Weapons and War without Industry

[legumes]

So assuming that for whatever reason the industrial revolution (and all of its consequences) never occurs. Furthermore, all of the events leading up to it such as the European Agricultural revolution, are minimized or negated. So how do the weapons and strategies of war develop without industrialization? As for the speculation...

• I'm assuming that we don't get to see ironclad or metal warships, how do you suppose wooden ships will adapt?
• Will we be sticking to muskets? If so, how might they change?
• WIthout machine guns or other rapid-fire weapons, cavalry may still remain somewhat relevant on the battlefield.
• With all these and many more factors at play, how might battlefield strategies be implemented?

Thanks, and have fun.

 

[stevej713]

That's a very difficult question to answer because war strategy is very much determined on a case-by-case basis. The war strategies of the Mughals differed significantly from the Qing, which in turn differed from the Ottomans, and so on. Furthermore, industrialization and the factors leading up to industrialization had many indirect influences on a country's ability to or reasons for waging war.

The Industrial Revolution is one of, if not *the* most complicated development in human history. I'd argue the process leading up to industrialization had its roots in the Middle Ages, so the reason why it doesn't exist in a given TL is critical and would result in some pretty gigantic butterflies.

If I had to give a general answer, I would say that no industrialization means less social mobility and therefore more hordes of peasants doing the fighting, more competition for increasingly scarce farm land, and more plagues and famines, culminating in an age of societal breakdown and depopulation.

As for technology, I don't see any reason for metal ships, machine guns, and rifles to not exist. They just wouldn't be mass-produced.

 

[von Adler]

States had proto-industries, some with proto-interchangable parts and proto-assembly line for their arms industries, and the tools and metods will continue to develop.

The big difference will not be miltiary technology, but the masses produced. The Prussians, through a herculean effort produced some 600 000 Dreyse rifles 1841-1866. Then they produced 900 000 rifles from 1866-1870.

The difference? The technology and know-how to cast steel without hidden imperfections in order to be able to mass-produce barrels, which before was smithed mostly by hand by skilled barrelsmiths.

Canals will still be a thing, as they were being contructed before the industrialisation. Coal will start to replace firewood and charcoal, as it did before the industrial revolution. The lack of steam engines will mean less deep mines as lifting ore and coal and draining water will be much more difficult.

But technology will progress at about the same rate. But Europe's massive population boom 1820-1890 won't happen at the same rate and armies will be smaller, since nations will be less able to equip them and have less men to feed into them. It might mean armies remain more professional, but the Napoleonic conscription is standard all over Europe before industrialisation and the industries to equip those mass armies still exists.

You will see a much more heavy focus on cavalry as the manouvre element of an army, and the horse will still be an integral part of warfare. Armies will be smaller, and fronts look more like the eastern front in ww1, with large gaps held only by cavalry patrols and light infantry, with armies concentrating along infrastructure and being able the be flanked in manouvre warfare rather than static trench fighting.