The Muskets of the Legions

I agree China would make the best candidate for outside influences allowing earlier use of Gunpowder. Just throwing it out there, *handwavium* there is a Chinese Emperor who sends emmisaries to Rome, or whatever. :)
 
It did rather early in Europe's history. The huge import trade from India began in the 1600s.

Could a parallel development occur ITTL? The Romans traded with India reasonably extensively, could a saltpeter bottleneck combined with some kind of pressing need (barbarian migrations, or Persian aggression), lead to a vast trade in saltpeter from India? It would mean that the Romans would need to maintain their supply lines, meaning more interest in controlling the sea routes to India.
 
Cornelius,

Yes, we are. Let me try again.

I'm taking exception with your contention that a siege-only use of gunpowder somehow makes the production and other logistical issues facing the Romans go away. Siege cannon will use more powder than a legion in the field, so a siege-only used will not make things easier.

I'm also not suggesting that the Romans will somehow develop "pike & shot" or any other type of gunpowder era any faster than what occurred in the OTL. In fact, I agree with the poster who suggested that, absent a large, gunpowder-armed enemy, the Roman development of gunpowder arms would most likely be delayed or retarded.

Once again, no. Early gunpowder using armies used shot very infrequently by our standards, around a dozen rounds per man per battle was the norm. Even in the Napoleonic era, sixty rounds per battle was considered high. When you consider the wasteful nature of early siege cannon against the parsimonious use of gunpowder on the early battlefields, sieges will use much more powder. Limiting the use of gunpowder to sieges only will not produce a "savings".

Bill,
If you had read what I actually wrote, you would have realized that I never claimed that using only cannons would have solved the logistical problems. The problems would have been minor and easier to cope with. What is more difficult: supplying 20 or more legions spread over the whole empire or few artillery trains from time to time?
Muskets consume far less powder, of course, and during a battle usually you could shoot between 10/15 rounds, true. But in your calculations you're forgetting training (legionnaires have to learn the proper handling of the weapon, haven't they?) and once issued to legions, muskets are going to be used far oftier than any cannon. Skirmishes were frequent on all the borders and so greater engagements, while sieges were really infrequent in comparison.
I agree completely with the idea that the guns development could be slower than OTL, or that, once reached a certain degree of development, would stop. But this only will delay the reaching of the saltpeter bottleneck.

It did rather early in Europe's history. The huge import trade from India began in the 1600s.

Early 1700s if I remember well, but gunpowder has been seriously in use in Europe from 1400s on, isn't it?

The Romans in the OTL did not move as much material along those lines as would be required in a gunpowder setting.

Again you are understimating the roman organisation. The troops stationed on the borders were routinely supplyied. If the use of guns is not widespread the logistic problem could be coped with.


Only a few hundred? Rome isn't some late Medieval or Renaissance microstate. We're talking about a continental-sized superpower with borders ranging from Scotland to Germany to the Balkans to Syria to Morocco and didn't you have them arming border forts in one of your earlier posts?

I suggested that they could place few guns in the castra, true. But this doesn't mean to give lots of pieces to every fortress in the empire. Let's be realistic: cannons were expensive to build so they would have placed only in sensitive spots.
And a few hundred would be realistic in my opinion. IIRC, Charles VIII army, when he invaded Italy in 1494, had a little more than one hundred pieces of various caliber. And that was the biggest artillery park in Europe.

There will be production and logistical bottlenecks, Rome will find it hard to meet it's own civilian and military needs, and these issues will only increase in severity as Rome begins using gunpowder more and more often in more and more ways.

The saltpeter bottleneck will always came into play, sooner or later. The actual when would depend on the actual use of gunpowder. Besides the saltpeter problem is only one, there are others such as the casting techniques (it's difficult to cast a bronze cannon properly) and the trasportations of said cannons: ox teams were painfully slow, while horse teams needed suitable breeds.
None of these problems is unsormountable, but solving needed time and the will to do it. Could the romans do it? Maybe yes, or maybe guns would have not considered a really useful weapon and left behind.
Personally I don't subscribe the idea that the roman empire armed with guns would have lasted forever. The timeline would have been different, of course, but the final outcome could have been more like OTL than many thinks.

Best regards.
 
I agree China would make the best candidate for outside influences allowing earlier use of Gunpowder. Just throwing it out there, *handwavium* there is a Chinese Emperor who sends emmisaries to Rome, or whatever. :)

If memory doesn't fail me, chinese discovered gunpowder in the tenth century and the first guns were built a century later. So no, even if an Han emperor had established fairly good contacts with the romans, no gunpowder. The romans could have learned a lot of useful things, though. Staying in the military frame, I've always been intrigued by the chinese crossbows. They were better than those known in the mediterrean and their use en-masse couldbe easily adapted to the legions...
 
If memory doesn't fail me, chinese discovered gunpowder in the tenth century and the first guns were built a century later. So no, even if an Han emperor had established fairly good contacts with the romans, no gunpowder. The romans could have learned a lot of useful things, though. Staying in the military frame, I've always been intrigued by the chinese crossbows. They were better than those known in the mediterrean and their use en-masse couldbe easily adapted to the legions...
Even simpler, Roman longbows?
 

Hecatee

Donor
Why are you all thinking only in terms of guns or rifles ? a good use for gunpowder, not too expensive, could simply be to manufacture grenadoes, be they clay or metal ones. They could be mounted on arrows, arbalets' quarels, or classical artillery munitions for ballistae or other munitions throwing systems. There could be hand thrown grenadoes and large, catapult ammo-size ones which could be devastating on a battlefield (a rain of high-speed clay or metallic pot-sherds falling down on the ennemy's massed ranks...), a bit like what the roman did with boiling oil (think Gladiator's opening scene here). I could very well see this as a weapon used to desorganize ennemy lines prior to engagement, in keeping with the classical pilum-throw the roman used up to the third or fourth century AD.
Last use would be for making breachs in walls with underground mines or for clearing wall's top to allow the infantery to get on the ennemy wall. Last thing, if the roman are the only ones to have gunpowder in the west or on the sea they could have a lasting effect on the barbarians, the only one able to reproduce this being the Parthians/Sassanids in the east where siege warfare is more active, leading to a competition for a better system which may ultimately be leading to guns and/or better gunpowder production...

About the salpeter production issue, I'd say that the Roman empire was more urbanized with larger populations in the cities so regionnal production of salpeter might very well happen rather close to the borders. The romans already had, from the second century AD onward, central weapons factories (some are well known in Gaul, the Notitia Dignitarum is also a good source of information on them) so the infrastructure would be in place for real supply depots.

Finally the romans still had the Alexandrian Library and great minds to work and share on experimentations on gunpowder, probably leading to a quicker production of other kinds of explosives and/or artificial nitrates production.
 
If you had read what I actually wrote, you would have realized that I never claimed that using only cannons would have solved the logistical problems.


Cornelius,

I never suggested you did write that, because I know you wrote this...

The problems would have been minor and easier to cope with.

... which still proves you've no idea the size and scope of the problem at hand.

What is more difficult: supplying 20 or more legions spread over the whole empire or few artillery trains from time to time?

Both are equally difficult because the legions won't being using muskets exclusively. Firearms will be part of a "mixed arms" force, just as they were for centuries in Europe between the introduction of gunpowder and the invention of the bayonet.

Muskets consume far less powder, of course, and during a battle usually you could shoot between 10/15 rounds, true. But in your calculations you're forgetting training (legionnaires have to learn the proper handling of the weapon, haven't they?)

Score a laugh point. Do you have any idea of how infrequently musketeers "trained" by firing their pieces? Or how infrequently infantry trained by firing their pieces up through the Napoleonic era? Here's a hint, you can count the number of monthly training rounds on one hand.

... and once issued to legions, muskets are going to be used far oftier than any cannon.

No, they won't. You're making the mistaken assumption that the Romans will immediately have bayonets again. Initially Roman firearms will see limited use just as was seen in OTL Europe.

Skirmishes were frequent on all the borders and so greater engagements, while sieges were really infrequent in comparison.

And those skirmishes will be fought almost exclusively with hand weapons just they were in the OTL up until the mid 1800s.

I agree completely with the idea that the guns development could be slower than OTL...

And yet your statements regarding the use of Roman firearms in both skirmishes and battle assumes the presence of bayonets. :rolleyes:

Early 1700s if I remember well...

1600s actually because your memory is faulty.

... but gunpowder has been seriously in use in Europe from 1400s on, isn't it?

Seriously in use, but not in the quantities you automatically assume it was. Battles were still primarily decided by shock and not fire well into the 18th Century and the number of rounds used by personal weapons and cannon on the battlefield or in skirmishes was quite limited.

And, despite that, Europe still had to import saltpeter.

Again you are understimating the roman organisation.

Underestimating the people who built those roads, aqueducts, fortifications, harbors, and other structures that still exist nearly 2000 years later? Please.

The troops stationed on the borders were routinely supplyied.

Supplied, yes. But not in the amounts or goods you're blithely assuming.

If the use of guns is not widespread the logistic problem could be coped with.

Not widespread? And you have them in every fortress and the legions routinely skirmishing with them? Make up your mind.

IIRC, Charles VIII army, when he invaded Italy in 1494, had a little more than one hundred pieces of various caliber. And that was the biggest artillery park in Europe.

You recalled the number of cannon correctly. However you failed to realize that France invading Italy is just the equivalent of one Roman province invading another. Forget about Europe and her tiny nations and look at the size of the Empire.

Besides the saltpeter problem is only one, there are others such as the casting techniques (it's difficult to cast a bronze cannon properly)

Yeah, I suppose the people who routinely cast bells and statues in a variety of metals wouldn't have the first idea how to cast a thick walled tube with one end plugged.

... and the trasportations of said cannons: ox teams were painfully slow, while horse teams needed suitable breeds.

Along with given them the bayonet immediately, now they'll have battlefield mobile pieces too? What happened to "I agree completely with the idea that the guns development could be slower than OTL"? I've been talking about siege cannon cast in place and cumbersome firelocks fired from rests while you're giving them bayonets and artillery trains. :rolleyes:

Personally I don't subscribe the idea that the roman empire armed with guns would have lasted forever.

Who ever said it would?


Bill
 
Bill Cameron,

Seems we have comunication problem

Score a laugh point. Do you have any idea of how infrequently musketeers "trained" by firing their pieces? Or how infrequently infantry trained by firing their pieces up through the Napoleonic era? Here's a hint, you can count the number of monthly training rounds on one hand.

Yet a trainee didn't learn the use of musket by magic. They have to shoot some round from time to time, do you know?

No, they won't. You're making the mistaken assumption that the Romans will immediately have bayonets again. Initially Roman firearms will see limited use just as was seen in OTL Europe.

And yet your statements regarding the use of Roman firearms in both skirmishes and battle assumes the presence of bayonets. :rolleyes:

Bayonets? Did I ever mentioned bayonets? Please where?

Seriously in use, but not in the quantities you automatically assume it was. Battles were still primarily decided by shock and not fire well into the 18th Century and the number of rounds used by personal weapons and cannon on the battlefield or in skirmishes was quite limited.

Interesting. I've been advocating that the roman use of guns would have comparable to the europe of 15th century for nearly the whole thread and yet you believe I'm speaking about the napoleonic age. What I'm doing wrong?


Not widespread? And you have them in every fortress and the legions routinely skirmishing with them? Make up your mind.

Maybe you should re-read the posts (or maybe reading them :rolleyes:). I clearly state that cannons would have probably stationed only in the major castra, not all. And the part about the muskets was only in the hypothesis that such weapon would be developed and issued to the troops. But I also wrote that such development could have been possible only on a later date than the discovory of gunpowder and cannons...

Yeah, I suppose the people who routinely cast bells and statues in a variety of metals wouldn't have the first idea how to cast a thick walled tube with one end plugged.

Casting properly a cannon is not a menial task.

Along with given them the bayonet immediately, now they'll have battlefield mobile pieces too? What happened to "I agree completely with the idea that the guns development could be slower than OTL"? I've been talking about siege cannon cast in place and cumbersome firelocks fired from rests while you're giving them bayonets and artillery trains. :rolleyes:

Again you misread what I wrote. Have I ever talked about battlefield mobile pieces? Or bayonets? No, not at all. Anyway cannons had to be moved from time to time, not everything was cast on the spot...

Best regards
 
According to this book, an estimate for Ottoman gunpowder production in the late 1600s is about 800-1100 tonnes. A large campaign would require 500-600 tonnes. I would assume that the Romans would need much less.

I think that transporting quantities on that level is well withing the roman's means, either by sea or over land. I don't see any reason why they would lack the nescissary labour, or ability to transport precursors to a powder mill either.
 
Last edited:
Yet a trainee didn't learn the use of musket by magic. They have to shoot some round from time to time, do you know?


Cornelius,

Let me suggest you actually research what that training entailed.

Bayonets? Did I ever mentioned bayonets? Please where?

You've talked about the gunpowder required for the legions' constant border skirmishing; i.e. skirmishing with firearms and not with hand weapons which was the case for centuries after firearms were introduced.

You've also been talking as if the entire legion is armed with muskets instead of the "mixed weapons" model that, again, was used for centuries.

Interesting. I've been advocating that the roman use of guns would have comparable to the europe of 15th century for nearly the whole thread and yet you believe I'm speaking about the napoleonic age. What I'm doing wrong?

You're talking about skirmishing with firearms and the legions being armed solely with muskets, that's what you're doing wrong.

Again you misread what I wrote. Have I ever talked about battlefield mobile pieces?

You talked about how horse would have to be bred to move artillery pieces when oxen are perfectly fine for moving siege trains.

Or bayonets?

One more time; your continued assumptions regarding the powder supply requirements of constant skirmishing along the frontiers by legions armed solely with firearms. Such as when you wrote: Skirmishes were frequent on all the borders and so greater engagements...

Casting properly a cannon is not a menial task.

Neither is casting a bell or statue.

Anyway cannons had to be moved from time to time, not everything was cast on the spot...

And European armies did so without specially bred horses.

This is getting tiresome and I believe there is a translation issue at work too, so I'll sum my points up again:

- Saltpeter is the single most critical ingredient for black powder.
- As the numbers, kinds, and uses of Roman gunpowder weapons increase, Rome will experience an increase of production and supply problems.
- As in the OTL for centuries, Roman gunpowder weapons will be used as force multipliers within a mixture of infantry weapons and not be the only infantry weapon. As in the OTL for centuries, muskets will not be the primary infantry arm either.
- The powder requirements of a siege are not less than that of a legion or legions partially armed with gunpowder weapons.
- The development Roman gunpowder weapons will generally follow that of the OTL and most likely be retarded due to a lack of gunpowder armed enemies.


Bill
 
Last edited:
I'd think this will be bad for Rome.
They won't be hoarding the knowledge if they want to put it into general use. Technology doesn't work like that. So it will spread.

Their enemies tended (not always but they tended) to have less permanent fortifications than the Romans. Certainly less stone buildings.
The Romans don't really need cannon to take most forts they may have to take.
For those attacking the Romans though it will be a welcome addition.

So too you have the Roman infantry. They tended to be better armed and armoured than their enemies...But swords and armour become useless against muskets.

But anyway, much of this is null . Even if the Romans do invent gunpowder will they do anything with it? The Chinese didn't do too much. Could they even do anything with it? As said salt peter manufacturing had yet to be developed.
 
WI, in the 1st Century AD, a Roman philosopher/alchemist discovers the secret of Black Powder?

The question you need to ask is, who is the philosopher or alchemist you are talking about?

Mainly because of the fact that just because you invented something new doesn't necessarily translate to getting your new idea accepted by the Emperors and Generals.

What happens if the Alchemist didn't have the right connections to get an audience with all the major political figures in the Roman empire? What happens if the Alchemist discovered gun powder in some forgotten province?

How big or how effective is the gun powder formula? How big is the explosion? How much more refinement is needed till we can even talk about using it as an effective military weapon that can change the tide of a battle?
 
You've talked about the gunpowder required for the legions' constant border skirmishing; i.e. skirmishing with firearms and not with hand weapons which was the case for centuries after firearms were introduced.

You've also been talking as if the entire legion is armed with muskets instead of the "mixed weapons" model that, again, was used for centuries.

Bill Cameron,

You have misundestood me. I was making a comparison between the hipotetical consumption of gunpowder of a musket armed legion and that of a single siege. I never said that romans would have reached that level any soon (or that they could even reach it, for the matter). But instead I wrote that:

Interesting. I've been advocating that the roman use of guns would have comparable to the europe of 15th century for nearly the whole thread and yet you believe I'm speaking about the napoleonic age.

Let me repeat. Romans will first develop crude grenades, then cannons and only later arquebus. And such development will definitly be determinated by the kind of enemies the romans will face. The saltpeter production will be a bottleneck for the use of cannons, but when this will happen accordingly on how much guns are actually used.

This is getting tiresome and I believe there is a translation issue at work too

A translation problem? Maybe, or maybe not. But I agree with the tiresome since the discussion is clearly going nowhere.

Best regards
 

Tom Kalbfus

Banned
What would a gunpoweder Dark Ages with muskets be like then? How would feudalism develop if armor was made obsolete and castle walls could be knocked down with cannon balls? I'm not assuming a movable type printing press by the way. How capable would barbarians be at reproducing gunpowder technology? Since fighting is an essential part of dark age life, they will likely maintain the technologies that are important to them, knowing some "useless" knowledge such as astronomy or steam engines would have a lower priority.
 
Top