WI no gunpowder

[A Random Person]

You're better off having that gunpowder is never discovered at all, than having the extremely impossible scenario of a continent of people outright rejecting gunpowder.

so, what would happen. how many more people will be alive today, what other technology would be used to work around no gunpowder?

 

[Chengar Qordath]

so, what would happen. how many more people will be alive today, what other technology would be used to work around no gunpowder?

Well, major states like the Mughal Empire and the Ottomans that had a big advantage in their conquests by being ahead of the curve in gunpowder technology compared their neighbors will probably be less successful than OTL. Colonization of the Americas by Europeans might be somewhat slowed down, but disease and superior technology are still going to tell.

As far as what would happen, militarily I imagine we'd see a continuation of the castle as an effective defensive fortification, with the battlefield dominated by Spanish-style Tercios (they used heavy arbalests prior to the emergence of firearms OTL, no reason not to do so here). Further on from the divergence, metallurgy and mechanics are going to see even more heavy emphasis on OTL; we could see something like all-steel catapults with complex winding mechanisms allowing them to hold sufficient tension to launch stone or steel projectiles with velocity approaching that of cannons. The arbalest might end up largely taking on the role of the gun, seeing as it shares the benefit of being fairly easy to train and is effective at penetrating armor, though mass production might not be as practical.

Oh, and there's no difference in the number of people who would be alive today with no gunpowder.

 

[Michael B]

1) Naval warfare is going to be different in that European sailing ships won't have the guns to blast their Islamic enemies to pieces. That is going to make European voyaging across the Indian ocean more risky.

2) European states can going to continue to be decentralised. One effect of gunpower was the artillery train that cut its way into any castle. Without that rebellious barons are going harder to bring into line.

 

[General Mung Beans]

so, what would happen. how many more people will be alive today, what other technology would be used to work around no gunpowder?

If there is no gunpowder your question should be "How many less people will be alive today?" since gunpowder ended feudalism and thus allowed the Renesccines.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

If there is no gunpowder your question should be "How many less people will be alive today?" since gunpowder ended feudalism and thus allowed the Renesccines.

The Renaissance was well under way before gunpowder weapons were developed and widespread, while feudalism lasted well past the development of gunpowder weapons.

That said, without gunpowder people kill each other with different weapons, and most likely come up with other ways of doing it just as effectively. Its not like with no gunpowder means all weapons development and technology is permenantly frozen in the 15th century; alternative technological developments like steel-framed catapults and repeating crossbows could end up giving Europe just as decisive an advantage in killing power as gunpowder did OTL.

 

[SRT]

As far as early changes go, you won't see too many, since in a lot of ways crossbows were very similar to early guns -- they reloaded just as slow, so volley fire was still important (though they were very accurate, I believe moreso than primitive firearms). As people have mentioned, artillery is the most important.

I just had an idea about people besieging a castle and using acidic compounds to burn down the walls. Now, that'd be cool... In fact, chemical warfare may be more widespread in general. With a catapult or trebuchet you may not be able to punch down walls, but you certainly could launch a canister full of poison over walls -- this happened OTL (including such things as launching rotting corpses over the walls to cause infections), but seemed to lose popularity as castles did, as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong).

Professional armies will probably last longer than OTL, though not too much longer, especially when someone figures out its a lot more cost effective to give 1,000 peasants crossbows than 100 knights a full suit of armor, a horse, and so on...

The impact on naval warfare is huge. I'm... not even really sure how it was prosecuted before gunpowder was invented. Arrows, then boarding?

Another important thing is to consider the non-military aspects of explosives, such as construction, clearing land, etc... Of course, I think by the time this comes around, people will have discovered some other sort of explosive (or gunpowder, or whatever). The fact is that there are a lot of chemical compounds out there that explode and people are eventually going to find them.

 

[carlton_bach]

As far as early changes go, you won't see too many, since in a lot of ways crossbows were very similar to early guns -- they reloaded just as slow, so volley fire was still important (though they were very accurate, I believe moreso than primitive firearms). As people have mentioned, artillery is the most important.

I just had an idea about people besieging a castle and using acidic compounds to burn down the walls. Now, that'd be cool... In fact, chemical warfare may be more widespread in general. With a catapult or trebuchet you may not be able to punch down walls, but you certainly could launch a canister full of poison over walls -- this happened OTL (including such things as launching rotting corpses over the walls to cause infections), but seemed to lose popularity as castles did, as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong).

It was done and especially in East Asia reached a fairly high standard, but it was not terribly effective. Thinks like incendiary grenades, 'stink pots' and flame projectors remained in use well into the age of gunpowder, but the whole field didn't come into its own until modern technology gave it really viable tools. It's not easy making a weaponised poison.

I wrote a roleplaying article on that subject once. If you are into it, you could do worse than read Adrienne Mayor: Greek Fire, Poison Arrows and Scorpion Bombs (Duckworth, Woodstock et al 2004).

Professional armies will probably last longer than OTL, though not too much longer, especially when someone figures out its a lot more cost effective to give 1,000 peasants crossbows than 100 knights a full suit of armor, a horse, and so on...

What broke the back of the knights was the steady improvement of infantry tactics and the monetisation of the economy much more than gunpowder. In most of the historic 'turning point' battles we get quoted (Legnano, Poitiers, Crecy, Agincourt, Sempach, Murten, Grandson), gunpowder weapons played a minor role while disciplined archery and/or formation fighting were decisive.

The impact on naval warfare is huge. I'm... not even really sure how it was prosecuted before gunpowder was invented. Arrows, then boarding?

That and ramming, flame projectors, rockets and maneuvering tactics. But basically, naval warfare was mostly hand-to-hand without the option of retreat. If it stays that way, that's a major drawback for the Europeans.

Another important thing is to consider the non-military aspects of explosives, such as construction, clearing land, etc... Of course, I think by the time this comes around, people will have discovered some other sort of explosive (or gunpowder, or whatever). The fact is that there are a lot of chemical compounds out there that explode and people are eventually going to find them.

The problem is that gunpowder is far and away the easiest explosive to make, and once you start looking into the chemistry of incendiary weapons with any sustaineed effort, you are bound to come up with it sooner or later. The only way you can delay the discovery by more than a few centuries is to discourage that research, and that would require a massive POD sometime in the first millennium AD, if not earlier. 'Gunpowder discovered in 1450' or 'gunpowder discovered in Europe, not China' is moderately plausible. 'No gunpowder' is hard.