Since we're before 1900, I can't answer this question.Could there have been any possibility of a WW1 sort of conflict into the 20th century where muskets were still used?
Could there have been any possibility of a WW1 sort of conflict into the 20th century where muskets were still used?
Like the Pope who forbade use of cross-bows on 'Christians', you'd need some sort of 'Geneva Convention' that banned 'rifled' weapons of war...
Perhaps the lack of smokeless powder would be an easier PoD. Without it, guns are limited, while not to the point of muzzle loading rifles, but much less precise and powerful. (It was introduced with the Lebel in 1886).
Perhaps the lack of smokeless powder would be an easier PoD. Without it, guns are limited, while not to the point of muzzle loading rifles, but much less precise and powerful. (It was introduced with the Lebel in 1886).
Are we talking "rifles" in the sense of long guns, or "rifles" in the sense of weapons with grooved barrels for superior accuracy?And yet, Christians used cross-bows. And they dropped them not because of the pope, but because of rifles. So if the pope wants to loose his authority even faster than OTL, then yes, he should ban rifles.
Hell, IIRC some west African state was experimenting with their own black powder substitute in order to avoid being reliant on European supplies.The problem is that many people from every industrialized or semi-industrialied was trying to develop something better than black powder. If the French don't then the British or the Germans or the Americans will. Once any kind of chemical industry develops even rudimentary they will discover something better than black powder.
You would still have machine guns, maxim made his first machine gun in 45-70 government in the 1880'sPerhaps the lack of smokeless powder would be an easier PoD. Without it, guns are limited, while not to the point of muzzle loading rifles, but much less precise and powerful. (It was introduced with the Lebel in 1886).