WI: Gunpowder Discovered Under Justin I of the ERE?

[Elfwine]

Finally, and most importantly. The ERE could conquer all of Europe and Asia, but the corruption and rot in Constantinople will eventually eat away at the empire. There's a reason why emperor's couldn't leave the capital. Everytime they did, someone jumped on the throne.

OTL we see most interested emperors campaigning or otherwise leaving the capital without any particular problem in most periods of the empire's history, though.

There's no "inevitable corruption and rot will eventually eat away at the empire" more than any other state, and the succession as of Justin I has been reasonably stable.

I do think the main difference it obviously makes is that making sieges easier does dramatically impact things - not necessarily in the empire's favor, considering that Constantinople being really hard to take was historically a major advantage. But an empire with a hundred years of development of gunpowder is going to have a hundred years of changes from OTL by the mid-seventh century, so it's a good question where things go on who is a major threat.
.

 

[dandan_noodles]

I don't think so. Shock troopers on horses were beneficial up until the 1800s.

Useful, yes, but far less so than in earlier periods. Going off Polybios, ancient cavalry was 8x as powerful as infantry (it being better to half twice the cavalry and half the infantry of your enemy than the other way around, a la Cannae), but during the Napoleonic Wars, a cavalry trooper was only about 2.5x as powerful (90k infantry and 5k cavalry being enough to force 40k infantry and 25k cavalry from the field at Lutzen), while costing 5x as much per man. This exact quantification is a little artificial, but there can be absolutely zero doubt that the proliferation of firearms led to a steep decline in the relative importance of cavalry.

More important, though, is that the knight's position in society didn't really come from the usefulness of cavalry on the battlefield. Rather, it was the ability of mounted men, based out of defensible castles, to lay waste to wide swaths of surrounding territory that made them important. The only real way to stop an army with a strong gunpowder artillery park is one of your own, which prices most knights and nobles out of the game. They can no longer defend their strongholds, and so can no longer control territory the way they did.

Gunpowder thus nerfs knights both tactically and strategically.

 

[Dan Handsome]

OTL we see most interested emperors campaigning or otherwise leaving the capital without any particular problem in most periods of the empire's history, though.

There's no "inevitable corruption and rot will eventually eat away at the empire" more than any other state, and the succession as of Justin I has been reasonably stable.

I do think the main difference it obviously makes is that making sieges easier does dramatically impact things - not necessarily in the empire's favor, considering that Constantinople being really hard to take was historically a major advantage. But an empire with a hundred years of development of gunpowder is going to have a hundred years of changes from OTL by the mid-seventh century, so it's a good question where things go on who is a major threat.
.

I honestly feel this won't save the ERE one way or another. We don't know how long it would take to effectively weaponize gunpowder. Realistically, the ERE's neighbors will likely get their hands on the recipe for gunpowder and potentially utilize it against them. Assuming gunpowder weapons do develop, the ERE will likely be localized to Anatolia and the Balkans. Maybe this helps them retain their territory, but really, their biggest issue here is steppe nomads coming into Anatolia.

 

[Goldensilver81]

I honestly feel this won't save the ERE one way or another. We don't know how long it would take to effectively weaponize gunpowder. Realistically, the ERE's neighbors will likely get their hands on the recipe for gunpowder and potentially utilize it against them. Assuming gunpowder weapons do develop, the ERE will likely be localized to Anatolia and the Balkans. Maybe this helps them retain their territory, but really, their biggest issue here is steppe nomads coming into Anatolia.

If the Turks or their variants show up in the 11th century guns might have evolved to the point of it paralleling the late 15th century
The ottoman gunpowder weapons defeated the ak koyunlu so it depends on when the steppe nomads in Anatolia arrive and how much gunpowder weapons evolved the later the better as it makes their tactics more irrelevant

 

[Dan Handsome]

If the Turks or their variants show up in the 11th century guns might have evolved to the point of it paralleling the late 15th century
The ottoman gunpowder weapons defeated the ak koyunlu so it depends on when the steppe nomads in Anatolia arrive and how much gunpowder weapons evolved the later the better as it makes their tactics more irrelevant

That's a very generous assumption.

 

[Carnivorous Vegetarian]

There are other important uses for explosives than just warfare, like in mining and construction.

 

[dandan_noodles]

Even primitive black powder weapons were useful, as demonstrated by the fact that the Chinese used them on a huge scale before proper guns were invented. That said, once the Byzantines develop corned gunpowder and its associated weapons systems (long barreled muskets and artillery, geometric fortifications), they're going to be very hard to dislodge from whatever territories they have at that point. If one considers the major powers that had mature gunpowder weapons in the mid~ 16th century, how many of them were completely absorbed in the Early Modern era the way the Byzantines were?

 

[M79]

Justinian has a better time conquering the former Western empire and the Byzantines *might* be able to hold Italy and northern Africa. Spain is likely conquered to the northern mountains with pushback from the Visigoths while coastal France falls only to be retaken by the Franks later. Muslim armies are halted by Byzantines wielding flintlocks at Yarmouk and Islam remains confined to the Arabian peninsula. Byzantiun gains a stronger position over the Sassinids but though northern Iraq and Georgia/Armenia fall into their orbit, Baghdad and the Euphrates remain the Roman frontier.

 

[cmakk1012]

The counter argument to the idea that the Byzantines are inherently doomed in this scenario is that gunpowder doesn’t just change the balance of power between countries; it also changes the balance of power between the central authority and its subjects. Effective gunpowder weapons tended to lead to more effective centralization efforts because the crown had the wealth to fund expensive gunpowder armies and supply trains better than powerful nobles—and their castles were much less effective at keeping the crown out during a rebellion.

so no, in the short term gunpowder on its own won’t help the Empire that much. In the long run, though, Constantinople might be able to curtail the powers and rights of the magnates that often gave it so much trouble and cut down on at least some of the infighting. Look at the OTL Ottomans for an example of how this will likely go.

 

[Petike]

After 1000 AD, Anna Comnena spoke with some level of astonishment and unfamiliarity about crossbows, calling them "new weapons". This occured despite the Eastern Roman Empire and WRE being a single empire not long ago, and the arcuballista style crossbow being a late Roman invention. The crossbow didn't seem to spread much as a concept in the ERE, or was even forgotten about and lost for several centuries, until a much later and hesitant reintroduction. Despite being a Roman invention.

Yes, crossbows felt alien and new to Anna Comnena. These didn't even have stirrups at the time. Now imagine the Byzantines making the tech leap from accidentally discovering gunpowder on their own in the time of Justinian I, to the Byzantine equivalent of handgonnes and medieval cannons. Some four centuries or more before Anna's time, a time when even crossbows eluded Byzantine military thinkers. Honestly, I think Byzantine set-in-our-ways style thinking of the empire's political and military apparatus would go against the implementation of gunpowder for military uses. Like in China, they'd probably use it for entertainment, with only a few token dogged stragglers insisting it could be useful as an explosive thrown by catapults, or something that you could use to shoot spears or stone balls with, from bronze or iron tubes.

People like to paint the Byzantines as some amazing innovators, but when it comes to military technologies at least, I've always found them to be strangely conservative. In that "nothing that came to us after antiquity is good enough to adopt". They took some inspiration from Middle Eastern military tech, to a small extent, but they were stuck rather firmly in a late antiquity and early medieval mindset about warfare. It's no wonder they were so taken aback when the crusaders invaded or when the Ottomans started pounding them with cannons a few centuries later.

I'd compare it to how in WWI, a lot of generals insisted on increasingly outdated military tactics, resulting in the deaths of many, and only begrudgingly took up newer technologies, because they had rather conservative instincts concerning military inventories. Same with the resistance of many military officers in post-war France to create a dedicated armoured vehicle segment of the ground forces, arguing that tanks surely won't play that big a role in another war. It's natural to be overly conservative towards new technologies, particularly if you live in an empire of plenty like the Byzantine, where people seemed increasingly risk-averse when it comes to innovation. People are conservatively minded, especially people in politics and the military, particularly in a pre-industrial era. Rhomaion, the Byzantine Empire, or whatever you want to call it, needed military strategist thinking that would be more open to adopting things like gunpowder utilizing weapons. Otherwise it'll be just something they write off as a nice and curious invention, but of little immediate military value.

The challenge therefore isn't merely technological, it's philosophical/institutional.

The counter argument to the idea that the Byzantines are inherently doomed in this scenario is that gunpowder doesn’t just change the balance of power between countries; it also changes the balance of power between the central authority and its subjects. (...)

A very good point.

 

[Goldensilver81]

After 1000 AD, Anna Comnena spoke with some level of astonishment and unfamiliarity about crossbows, calling them "new weapons". This occured despite the Eastern Roman Empire and WRE being a single empire not long ago, and the arcuballista style crossbow being a late Roman invention. The crossbow didn't seem to spread much as a concept in the ERE, or was even forgotten about and lost for several centuries, until a much later and hesitant reintroduction. Despite being a Roman invention.

Yes, crossbows felt alien and new to Anna Comnena. These didn't even have stirrups at the time. Now imagine the Byzantines making the tech leap from accidentally discovering gunpowder on their own in the time of Justinian I, to the Byzantine equivalent of handgonnes and medieval cannons. Some four centuries or more before Anna's time, a time when even crossbows eluded Byzantine military thinkers. Honestly, I think Byzantine set-in-our-ways style thinking of the empire's political and military apparatus would go against the implementation of gunpowder for military uses. Like in China, they'd probably use it for entertainment, with only a few token dogged stragglers insisting it could be useful as an explosive thrown by catapults, or something that you could use to shoot spears or stone balls with, from bronze or iron tubes.

People like to paint the Byzantines as some amazing innovators, but when it comes to military technologies at least, I've always found them to be strangely conservative. In that "nothing that came to us after antiquity is good enough to adopt". They took some inspiration from Middle Eastern military tech, to a small extent, but they were stuck rather firmly in a late antiquity and early medieval mindset about warfare. It's no wonder they were so taken aback when the crusaders invaded or when the Ottomans started pounding them with cannons a few centuries later.

I'd compare it to how in WWI, a lot of generals insisted on increasingly outdated military tactics, resulting in the deaths of many, and only begrudgingly took up newer technologies, because they had rather conservative instincts concerning military inventories. Same with the resistance of many military officers in post-war France to create a dedicated armoured vehicle segment of the ground forces, arguing that tanks surely won't play that big a role in another war. It's natural to be overly conservative towards new technologies, particularly if you live in an empire of plenty like the Byzantine, where people seemed increasingly risk-averse when it comes to innovation. People are conservatively minded, especially people in politics and the military, particularly in a pre-industrial era. Rhomaion, the Byzantine Empire, or whatever you want to call it, needed military strategist thinking that would be more open to adopting things like gunpowder utilizing weapons. Otherwise it'll be just something they write off as a nice and curious invention, but of little immediate military value.

The challenge therefore isn't merely technological, it's philosophical/institutional.



A very good point.

Simple because crossbow had been rediscovered as weapon in 947 and Anna is not a military commander surprising her and being alien to her does not mean the empire especially since the Byzantines had been using Western mercenaries a lot ever since the later half of the 11th century and to be fair why adopt them early crossbows where bad made out of pure wood and had horrible draw wiegth and where used for sieges it's not till 1100 when ana is writing that the idea of the stereotypical crossbow of the medieval era evolves
In terms of the Byzantines adapting this was literally what they did
By the time the ottomans showed up with canons the Byzantines already had guns while primitive they couldn't afford any more than that since their empire had been reduced to a city .

I however agree that gunpowder to go guns would not take years or a century but at least 4 at minimum

 

[Petike]

Simple because crossbow had been rediscovered as weapon in 947 and Anna is not a military commander surprising her and being alien to her does not mean the empire especially since the Byzantines had been using Western mercenaries a lot ever since the later half of the 11th century and to be fair why adopt them early crossbows where bad made out of pure wood and had horrible draw wiegth and where used for sieges it's not till 1100 when ana is writing that the idea of the stereotypical crossbow of the medieval era evolves
In terms of the Byzantines adapting this was literally what they did
By the time the ottomans showed up with canons the Byzantines already had guns while primitive they couldn't afford any more than that since their empire had been reduced to a city.

They were hardly a lost technology. At most, they were underestimate and people bothered to develop them a lot less, for some four hundred to five hundred years. Which just goes to show how long it can take for an invention to mature and be refined enough for common practical use.

I however agree that gunpowder to go guns would not take years or a century but at least 4 at minimum

Indeed, this is what we can both agree on. And this is something I draw attention to in my previous paragraph: It's not enough having a technology, you also need to refine it to make it viable in terms of mass production, and in the case of military inventions, active military use.

Otherwise we'd have been using revolvers since tje 16th century, when they were first invented, but we didn't really until the 19th century, when the technological and mass production aspects were finally refined.

People who think that merely coming up with some material or basic inventions means swift innovations are now forever guaranteed tend to deceive themselves. As Thande used to say, caveman Ugh inventing a simple wooden wheel doesn't mean his descendants will be riding around in Bugatti Veyrons in a hundred years time.