Military Tactics Without Gunpowder

[Earling]

I expect tactics would change. It did before the invention of gunpowder, theres no reason why it wouldn't continue to do so.

To take just a few examples. For a time Cavalry was considered supreme in about the 1200's. Various demonstrations that actually disciplined infantry of various sorts can fight such a force off throughout the 1300's to 1400's. It finally dies a horrific death at the hands of Swiss pikes who are for a time considered the premier fighting force. Then the Tercio is developed which proceeds to massacre the Swiss pikes.

Given the Tercio died due to the development of line tactics and cannon fire, would it die such a death in this world? Presumerably if the vast bulk of the opposition were to be equiped with bows/crossbows and tried to stand in something relative to a musket line then having an even split of pikes/crossbows in tight formation would be somewhat ineffective.

In regards to weaponary, its difficult to guess. Presumerably with a greater grasp of mathematics and engineering it should be possible to produce superior bows/crossbows etc. Metal Armour after all for heavy cavalry and such was improving all the time untill rifles finally made it obselete.

Although I tend to disbelieve many of the things people say about asiatic weaponary. An asiatic bow had effective range of 400 yards!? It might have been able to fire that distance at a stretch, but thats something like twice the effective range of an English longbow at the time of the hundred years war and between 4-8 times the effective range of a gun untill the middle of the 19th century. Even then rifles only had an effective range of about 300 yards!

As for whether Europe had martial arts, how do you think people trained to fight? Boxing, Wrestling, Fencing? Jousting? Archery? There were certainly people who taught the various skills, you didn't just pick it all up as you went along.

 

[Gladi]

I meant: *Weaponless* combat, and except boxing and wrestling.

Sigh. Savate is style of boxing. Wrestling too does not come pre-fabricated from the Heavenly Factory.

And do you know any east asian style that cannot be described on those terms?

 

[Earling]

Wrestling has to be a martial art. Almost every culture in the world has some concept of it, but with innumerable different styles.

 

[Flocculencio]

I meant: *Weaponless* combat, and except boxing and wrestling.

Kalaripayattu. It isn't European but neither is it East Asian. It's a Keralan martial art where, surprisingly, students are first trained in the armed branches of the art before they start on unarmed combat.

And as Gladi said you can basically describe any form of unarmed combat as a form of boxing or wrestling.

 

[Max Sinister]

? What about Karate? You don't box with your fists, but strike with the straight hand, and you kick. Neither is a part of boxing or wrestling (at least not if you follow the rules).

And Savate IIRC originates from 17th century, not medieval times.

 

[Gladi]

? What about Karate? You don't box with your fists, but strike with the straight hand, and you kick. Neither is a part of boxing or wrestling (at least not if you follow the rules).

And Savate IIRC originates from 17th century, not medieval times.

RULES? RULES? Ah you mean ENGLISH rules from 19th CENTURY for boxing, right? And AMERICAN rules for WRESTLING?

Oh and of course, those dastardly frenchmen, they sat one evening in pub, got wasted and developed savate in the morning.

And Karate could be said to by hybrid striking/grapling martial art. Though I heard people argue more for the grapling side.

 

[Max Sinister]

Hey, no need to scream, OK?

Of course Europeans used kicks and other stuff in brawling too... but that's, well, only brawling and not much more. Heck, at that time people didn't even care much about a separation of boxing and wrestling, but only cared for whether it hurts the enemy. East Asian martial arts are more... sophisticated.

 

[Gladi]

Of course pankrateon has no rules what so ever. Also how exactly old are unamred east asian martial arts? And was there maybe some reason their martial arts were more into unarmed styles? Like maybe, government control of weapon possesion?

Ah it does not matter.

Well as to OP, I agree that the tactics would improve as would arms and armour. Late 14th and early 15th century when we start to feel difference ITTL were not without continous improvements in non-gunpowder weapons OTL even.

 

[carlton_bach]

Hey, no need to scream, OK?

Of course Europeans used kicks and other stuff in brawling too... but that's, well, only brawling and not much more. Heck, at that time people didn't even care much about a separation of boxing and wrestling, but only cared for whether it hurts the enemy. East Asian martial arts are more... sophisticated.

Of course they are. Eastern Martial Arst are meditative techniques, spiritual, you could even say religious exercises. European martial arts were just supposed to hurt. THat's why weaponless martial arts took a back seat - they had no sprirtual point to make. A Judo master would study for twenty or thirty yeears, and at the end of it he'd take an armed assailant and drop him in the dust, proving the superiority of the spirit over metal. A European armsmaster would just pack his own sword.

But anyone who claims that European martial arts were unsophisticated or primitive has no clue. Sidney Anglo: The Martial Arts in Renaissance Europe (or just about anything by said author) should work for starters.

 

[wkwillis]

Increased population density means we got the American crops somehow, with Asian crops coming sooner too.
The population increase gives us canals. Probably not horse drawn railroads, though.
Flamethrowers to make the Tercio less effective?

 

[carlton_bach]

Increased population density means we got the American crops somehow, with Asian crops coming sooner too.
The population increase gives us canals. Probably not horse drawn railroads, though.

Why not? For that matter, why not steam railroads? The understanding of steam power is related to gunpowder weapons, but not by any means a precondition.

Flamethrowers to make the Tercio less effective?

You know these things are the size of concert pianos, right?

 

[Thyme]

I'd imagine that that European armies in this world would look a lot like late 16'th to early 17'th century armies except with crossbows in place of muskets.

The base of the army would be heavy infantry, either pike, other polearm, or sword & buckler. None of these would become the only one used, although at times each of them would be unfashionable. Missile infantry would mainly be steel limbed crossbows. They are a lot easier to train to competent levels with than bows. There is a great deal of improvement that can be made over renaissance versions. Semi-modern designs are much more efficient than older renaissance ones. Relatively minor changes in design and metallurgy could be of great help. It’s likely England will retain Longbows instead.

Heavy cavalry would be retained although in smaller numbers than light cavalry. Some armies may do away with it as a cost saving measure, and sometimes will have cause to regret it. For cavalry short bows (or composite horsebows) are better than crossbows (which are difficult to load on horseback or while moving). I wouldn’t be surprised by crossbow armed dragoons however. They make a good choice for elite guard units, being pretty good generalists. Not all of the light cavalry will be armed with bows. Lightly / unarmored cavalry armed with a saber or saber and lance proved very useful for foraging and riding down defeated enemies.

Proportions will vary over time based both on ability to raise and theory without ever coming to any ultimate form.

Governments are likely to be less centralized, with castles better able to hold out against siege. The fortress/cannon race from OTL would be paralleled by a fortress/trebuchet race in this would, except that the defense is stronger there.

 

[asnys]

Thanks for the Help

Thanks for the help. Definitely a lot to think about. It seems the consensus is on combined arms tactics centered around heavy infantry. Although I am very curious about the idea of firing lines of crossbowmen. I am probably wrong, as I am a mathematician by trade and not even an amateur historian, but I thought that the primary reason for line tactics with muskets was for the shock value of the sudden, massed bang? And that, if one had the inclination to provide enough training in the use of weapons, individual fire actually became more effective?

One thing I should note: as I mentioned in my starting post, this is not technically an alternate history. I posted here because this seemed like the sort of place to ask this kind of question, and I am interested in alternate history anyway.

Thanks for all the replies!

 

[Smaug]

I've never cared for the crossbow as a battle changing weapon, unless they're protected by heavy Infantry. They probably could get off a shot a minute..... Cavalry would trash them.

I think it would still somewhat get down to the Generals. Communications was limited to flags, runners, and what not. Great Generals have good subordinates who read their mind. Delegation.

It would be interesting to see how castle construction would continue. Cities would continue to have walls, right?

 

[President Ledyard]

Absent gunpowder, I would guess that the steel crossbow eventually becomes the queen of the battlefield, at least in settled areas. As others have mentioned, quantity has a quality all its own (as with firearms, practically any idiot can be trained to use a crossbow).

Also, war wagons (a la the Hussites) could be used as a support mechanism for crossbowmen outside settled areas.

Of course, even if you could somehow do away with gunpowder/explosives, wouldn't compressed air "guns" eventually arise and fill much the same niche?

 

[carlton_bach]

I've never cared for the crossbow as a battle changing weapon, unless they're protected by heavy Infantry. They probably could get off a shot a minute..... Cavalry would trash them.

Not really. A decent war crossbow can keep up a rate of fire of 2-3 shots a minute. A siege crossbow will bring you down to one a minute, but that will pack some serious punch. And if you make a battleline of spear-armed pavisiers and three or four ranks of crossbowmen (with the rear ranks acting as loaders), it would be a very brave cavalryman indeed to venture close. That's how they did it in medieval Italy, and judging from the way they handled the German Emperor, it seems to have worked OK.

I think it would still somewhat get down to the Generals. Communications was limited to flags, runners, and what not. Great Generals have good subordinates who read their mind. Delegation.

Why? No gunpowder doesn't mean no electricity. You could have telegraphs, even crystal radios in a gunpowderless world (though admittedly once you have the technology for field telephones I have to wonder how nobody comes up with explosives all that time...)

 

[Resat]

I meant: *Weaponless* combat, and except boxing and wrestling.

Savate
Pankreas

I dont believe that it is not fair to exclude wrestling and boxing, since whing chun (?) is considered a form of boxing, so are many grappling arts from asia(which in turn could be called wrestling).
Wrestling and Boxing are european martial arts, there are so many local variations it would be hard to list them all.

regards

 

[Resat]

Savate
Pankreas

I dont believe that it is not fair to exclude wrestling and boxing, since whing chun (?) is considered a form of boxing, so are many grappling arts from asia(which in turn could be called wrestling).
Wrestling and Boxing are european martial arts, there are so many local variations it would be hard to list them all.

regards

sorry my post got relayed late or something please
disregard above quote of mine

 

[Michael B]

Not really. A decent war crossbow can keep up a rate of fire of 2-3 shots a minute. A siege crossbow will bring you down to one a minute, but that will pack some serious punch. And if you make a battleline of spear-armed pavisiers and three or four ranks of crossbowmen (with the rear ranks acting as loaders), it would be a very brave cavalryman indeed to venture close. That's how they did it in medieval Italy, and judging from the way they handled the German Emperor, it seems to have worked OK.

Crossbow rates of fire held to be under estimated; in a demonstration a crossbowmen fired 8 bolts in the time that longbowman took to shoot 12 arrows.

As for ranks of crossbowmen behind spearmen, that was as old as the Assyrians. A line of long, steady, spears has always been a good deterrant to cavalry.

One thing that could shift the military balance towards large more centralised states would be the reconstruction of the Roman automatic boltshooter. Whilst it is not artillery as we know it, it was head and shoulders against any other non-gunpowder weapon for field actions. To handle the problem of lack of spread of bolts, it could be mounted on a swivel and have a stand for the "firer". Two other "gunners" can then swing him and the weapon from side to side whilst peasant types can carry up more bolts and try to load the magazine.

 

[carlton_bach]

One thing that could shift the military balance towards large more centralised states would be the reconstruction of the Roman automatic boltshooter. Whilst it is not artillery as we know it, it was head and shoulders against any other non-gunpowder weapon for field actions. To handle the problem of lack of spread of bolts, it could be mounted on a swivel and have a stand for the "firer". Two other "gunners" can then swing him and the weapon from side to side whilst peasant types can carry up more bolts and try to load the magazine.

But how do you power the damned thing? That is invariably the problem with automatic tension/torsion shooters. Either you have a one or two-man gunnery team, then the power is going to9 be so low that it will compare unfavourably to other weapons. Or you give it enough power, in which case it takes forever to cock using muscle power.

Though a 2-beat outboard motor...