WI East Asian gunpowder revolution?

[Richard V]

Arguably the greatest revolution in military affairs was the 16th century European gunpowder revolution, where firearms replaced non-gunpowder weapons as the primary tools of war and that the musket armed infantry dominated battlefields.

Yet despite a longer history with gunpowder, firearms never became more than supporting weapons in East Asia. The closest East Asia came to making the switch was the Imjin War at the end of the 16th century where Japanese massed musketry saw extensive action against Chinese handgonnes and light artillery pieces. The Chinese had superior artillery but only small numbers of Turkish inspired muskets while the Japanese had such large stockpiles of Portuguese snapping matchlocks that some experts assert they actually had more firearms than the entirety of Europe at the time.

Following this war however the Japanese gradually withdrew their muskets from usage and reverted back to traditional ways of war. In China muskets and cannon technology improved significantly during the wars of the Ming collapse but again went into decline as the semi-nomadic conquering Manchus institutionalized horse archery at the expense of firearms.

But what if things turned out differently and the Imjin War had the effect on gunpowder revolution in East Asia as the Italian Wars had on Europe? The Japanese, Koreans, and Ming Chinese all make the switch to the matchlock and cannon. There was no technological or economic limitation. What effect would this have on world history?

 

[Richard V]

Anyone?

The most immediate impact would be a more rapid collapse of the Ming to internal revolt, as the ease of use of gunpowder weapons tend to favor peasant rebels. At the same time, the Manchus would find it impossible to take over China with the battlefield now dominated by musket infantry, their smaller horse based armies lose their competitive advantage.

 

[Kou Gakei]

I would say your analysis is looking in the wrong place: the reason why there were no "gunpowder revolutions" in East Asia was because the production of gunpowder was centralized into the state instead of the "free for all" situation in Europe.

 

[dead_wolf]

There was a gunpowder revolution in China - it simply took on a different form than that of which became popular in Europe and the Middle East. Gunpowder was discovered sometime in the mid-9th century, and by the early 10th the Song were widely using gunpowder weapons - mostly bombs and other incendiary explosives. These ranged from explosive arrows to early grenades to trebuchet-launched bombs. The Chinese were also quite found of flamethrowers, as the secret of Greek Fire reached China about the same time as the discovery of gunpowder explosives. By the time of Mongol Invasions these two technologies had largely combined, with early cannon, described as "fire lances," like the huo p'ao or the chen t'ien lei firing explosive incendiaries. The Mongols used these techniques in their invasions of Europe - the famed Mongol "fire catapults."

Musketry or the like never took off in China as that role was already filled by the repeating crossbow, though there was the t'u huo ch'iang, a type of bamboo shotgun.

 

[Flocculencio]

The gunpowder revolution is overrated. As others have pointed out gunpowder production in China was much more centralised but in India you did see a similar gunpowder revolution. It didn't have the same effect as the European one because the real revolution was in terms of military organisation and military institutions from the Thirty Years War onward.

Gunpowder is besides the point- it's the organisation that matters.

 

[Faeelin]

The gunpowder revolution is overrated. As others have pointed out gunpowder production in China was much more centralised but in India you did see a similar gunpowder revolution. It didn't have the same effect as the European one because the real revolution was in terms of military organisation and military institutions from the Thirty Years War onward.

Gunpowder is besides the point- it's the organisation that matters.

I don't know if I'd go that far; I think one plays into the other. But ask yourself this question: You're a Ming general in 1530. What good are muskets to you in your fight against Mongols?

 

[tenthring]

The English were still using longbows when the French were using muskets because they were better. The primary advantage of early gunpowder weapons is that you could arm peasants with them, throw them on the battlefield with little training, and they still have a combat value > 0.

Did the Chinese want or need to arm their peasants with muskets?

 

[Richard V]

There is a simple metric for this. During the Italian Wars the Spanish started to equip their infantry with 50% muskets 50% pikes, this was soon copied by most armies in Europe. Such a force structure would be highly effective against Mongolian horse archers as the infantry would inflect attrition against horse archers at a rate beyond replacement levels.

In late Ming China gunpowder small arms reached a height of 40%. Of which half were muskets and the rest three-eyed gun type weapons. The Manchu armies two centuries later were still used 20% matchlock musket infantry, but retired the older guns without replacement. IOW this came reasonably close to gunpowder revolution and wouldn't take too much of a stretch.

 

[Richard V]

The centralized production of gunpowder argument is interesting, but it was only centralized during a time of unified state. I'm not sure how centralized it was between dynasties.

 

[Kou Gakei]

The centralized production of gunpowder argument is interesting, but it was only centralized during a time of unified state. I'm not sure how centralized it was between dynasties.

Due to the highly centralized situation under the unified state, the rebel states didn't really have the skill to obtain independence in gunpowder before they were reunified again.

 

[Richard V]

Due to the highly centralized situation under the unified state, the rebel states didn't really have the skill to obtain independence in gunpowder before they were reunified again.

Do you have a source? I'm skeptical as Chinese "rebel states" would have comparable landmass and wealth to most European nation states. The period of the greatest firearms innovation in China took place during the overthrow of Mongol rule, there was certainly no centralization then.