Latest possible invention of gunpowder
- Thread starter Timmy811
- Start date
Gunpowder was discovered in China first, maybe Tang(?), so... maybe if it ended forgotten due to X event...
Not forgotten, never discovered. That's easy enough--the forgotten person who invented gunpowder IOTL didn't because he was too busy with something else or died of the pox as a child or couldn't get anyone to listen to his crazy schemes or something.
As to the original question...oh, that's a tricky one. I mean, technically you could put it off indefinitely, but the longer you wait, the more it strains incredulity.
As to the original question...oh, that's a tricky one. I mean, technically you could put it off indefinitely, but the longer you wait, the more it strains incredulity.
So how would things have changed? I imagine the Native Americans would still have been rolled over, but the events in Old World would have gone in a completely different direction. Constantinople would never have fallen.
Without Gunpower, then the drive for Alchemy in the 1300s and later is very much nerfed in the west. However there will be no such thing in the east since it was their alchemicaly that discovered it, and so well, its bound to be discovered if not when it was, within decades to a couple of centuries from when it was.
Thus the timeline of events to our timeline is hardly unchanged.
It is highly implausible to not see gunpower or some other simple explosive be developed by 1300AD or so.
You'd have to butterfly away eastern alchemy to prevent this, meaning you need to get rid of studying health and the body, taoism, emperor worship etc. which basically means getting rid of religion/spritualism all together from the entire old world to prevent people dabbling in the 'arcane'.
Oddly, chemical explosives are one of those 'enivitable technologies' likely to be developed by any civilisation.
I disagree. There was only a single invention of gunpowder and every subsequent development and usage can be traced to that. The Mongols and Indians got it from the Chinese. The Arabs got it either from the Mongols or the Indians. The Europeans got it from the Arabs. There was no independent invention.
Essentially, gunpowder was an outgrowth of Chinese medicine. Chinese medicine was obsessed with attributing and cataloguing medicinal properties for literally hundreds of substances, some of which (dragons teeth/fossils) were entirely spurious, or (rhino horns for potency) nonsensical or simply (mercury) misguided. The attributions were often somewhat arbitrary. Some of it worked, or at least enough of it seemed to work to sustain an intellectual superstructure that was dramatically wrong.
Having catalogued medicinal properties up the Wazoo, there came the Taoist notion that perhaps the proper combinations could lead to wellness and indeed, immortality.
Gunpowder was discovered as part of the quest for an elixir of eternal life. Early recipes of gunpowder included honey.
But what it came down to was that gunpowder was originally mixed pursuant to cockeyed and wrong theories of medicine, from a catalogue of literally hundreds of substances.
So to mix the four key ingredients together (honey, nitrates, charcoal and sulphur), when in fact there were literally hundreds of ingredients to select among, was basically a relatively improbable fluke. Mixing them together in the correct proportions (or close enough to get a significant result) was an even bigger fluke. Combusting them, another fluke. And publicizing the result, yet another.
In short, it's incredibly easy for the Chinese to miss out on gunpowder altogether.
Of course, the corollary, is that its just as possible for any early civilization which had some grasp of the critical constituents to mix them up and stumble onto gunpowder. For all we know, the Sumerians or the Inca might have been able to do it.
The second part of the question is tricky, since the absence of chinese gunpowder butterflies history as we know it.
I would say that allowing history to proceed more or less along similar lines, the medieval alchemists might have had a similar shot at an inadvertent fluke gunpowder.
Otherwise, maybe the 18th or early 19th century, where there seems to have been some serious efforts at understanding and analyzing the world, and a tradition of directed experimentation, as a result of the enlightenment.
Keep in mind that the discovery of gunpowder during this period would not result automatically in firearms. Those took several hundred years to achieve in OTL. The path might be considerably shorter, but there'd still be a huge learning curve.
Essentially, gunpowder was an outgrowth of Chinese medicine. Chinese medicine was obsessed with attributing and cataloguing medicinal properties for literally hundreds of substances, some of which (dragons teeth/fossils) were entirely spurious, or (rhino horns for potency) nonsensical or simply (mercury) misguided. The attributions were often somewhat arbitrary. Some of it worked, or at least enough of it seemed to work to sustain an intellectual superstructure that was dramatically wrong.
Having catalogued medicinal properties up the Wazoo, there came the Taoist notion that perhaps the proper combinations could lead to wellness and indeed, immortality.
Gunpowder was discovered as part of the quest for an elixir of eternal life. Early recipes of gunpowder included honey.
But what it came down to was that gunpowder was originally mixed pursuant to cockeyed and wrong theories of medicine, from a catalogue of literally hundreds of substances.
So to mix the four key ingredients together (honey, nitrates, charcoal and sulphur), when in fact there were literally hundreds of ingredients to select among, was basically a relatively improbable fluke. Mixing them together in the correct proportions (or close enough to get a significant result) was an even bigger fluke. Combusting them, another fluke. And publicizing the result, yet another.
In short, it's incredibly easy for the Chinese to miss out on gunpowder altogether.
Of course, the corollary, is that its just as possible for any early civilization which had some grasp of the critical constituents to mix them up and stumble onto gunpowder. For all we know, the Sumerians or the Inca might have been able to do it.
The second part of the question is tricky, since the absence of chinese gunpowder butterflies history as we know it.
I would say that allowing history to proceed more or less along similar lines, the medieval alchemists might have had a similar shot at an inadvertent fluke gunpowder.
Otherwise, maybe the 18th or early 19th century, where there seems to have been some serious efforts at understanding and analyzing the world, and a tradition of directed experimentation, as a result of the enlightenment.
Keep in mind that the discovery of gunpowder during this period would not result automatically in firearms. Those took several hundred years to achieve in OTL. The path might be considerably shorter, but there'd still be a huge learning curve.
Anaxagoras
Banned
We'd start to see macrohistorical changes at least by the 13th Century, but butterflies would basically ensure that we would see big changes even before then.
This: We have no idea what would happen. The changes are to big to contemplate. And yes, I'd say late 1700's or early 1800's at the latest. By that stage, people like Antoine Lavoisier were making serious scientific insights into chemistry, and it's only a matter of time at that point before someone starts to get the idea, unless of course the enlightenment is butterflied away altogether, which isn't impossible.
Maybe they develop the theory behind gunpowder before actually making it, or maybe they stumble on it by accident, or maybe they discover a different explosive altogether, but nevertheless by this point it's evitable for something like gunpowder to be discovered.
If it's delayed until 1810, however, it's probably going to be a century to even get proper firearms. The world created will be in general much lower tech and probably more aristocratic, since guns were a major equalising factor as far as I understand.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Gunpowder artillery also played a significant role in bringing an end to feudalism in Europe, because royal armies could more easily besiege fortresses of nobles that would have otherwise been much more difficult to take.
And before anyone jumps on me, note that I say "significant" rather than "decisive". I am well aware that there were many reasons for the end of feudalism.
And before anyone jumps on me, note that I say "significant" rather than "decisive". I am well aware that there were many reasons for the end of feudalism.
I'm wondering if in the absence of gunpowder, those that used other distance weapons (bow, sling and especialy crossbow) and indirect combat technicians (sappers) would have seen great improvement in their weapons and gained greater respect.
Europeans with composite bows? Vast armies of men with pump action or repeating crossbows?
I do think that the crossbow would eventually take the role of the musket OTL when the manufacturing process gets streamlined.
PhilippeO
Banned
Seconded Beedok, Crossbow would be more developed in world without gunpowder. a lot more variant would be developed, repeating, mounted, artillery, etc. Some of compound bow tech could be added to crossbow.
Rather than "gunpowder not invented", wouldn't it easier to have "metal bullet never invented" ? China use gunpowder mostly as firecracker instead of weapon, Korea put arrow in hwacha instead of metal bullet, chinese also developed rocket before gun.
Rather than "gunpowder not invented", wouldn't it easier to have "metal bullet never invented" ? China use gunpowder mostly as firecracker instead of weapon, Korea put arrow in hwacha instead of metal bullet, chinese also developed rocket before gun.
unlike the invention of gunpowder, the bullet wasn't as much of a random occurence. Once you got the principle of the propellent, it looks a lot less likely that you don't end up with firearms.
Also, even if you don't have firearms, you would still have the potential for other more primitive applications like grenades.
It is notable that crossbows served a LOT the conquistadores in americas....
China may have invented mines too, in Song(?) dynasty... AND primitive rockets.
China may have invented mines too, in Song(?) dynasty... AND primitive rockets.
ComradeHuxley
Donor
If we want to go one step further we could make the hurdles for firearms much higher with Hadfield steel (an idea from tallwingedgoat):
“Body armor was conspicuously absent in 18th century Europe due to the gunpowder revolution. I always felt it was a shame armor did not continue to evolve, so I looked up ways to keep armor in the race against anti-armor weapons. There are not many effective yet practical alternatives, but I believe there is one strong contender, Hadfield steel. This steel alloy is also known as mangalloy, it's what was used in the British Brodie helmet of the two world wars. Invented in the 19th century, mangalloy contains over 10% manganese, which greatly increase resistance to penetration. Brodie helmets are proof against shrapnel, which would make the material also effective against lead musket balls.
To make mangalloy in the 18th century two technical challenges must be overcome. The first is the use of the Bessemer process to economically melt steel. This was not available in Europe until the 19th century, but the Chinese were using it since the time of Christ. The second requirement is knowledge of manganese. Fortunately manganese was widely used by European glass makers to control color. The material is also abundant. If they knew to mix maganese into molten glass, surely experimenting with using it in molten steel is not an implausible leap. If these two processes were combined it would mark a significant leap forward in metallurgy. Steel with low manganese content are stronger than plain steel. This would be useful in making swords and gun barrels. Higher concentrations make steel more brittle, but go over 10% and that's when it becomes super tough. The drawback is it's difficult to forge, so the simplest application would be armor plate. You're not going to be making intricately shaped armor due to the forging problem, but something like Brigandine armor would be easy to do.”
So even once they invent black powder, guns will have a much more difficult uphill fight. Interestingly, if we have something like actual “scientific” chemistry we most likely will see Nitroglycerin before or shortly after black powder. People ITL won't know what hit them once these highly explosive weapon arrive, it will be mind blowing, so to speak.
“Body armor was conspicuously absent in 18th century Europe due to the gunpowder revolution. I always felt it was a shame armor did not continue to evolve, so I looked up ways to keep armor in the race against anti-armor weapons. There are not many effective yet practical alternatives, but I believe there is one strong contender, Hadfield steel. This steel alloy is also known as mangalloy, it's what was used in the British Brodie helmet of the two world wars. Invented in the 19th century, mangalloy contains over 10% manganese, which greatly increase resistance to penetration. Brodie helmets are proof against shrapnel, which would make the material also effective against lead musket balls.
To make mangalloy in the 18th century two technical challenges must be overcome. The first is the use of the Bessemer process to economically melt steel. This was not available in Europe until the 19th century, but the Chinese were using it since the time of Christ. The second requirement is knowledge of manganese. Fortunately manganese was widely used by European glass makers to control color. The material is also abundant. If they knew to mix maganese into molten glass, surely experimenting with using it in molten steel is not an implausible leap. If these two processes were combined it would mark a significant leap forward in metallurgy. Steel with low manganese content are stronger than plain steel. This would be useful in making swords and gun barrels. Higher concentrations make steel more brittle, but go over 10% and that's when it becomes super tough. The drawback is it's difficult to forge, so the simplest application would be armor plate. You're not going to be making intricately shaped armor due to the forging problem, but something like Brigandine armor would be easy to do.”
So even once they invent black powder, guns will have a much more difficult uphill fight. Interestingly, if we have something like actual “scientific” chemistry we most likely will see Nitroglycerin before or shortly after black powder. People ITL won't know what hit them once these highly explosive weapon arrive, it will be mind blowing, so to speak.