What's the Earliest Practical Firearms Could Be Introduced?

[Emperor Norton I]

Gunpowder already existed in China for a long time before being introduced to the rest of Eurasia. However, the (ever warring) Europeans made major innovations in practical gunpowder weapons and engineered the modern firearm. The earliest firearms were in the late Medieval period and were hand-canons. The Europeans developed these into the arquebus, etc. The gun drew a dividing line in military history that came before and after, and changed the face of warfare. As firearms and canons improved, armor became less effective and eventually unused, walled defenses became less effective, armies could afford less training of their soldiers than martial weapons had required, etc.

My question is how early could practical firearms and gunpowder be introduced? And what would happen if they were introduced earlier?

 

[Rognvald]

The Chinese fire-lance predates European firearms, and in the later period of its development (13th century-ish) had been redesigned for multiple shot usage rather than a spear accessory. Maybe that shift takes place earlier? Unsure what would cause that, though.

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Would a bored-out mastodon femur (say 12" thick, 1 inch barrel), wrapped in silk cord, be strong enough to use as a neolithic black powder gun barrel? ( Or just a bone fragment pipe bomb for the unfortunate inventor?)

 

[ordinarylittleme]

If firearms were introduced sooner, well, wars could be a lot more destructive...

 

[kholieken]

"Practical" ?

Earlier gunpowder rely more on sound and flash, and had serious limitations but it can kill. It took centuries until guns could compete with crossbows and longbows, but it still useful addition to army. Cannon is effective on thin European walls, thick rammed earth walls can resist cannon until 19th century.

 

[NotedCoyote]

Gunpowder already existed in China for a long time before being introduced to the rest of Eurasia. However, the (ever warring) Europeans made major innovations in practical gunpowder weapons and engineered the modern firearm. The earliest firearms were in the late Medieval period and were hand-canons. The Europeans developed these into the arquebus, etc. The gun drew a dividing line in military history that came before and after, and changed the face of warfare. As firearms and canons improved, armor became less effective and eventually unused, walled defenses became less effective, armies could afford less training of their soldiers than martial weapons had required, etc.

My question is how early could practical firearms and gunpowder be introduced? And what would happen if they were introduced earlier?

"Practical" cannons came about earlier than firearms, if by practical you mean battlefield defining. By the 15th century artillery was already a major factor, sometimes decisive, on the battlefield, and traditional walled fortifications were becoming obsolete. But bombards were still practical enough to be used a century earlier. As for firearms, they played a role in shaping the development of tactics and armour from around the same time, but didn't render armour ineffective until the mid 17th century (and even then, the growing size of armies played a role in its disappearance).

The utility of the earliest cannons was somewhat limited by the quality of available gunpowder, and the danger of working with it and manufacturing it. Some improvements to that process, like adding liquid while grinding it, don't require advanced technology. In theory those could be made at any time.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

I think a bigger issue than availability of gunpowder was the technology level needed to cast cannons. Being able to cast cannons that don't shatter on impact to me is more of a limiting factor than developing the powder itself.

 

[Count of Crisco]

I think a bigger issue than availability of gunpowder was the technology level needed to cast cannons. Being able to cast cannons that don't shatter on impact to me is more of a limiting factor than developing the powder itself.

You need metal strong enough to survive the blast without just exploding. But also you need powder which does more than smoke and flash. Early forms of black powder had very little oof behind them.

So first you need to develop the stuff, then you need to refine it enough that it can cause damage, and then finally you need metallurgy strong enough to withstand the blast from the improved powder.

 

[nepcotevalley]

You need metal strong enough to survive the blast without just exploding. But also you need powder which does more than smoke and flash. Early forms of black powder had very little oof behind them.

So first you need to develop the stuff, then you need to refine it enough that it can cause damage, and then finally you need metallurgy strong enough to withstand the blast from the improved powder.

It took a lot of hard work to refine cannon. A lot of trial and error. Errors which could very easily become fatal ones.
Even Kings could fall victim to such occurrences. As King James II of Scotland discovered in the year 1460 . When he and number of other bystanders where killed instantly when one of his cannons named " The Lion " exploded . During a siege that took place in the Wars of the Roses.

 

[TheCataphract]

I think a bigger issue than availability of gunpowder was the technology level needed to cast cannons. Being able to cast cannons that don't shatter on impact to me is more of a limiting factor than developing the powder itself.

Bronze was preferred for cannons for a long time for exactly this reason. Notably though that perhaps means that they could become widespread even sooner. Bronze isn't cheap of course, but if you can outfit a number of warships with bronze guns, as was done OTL, then an army isn't much more difficult.

So at least in theory gunpowder weapons can become widespread as soon as the formula for gunpowder is refined into something useful for guns, and add a little time for folks to discover that longer barrels and smaller shot are the way to go.