and kill the user the first time it was fired.

http://www.jaysromanhistory.com/romeweb/glossary/timeln/t10.htm

I suspect you need the blast furnace (c. 1200 AD) before you can reliably
make firearms.

You don't need either steel or cast iron for musket barrels; forged iron will do nicely. If you visit present day Williamsburg, VA you can see a gunsmith making flintlock barrels by hammering iron bars flat and rolling them around a mandrel, just as our forebears did in the eighteenth century. Alternatively you could start with round stock and bore it out, but that requires some precision machinery. Either way, the resulting weapons are quite reliable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGpa_SkxmvI

This method of working iron has been around since the beginning of the Iron Age and the Romans certainly worked iron in this fashion, so they could indeed make reliable muskets with the methods and materials available to them.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

This method of working iron has been around since the beginning of the Iron Age and the Romans certainly worked iron in this fashion, so they could indeed make reliable muskets with the methods and materials available to them.

Not muskets as we would know or imagine them however. They would be more accurately described as hand cannon and still be quite dangerous due to the warping of material over time.

It would take until probably the 3rd Century AD for such things to become practical for them, and in the short term using gunpower as field/siege artillery is much more feasible.

 

[dgharis]

Not muskets as we would know or imagine them however. They would be more accurately described as hand cannon and still be quite dangerous due to the warping of material over time.

It would take until probably the 3rd Century AD for such things to become practical for them, and in the short term using gunpower as field/siege artillery is much more feasible.

If we're assuming they get the technology from the Sassanids or another of their eastern neighbors then by the time the Romans adopt them they might well have progressed to the matchlock or even flintlock stage of development. If not, then their early efforts will indeed be more suitable for artillery than handguns.

Either way firearms give the Romans a huge advantage over their enemies, since the Roman virtues of drill and discipline will produce large numbers of musketeers and pistoleers trained to fire en masse at short range with devastating effect.

BTW, iron doesn't appreciably warp or otherwise deform with age; what does happen is that it oxidizes, which causes it to become brittle. This is part of the reason steel replaced iron in most applications; it's much more resistant to oxidation.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

If we're assuming they get the technology from the Sassanids or another of their eastern neighbors then by the time the Romans adopt them they might well have progressed to the matchlock or even flintlock stage of development. If not, then their early efforts will indeed be more suitable for artillery than handguns.

I doubt the Sassanids would use it for anything other than artillery themselves, or potentially rockets. Very unlikely they adopt the handgun style, even hand cannons just don't suit their styles of warfare very well together.

The Romans would almost certainly just adopt it for artillery, maybe expand to the hand portable variety.

Either way firearms give the Romans a huge advantage over their enemies, since the Roman virtues of drill and discipline will produce large numbers of musketeers and pistoleers trained to fire en masse at short range with devastating effect.

Incredibly unlikely given the way the tech works. Maybe for skirmishers before a crush begins, but it takes to long to reload properly for anything like the volley fire of Napoleonic Europe. They'd be more for effect than devastating power. Sure they'll kill people, maybe scare some into running, but not a game changer in and of itself. Closing and battling with enemy infantry will still be the rule of the day.

The Roman's developing the concept of the pistol just doesn't match with their stance in innovation and proper warfare. They might see it as a neat auxillery idea, but would be unlikely to adapt it beyond that for some time or until someone else came up with a better idea.

 

[Kongzilla]

I would Imagine the first guns will be given to people who have ranks, centurions and the like. Next or at around the same time they'll be used in sieges and artillery. The common Legionnaire will be the last to receive them. At first they'll probably be seen as a replacement for the Pilum. But will come into their own later on.

Another thing is the immense Psychological impact it will have on other nations when the Romans start blasting apart their armies. Imagine the look on the Gaul's faces when their toughest warrior was killed in less then 10 seconds by a skinny little roman who appears to be wielding a stick.