What could the Romans have done with gunpowder?

I believe it would have been technically feasible that gun powder could have been developed at least during the Roman Empire era but how exactly would the Romans have used it?

Did they have the right infrastructure and technological culture to take full advantage?
 
I believe it would have been technically feasible that gun powder could have been developed at least during the Roman Empire era but how exactly would the Romans have used it?

Did they have the right infrastructure and technological culture to take full advantage?

The Romans would probably have pretty similar limitations to the 10th-century Chinese (I think that's when gunpowder was discovered?), so they'd most likely use it for similar weapons and purposes.
 
I understand that metallurgy had to develop further for personal firearms and cannons to become practical. When exactly was that hump circumvented in Europe, do you guys think?
 
I understand that metallurgy had to develop further for personal firearms and cannons to become practical. When exactly was that hump circumvented in Europe, do you guys think?

Apparently church bells had something to do with it -- the techniques needed to cast a big bell for a church tower are apparently much the same as those needed to cast a cannon. Non-Christian countries didn't have as much need for big bells, so their metallurgy/the number of people with knowledge of metallurgy was therefore lower.
 
Apparently church bells had something to do with it -- the techniques needed to cast a big bell for a church tower are apparently much the same as those needed to cast a cannon. Non-Christian countries didn't have as much need for big bells, so their metallurgy/the number of people with knowledge of metallurgy was therefore lower.

Right, I remember hearing that before. It doesn't seem like their usage became a common thing until after the fall of the western empire, though. Maybe the East could have gone further with this if they'd developed gunpowder beforehand.
 
I believe it would have been technically feasible that gun powder could have been developed at least during the Roman Empire era but how exactly would the Romans have used it?

Well, they hadn't the metallurgy to make useful and safe guns and artillery. But they could have made early hand grenades; they could have made explosive onager projectiles; they could have built rudimentary land mines (didn't the Romans love traps and other inventious siege fortifications?); they could have used petards to blow up walls and ships; they could have designed wooden rockets and ballistae propelled by gunpowder like Hwachas; finally, they could have built fireships and combined Greek Fire with gunpowder.

Also, don't forget the economic impacts of black powder: more effective mining and the possibilty to plow up rock to build tunnels (roads through the Alps) and dig canals (Isthmus of Corinth and Suez canal). So in fact, civil economy might benefit from a military technology. The new civilian infrastructure (roads and canals) would in turn help the army to quickly relocate troops through the empire.

Apparently church bells had something to do with it -- the techniques needed to cast a big bell for a church tower are apparently much the same as those needed to cast a cannon. Non-Christian countries didn't have as much need for big bells, so their metallurgy/the number of people with knowledge of metallurgy was therefore lower.

Finally, the use of gunpowder and the need of advanced metallurgy for military purposes would have forced the Romans to develop better metallurgic techniques, so maybe technollogy might have developed faster if the Romans had had gunpowder.

Did they have the right infrastructure and technological culture to take full advantage?

Well, no:

1) Right infrastructure. The Roman Empire lacked a tradition of chemistry (often religiously shaped by alchemy) - China had one, since chemistry was a way to achieve the Taoist dream of eternal life. But there is still a little chance that a Roman scientist/philosopher accidentally discovers the right formula - but this probability is very low, which is why gunpowder was discovered in China and not in Rome or western Europe.

If you search for a possible person discovering gunpowder in ancient Europe, take this one.

2) Culture. Roman technological culture wasn't particularly good (heavy wheel plow and water mills, though known in the Roman Empire, didn't spread very quickly through the empire), but the Roman military was open for innovations. Look on how they adopted foreign weapons; now imagine that Zosimos discovers gunpowder during late antiquity - the Roman army would gladly have accepted this new weaponry.

Would gunpower save the Roman Empire? If it's discovered in Byzantine times, it might help the Roman Empire against the Arabs (just like Greek Fire). If it's discovered during the republic or the early empire, it would be only of limited use, and maybe the Romans would even forget it because they don't need it.

However, if the Roman Empire acquired gunpowder during late antiquity, it could be of great use. The Persian cities would be defenseless against Roman gunpowder technology, at least until the Persians adopt gunpowder and use it themselves when besieging Roman cities. The Barbarians would be scared at first and this might be enough to win some decisive battles.

I hope I could help you.
 
Did I mention fireworks for civilian use, rocket flares to signal danger on sea and to light nocturnal battlefields, and the general advance in chemistry if this science is promoted by military institutions and civilian investors?
 
Did I mention fireworks for civilian use, rocket flares to signal danger on sea and to light nocturnal battlefields, and the general advance in chemistry if this science is promoted by military institutions and civilian investors?

Rockets could be a good way for armies to signal each other. Say, if you want to attack an enemy from two directions, you could get one of your detachments to fire a rocket to signal "We're in place, and about to attack".
 
Apparently church bells had something to do with it -- the techniques needed to cast a big bell for a church tower are apparently much the same as those needed to cast a cannon.
I thought the original cannons were built like barrels, with individual strakes of either wood or iron held together by hoops.

Old%20cannons%20001_1350155448.jpg


If the Romans can make a barrel, they could presumably make a cannon.

Here's a Roman barrel below. The challenge is with the hoops, as I believe the Romans used poor metal or even leather/rope.

x_barrel2.jpg


But, IOTL, we have to wait until the 1300s, at least https://www.wired.com/2009/08/0826crecy_cannon/
 
Well, they hadn't the metallurgy to make useful and safe guns and artillery. But they could have made early hand grenades; they could have made explosive onager projectiles; they could have built rudimentary land mines (didn't the Romans love traps and other inventious siege fortifications?); they could have used petards to blow up walls and ships; they could have designed wooden rockets and ballistae propelled by gunpowder like Hwachas; finally, they could have built fireships and combined Greek Fire with gunpowder.
...

Well... that would have been interesting to say the least.

As I've often said, you'd weirdly enough do better for the Romans by giving it to the Greeks. Due to the insane competition of the Greek city states, there's much opportunities for 'chemistry' to possibly develop (after all, they already competed in 'knowledge' and drama!). The Romans then come by a little later, and pick up a slightly more mature technology - let's say the Greeks might have worked out early rockets / simple grenades. Probably not enough to actually stop the Romans (unless maybe if Pyrrhus gets hold of them...), but enough for the Romans, being military-technology magpies as they are, to see the potential.
 
I thought the original cannons were built like barrels, with individual strakes of either wood or iron held together by hoops.

Old%20cannons%20001_1350155448.jpg


If the Romans can make a barrel, they could presumably make a cannon.

Here's a Roman barrel below. The challenge is with the hoops, as I believe the Romans used poor metal or even leather/rope.

x_barrel2.jpg


But, IOTL, we have to wait until the 1300s, at least https://www.wired.com/2009/08/0826crecy_cannon/

Yes, I'd forgotten that. Although, hooped cannons weren't as effective as cast, so the Europeans still had an advantage from their church bells, albeit a bit later than I'd thought.
 
1) Right infrastructure. The Roman Empire lacked a tradition of chemistry (often religiously shaped by alchemy) - China had one, since chemistry was a way to achieve the Taoist dream of eternal life. But there is still a little chance that a Roman scientist/philosopher accidentally discovers the right formula - but this probability is very low, which is why gunpowder was discovered in China and not in Rome or western Europe.

If you search for a possible person discovering gunpowder in ancient Europe, take this one.

You probably don't need the search for alchemy to get learned people to do some crazy chemistry. There is something elese that really bothered the great and mighty ruler of the ancient world, baldness.

"When Julius Caesar began losing his hair, he tried everything to reverse the curse and hide his shiny pate. First, he grew his thinning mane long in the back and brushed it over his scalp in an early version of the combover. When that didn’t work (hairspray had yet to be invented, after all), his lover Cleopatra recommended a home remedy consisting of ground-up mice, horse teeth and bear grease. This too had little effect, so the Roman dictator took to covering his scalp with a laurel wreath."
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/9-bizarre-baldness-cures

There are some other very creative cosmetic/medical recipes that are recorded at the time. Just have some looking for a baldness cure and accidentaly stumbling over something explosive. Alternately there are some other forumla to consider like sulfurless gunpowder or candy rockets (sugar/potassium nitrate). The later could easily be used for swirling fireworks etc. Especially since rocket candy can be used a porpellant but not an explosive. You get Hwachas but no guns or cannon. Maybe something like flechette and sabot type of weapon.

Speaking of sabot/flechette this might also be interesting regarding early roman cannon desings:

"Flechettes are fin stabilized steel projectiles similar in appearance to arrows which have a long history of munitions use. The first projectiles used in early gun systems from the 1300's were flechettes1, they were hand wrought of iron and wrapped with a leather sabot obturating the bore. They exhibited high lethality but fell from early use due to the complexity and expense of manufacture in pre-industrial society, being generally replaced by easily made stone cannon balls."

S008.jpg

http://www.sabotdesigns.com/001.html
 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
Apparently church bells had something to do with it -- the techniques needed to cast a big bell for a church tower are apparently much the same as those needed to cast a cannon. Non-Christian countries didn't have as much need for big bells, so their metallurgy/the number of people with knowledge of metallurgy was therefore lower.

I always suspected that God favors the artillery.
 
I thought the original cannons were built like barrels, with individual strakes of either wood or iron held together by hoops.

Old%20cannons%20001_1350155448.jpg


If the Romans can make a barrel, they could presumably make a cannon.

Here's a Roman barrel below. The challenge is with the hoops, as I believe the Romans used poor metal or even leather/rope.

x_barrel2.jpg


But, IOTL, we have to wait until the 1300s, at least https://www.wired.com/2009/08/0826crecy_cannon/
The need for cannons would develop a market for metals, if there's money to be made by advanced technology, technology will advanced rapidly.
 
Top