History- sans gunpowder

[Malarkey]

What if gunpowder had never been developed at all?

It would have a rather large effect on warfare, and warfare methods would theoretically remain the same from the 1300s to the 1700s. But would there be some kind of replacement for guns that would develop? Like some kinds of other flammable substance, or maybe even a projectile weapon that works mechanically (like with taut wire or something)?

Would this drastically effect warfare, or even society, or would it just be coincidental?

Ideas?

 

[Nik]

Air guns and liquid-fuelled cannon...

IIRC, air guns had a fair run as opportunist weapons, pre-dating sharp-shooters and smokeless gunpowder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_gun

Also, though inventors have tried and failed to make successful liquid fuelled cannon, especially for tanks, the bar was set high by cordite etc.

A steam-powered machine gun would seem practicable, using a flash-steam coiled boiler rather than the heavy 'lancashire' or 'railway' boiler types.

IIRC, there was a prototype steam-powered WW1 tank, the steam also serving to vaporise and expel burning oil from its flame-thrower...

There was, IIRC, a prototype US warship equipped with dynamite guns...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite_gun

 

[tormsen]

I find it somewhat silly that people take "WI No Gunpowder" as a "How can we make guns without gunpowder" challenge. I'm not sure if the concept would necessarily develop at all.

I would think that some technologies, such as rather beastly composite bows, would get more widely used than in OTL. Greek Fire/Naphtha is likely to remain in use as a weapon.

How would Atlantic-style caravels and galleons fare against Indian-ocean style galleys, if they lacked cannons? I expect they would still be rather hard to board, and they might be pitching naphtha over the side.

I expect that gunpowder would probably eventually be invented, but I think you could probably delay it for quite a wee while. And then, the place and time would be important. If gunpowder is invented in 1500's India, for example, I expect the big fat targets being sailed by enterprising Iberians around the coasts would be in for a world of pain.

 

[Gimple]

rail guns!

 

[Stephen]

It is reaonably plausable to delay the discovery of gunpowder to the 17th or 18th century but not much further. As too much chemistry knowledge and experiment was building up by then.

The made steam machine guns on Mythbusters they were not very effective. The crossbows of the late medieval renaisonce period had probably been developed as far as that technology could go with steel prods etc. The Girondini air rifle has a lower muzle velocity than black powder weapons so I expect it is not capable of penetrating plate armour. Which would leave warfare still dominated by tall stone castles, armoured knights and pike blocks. So from the 16th century to whenever explosives are developed in this timeline will be a period stability in military tactics as non gun weapons armour and tactics had probably been developed as far as they could go by this time.

The continuing defencability of the stone castles and the value of armoured men in the field will prevent the emegence of the modern nation state and gunpowder empires as the local nobles will retain more power.

The conquistadors were always runing out of powder anyway so the conquest of american civilisations wont be changed much as that mostly hapened with cold steel OTL.

 

[tormsen]

Pikes + Longbows/Crossbows will probably still take the wind out of armored cavalry's sails, though.

Had non-gun weapons and armor developed as far as they could have in that era? That doesn't necessarily convince me. Recurve and compound bows were developed in the modern age, in a gunpowderless ATL they might be developed early and give someone an advantage.

 

[Stephen]

Recurve bows are ancient, and compound bows look a bit too complicated for for mass pre industrial production.

Pikes + longbow/crossbow had already taken the wind out of armoured cavalries sails. But with improvement in the quality of armour in the 15th century making suits and barding that were pretty much arrow proof it was making a bit of a comeback when used inteligently berfore being finished off by canons.

Longbows only work when combined with field fortifcations or pikemen. They will likely end up too expesive to recruit and replaced by quickly trained pikemen and crossbowmen used in tercio or schiltron tactics.

 

[Admiral Matt]

This was a project I considered for a while, but it was simply too big.

Even though it wasn't always decisive in warfare until centuries after its appearance, it didn't have to be. It changed warfare, to greater or smaller degrees. A thousand years of rewritten Chinese history, three quarters of that in India and the Middle East, three fifths in Europe.... It'd alter everything, and not in ways that are necessarily easy to predict.

It isn't just a matter of dropping what was used then and gaining what gunpowder can do. It's also an issue that many continuing avenues of development were abandoned because gunpowder created quicker alternate routes. And that's not even limited to warfare, either.

 

[Claudius]

Absent gunpowder the horse nomads of central Asia will have a somewhat longer run. The English were still straining and using longbow men in Henry VIII's time, so een that ancient technology will last into the early modern age.

 

[archaeogeek]

Absent gunpowder the horse nomads of central Asia will have a somewhat longer run. The English were still straining and using longbow men in Henry VIII's time, so een that ancient technology will last into the early modern age.

Advances in metallurgy will probably make the longbow relatively obsolete anyway vs the crossbow because of armor.

 

[tormsen]

So we could see a return to the dominance of heavily armoured horsemen on the battlefield? Interesting. I wonder what kind of effect that would have on the society.

 

[Anaxagoras]

There would be significant political reprecussions. One of the reasons that feudalism declined in favor of centralized nation-states is because the development of gunpowder artillery allowed royal forces to effectively besiege the castles and strongholds of rebellious nobles. Without gunpowder, we could see a longer continuation of feudal societies.

The Ottoman Turks wouldn't have been nearly so successful in a TL without gunpowder, too.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

similar threads include
What are the chances of gunpowder being discovered?
Owain

Industrial Revolution before gunpowder? (

1 2)
Scarecrow

 

[jkay]

I think it would've slowed destructive potential, but that other banging substitutes would've been developed. The world's literally stuffed to the gills with possibilities. The differences'd be interesting.

Some substitutes that come to mind quickly include: oil, nitroglycerin, flour (yes), and hydrogen. And that's just five minutes of thought.

Horse nomads stayed powerful well after guns' invention because guns were so slow between shots 'til the revolver. Archery was much faster, and nomads got as much practice at it as longbowmen. The Manchu, of course, were well after guns'd been invented.