NationStates Jolt Archive

Gunpowder is surely one of the most important inventions in history, at least with regards to its impact on history. It revolutionized warfare as we know it. But what if it had never been discovered? What if the Rennaisance had happened without the extinction of medieval warfare?

School shootings would end after the first arrow.

Gunpowder is surely one of the most important inventions in history, at least with regards to its impact on history. It revolutionized warfare as we know it. But what if it had never been discovered? What if the Rennaisance had happened without the extinction of medieval warfare?

Then we'd still be hacking away at each other with pikes and maces.

the ak would never have been invented, africa wouldnt be so totally and entirely butt sexed, che geuvera woulda been a doctor, I really do wonder about the war of independence and the easter rising, as well as ww1 and 2...
:mp5:

Everyone would live in castles and it would suck.

I don't know about that I've kind of always wanted to live in one :)

Everyone would live in castles and it would suck. The only reason people moved out of castles is because cannonballs where able to knock down the walls.

Gas and mechanical propellants would eventually take gunpowders place, but I don't know that it would have been as sudden. It might not be as much of an 'equalizer,' so the power would stay pretty centralized. I think the biggest impact would have been the New World and colonization. It might have taken longer and ended up more integrated.

Plus, 4th of July would suck.

Actually, our (I'm American, if the 4th of July thing didn't give it away) revolution might have been delayed since there would be a larger rift between the weapons available to your average colonial vs what the British could bring to the table.

Lightsabers would be in style.

One idea I had would be that melee weapons would continue to be developed.

In the 17th century, the katana would have been introduced to Europe. The debate over which sword is more effective would have been settled on the battlefields of Europe.

Meanwhile, work on armor-piercing weaponry would have continued. Maybe metal bows could have made an appearance. There is also the possibility of the Chinese chu ko nu (repeating crossbow) being imported.

As for the impact on history, the American Revolution might have seen a few changes to warfare. I doubt there would have been much more cavalry action than in our timeline - America is too rugged for that. Instead, the American Revolution would have been an archer's war. I could see the Americans adopting Native American fighting styles. Yorktown would not have been a relatively quick battle, but a siege, as French trebuchets battered away at Yorktown Castle while American and British archers tried to blot out the sun. The American military might be composed primarily of archers, rather than footsoldiers.

The next revolution might have come with the invention of the chainsaw, which in this alternate history would have become a viable weapon.

The modern army would be equipped with carbon fiber plate mail, kevlar padding and armed with compound long bows and titanium alloy sabers. It would be awesome.

One idea I had would be that melee weapons would continue to be developed.

In the 17th century, the katana would have been introduced to Europe. The debate over which sword is more effective would have been settled on the battlefields of Europe.

Katana would've never made it in Europe. Against steel armor it's next to useless.

The modern army would be equipped with carbon fiber plate mail, kevlar padding and armed with compound long bows and titanium alloy sabers. It would be awesome.

No, they'd have titanium alloy chainswords.

John Woo films would look rather dorky without semiautomatic and automatic firearms.

Technology and development is an absolute, only the types vary. If gunpowder hadn't been discovered, something else would have.

No matter what, we'd still be killing each other, and it'd be equally brutal.

China would still have the world's strongest military. XD

China would still have the world's strongest military. XD

Well, assuming China didn't try to become the world's number one arms dealer.

John Woo films would look rather dorky without semiautomatic and automatic firearms.

That's why we'd invent semi-automatic / automatic bows! Duh!

And how would Star Wars look like without guns? Would the Imperials wield energy swords?

And how would Star Wars look like without guns? Would the Imperials wield energy swords?

Nope. Weirding Modules.

If gunpowder had never been discovered it would change the meaning of phrases like "guns don't kill people" relegating it to science fiction stuff like light sabers.

It would also reverse some roles since bringing a gun (or other paperweight) to a knife fight would be very hazardous to one's health.

Hunting big game with a bow and a knife would certainly be more sporting.

Nobody would be applying for conceal to carry longbow permit under one's suit or in one's purse, but pistol sized hand held crossbows might need them.

Air powered pistols would be the high tech stuff on the battlefield...

We would be facing our foes on the honorable field of battle face to face, where courage, valor, and skill at arms won the day.


Im sorry, Im getting my Masters and PhD in Medieval Sudies....sometimes I think I was born in the wrong century;)

No gunpowder plot.... No Guy Fawkes.

We would be facing our foes on the honorable field of battle face to face, where courage, valor, and skill at arms won the day.


Im sorry, Im getting my Masters and PhD in Medieval Sudies....sometimes I think I was born in the wrong century;)

Indeedy...I'm not up to post-grad yet (damn it I wish I was...grrr ;)) but otherwise I'm in total agreement...

What if we lived in a what-if world?

Then Arabs will won against the Turks and seize the Asia & Africa (and probably America and Europe too...)

Without gunpowder weapons, armor would have continued to develop, as well as melee weapons. Also, European influence on other continents would have been notably less effective. This would have even halted their advance on Old World continents enough that they wouldn't have the incentive of new lands to expand into or trade routes to use that would call for exploration. So, the Americas wouldn't have come into existence save for the Aztec Empire. So, let's ignore that and look at the development of Africa, Australia, and Eurasia.

Without the Americas, the desire for African slaves would be diminished considerably, meaning any expansion in Africa would be for land, and there would be no turning tribes against one another to benefit from the conflicts of others. Native Africans, by contrast, would be able to capture European equipment to use for themselves, altering it to their own style. Most likely favoring lighter armor and reach weapons for stealthful hunting and guerilla warfare.

Australia would probably develop as it had, although more competent resistence from the natives would have diminished its functionality as a prison island.

Finally, Eurasia. I'll address that one tomorrow when I'm less sleepy and more thinky.

Then we'd still be hacking away at each other with pikes and maces.
You make that sound like a bad thing.

personally i'd be happier if rome, and its subsiquent disintigration into medevil warfare, had never been invented.

explosives are useful for blasting rights of way through solid rock on the sides of and through mountains.

what needs to have not been invented is the mentality of wanting to make something to kill or hurt anybody out of everything.

like maybe if no one ever figgured out how to make gunbarrells that wouldn't blow up in thier faces or something more like that.

i guess though, without explosives, large rock massess would just be something, like oceans and wide lakes and ravines, some other way would have to have been found to go arround. there would certainly be a LOT less of the mining industry. and without that, a LOT less of anything metalic to go arround.

we might have come up with some other way to go streight to polymerization, but otherwise, we'd have consumed so much forrest products we'd all suffocate because by now there wouldn't be a tree left standing.

er, that is, unless improvements in medicine hadn't come along to extend our livetimes resaulting in our current overpopulation.

there's a LOT of other possible variables of course, but still it would have in many ways been best of all for 'the middle ages' as we 'know' them on THIS time line, to have not happened at all.

wars and fanatacism have wasted so much of our species time of existence from what we could have accompleshed and where we'd be now without them.

but gunpowder is NOT the absolute key to that. other military tecnologies and concepts and down right mentality made possible the roll black powder, and later more advanced explosives, have played in conflict and even in there having been conflicts take the violent form of warfare.

=^^=
.../\...

Maybe the modern notion of national government wouldn't be around. A big part in the decline of old-school feudalism was the way cannons could bring down castles and guns could bring down armour, thus replacing armies of knights and levied soldiers who spent a lot of money on fancy kit with mass armies made up of glorified peasants with guns.

Of course the crossbow played a part there too and I think the likeliest option is that something to the same effect as gunpowder weaponry would have been developed. Can't really imagine what though.

Railgun time!

I was thinking, too, that cultural colonization would be more the norm than conquest since it would be easier to come in and say, "You need this, and you have too much of that" than it would be to take stuff by force if you can't have a meaningful arms advantage. Development continues, just more slowly and instead of conquering places like Africa and the Americas trade begins a slow cultural colonization. Oil, gas, and other flammables become the weapons of war, instead of individual propellants explosions are what armies build on.

This sort of expands on the more integrated thing I was talking about in the first one.

As always, when you change anything in history, nazis would have won WWII and taken over America.
Don't ask me why, that's just how it works.

We would be facing our foes on the honorable field of battle face to face, where courage, valor, and skill at arms won the day.
And after those battles, the occurrence of PTSD would probably be much, much higher. The one benefit of guns and killing from a distance is the impersonality of it and the small bit of psychological protection that provides. A lot of those ancient warriors were fucked up in the head after fighting, it's just one of those neat little things that people would rather ignore.
As always, when you change anything in history, nazis would have won WWII and taken over America.
Don't ask me why, that's just how it works.

Oh, and zeppelins. We can't forget those, now!

Awwww.:( Without gunpowder we wouldn't have fireworks.:( But it also would've made things so much easier. No guns, and I would've loved that.:cool:

I imagine there'd be no Holocaust, and alot harder to pen people against their will.
I wonder would the Atomic bomb still be invented? It might ruin the fighting a bit. Would any nuclear technology be invented at all?

Pirate ships would look like pansies.
I also imagine medicine wouldn't be as effective as nowadays, nor antibiotics.

I suppose there'd be no air travel, not sure about cars though but i doubt they'd be invented either.

I suppose World War one would be an even more bloody affair, and mustard gas would reign supreme.
I imagine methods of government would be ruled by despots with the most effective fighting men.
now Communism might work in this intance, don't ask me how but i think it could, as capitalism relied on factory work, and without factories or any means of mass production, squalor and disease might be even worse. We'd probably have even more extreme religious beliefs.
Men would dominate the family, so domestic violence would rise, other forms of relationships (e.g. Homosexual etc) would still be frowned upon, as the extreme religions would also be backward. I imagine civil rights would take a backward step, but the environment might be more healthy.

Of course i could easiliy be wrong because in a what if world almost anything is possible, in the respect that we are discussing what could be without knowing. (in other words i could be talking shit).

Conclusion your guess is as good as mine.

Gunpowder is surely one of the most important inventions in history, at least with regards to its impact on history. It revolutionized warfare as we know it. But what if it had never been discovered? What if the Rennaisance had happened without the extinction of medieval warfare?

Actually it wasn't gunpowder that revolutioned warfare in the Renaissance.
Here in Italy, our Renaissance began 2 centuries before the mass-introduction of firearms in the battlefield (around 1500). The crossbow, the pike and full-plate steel armour were quite revolutionary already in 1300.

Btw, pikes, swords and plate armour were still quite used until the introduction of the wheel-lock. Take the Thirthy-Years War.

Guy Fawkes Night, Hogmany and many other celebrations would be a lot less noisy, and there'd be a lot less 'oohing' and 'aaahing' in the world.

Oh, and we wouldn't have 'em firesticks.

Feudalism, and class bigotry similar to feudal japan would be the fad.

If we take into account that the rest of tecnology advances in the equal sense as today, without gunpowder, I would see less wars, and less destructive ones.

Regarding weapons, I'd say that the flamer would reign supreme in the battlefield, and asbestos armor would be the favourite piece of equipment for officers.

We would be facing our foes on the honorable field of battle face to face, where courage, valor, and skill at arms won the day.


Im sorry, Im getting my Masters and PhD in Medieval Sudies....sometimes I think I was born in the wrong century;)


Come on, if you are getting a PHD in the stuff, then you KNOW there were plenty of battles where courage and valor got their butts kicked.

Remember to remove the filters: the winning side ALWAYS emphasizes their courage and valor to the historians. But when you look at it objectively, there were plenty of battles in which a brave and valiant army charged into suicide.

The Battle of Tours, in brief:

"For Islam, for stealing gold and virgins, for the fact that we outnumber them three to one, charge, CHARGE!"

"For Christianity, We've got pointy sticks!"

"We have horses. Guys with pointy sticks always drop them when the horses are charging."

"Not this time."

"Oops, miscalculation on our part then. Charge... oomph... bleed, bleed"

"Hey, while you're bleeding we can steal your stuff!"

"NOT OUR STUFF! We stole that fair and square! Run away, retreat!"

We would be facing our foes on the honorable field of battle face to face, where courage, valor, and skill at arms won the day.


Im sorry, Im getting my Masters and PhD in Medieval Sudies....sometimes I think I was born in the wrong century;)

Don't worry, I share the same feeling. I know I'm definately from the wrong century.

I imagine there'd be no Holocaust, and alot harder to pen people against their will.
.

You might imagine this, but the problem is, there are people with damn good imaginations who have other ideas. Hulagu Khan managed to slaughter up to two hundred thousand in Baghdad without the use of modern firearms. Shaka depopulated what is now Zimbabwe. Creativity and sharp implements can accomplish a lot.

I imagine methods of government would be ruled by despots with the most effective fighting men.

ie, the way the world pretty much worked with scattered exceptions, until a different idea started gaining momentum in 1776.

Any explosive can be used to replace gunpowder.


My guess would be that we'd have at least twice as deadly guns around and that the Swedes would rule the world.

We would have to fight wars by tossing Elvis records at each other..

The Longbow would be the deadliest weapon in existence for alot longer. Anyone who had them would rape and pillage, those without would struggle.

How can you not have a longbow? It's just wood and sinew.

I think whoever has the trebuchet would be in a better position.

without gunpowder...

chances are there would be no internal combustion engine... however, steam engines would probably exist, thus all cars and boats would be steam run.

The weapon of choice would be the crossbow or the dagger in the back.

Random killings would be down since a blade would require skill, discipline, and the fact that you need to be up close and personal.

photography won't exist (the old style photographs required flashpowder, a variant of gunpowder.) so movies would most likely be out.

no fireworks.

the prevailance of steam would mean more wood and coal being burned, thus having higher pollution and smaller forests.

Im very amussed at how serious everyone took my comment:D

School shootings would end after the first arrow.
Epic. Fucking. Lulz.

Seems you never heard of a repeater crossbow. The Chinese were quite fond of them before gunpowder was discovered and even for a while after.

Gyrojet weapons would have been commercially successful, making the world a much better place.

We would be facing our foes on the honorable field of battle face to face, where courage, valor, and skill at arms won the day.


Im sorry, Im getting my Masters and PhD in Medieval Sudies....sometimes I think I was born in the wrong century;)

And I already have a PhD in archaeology and think you're perhaps a teensy bit guilty of over-romanticising your period.

No doubt a serf knee-deep in pig faeces would have had a different perspective; and come ot think of it, the injured from your battle of 'courage, valour, and skill' might not have been too happy when the septicaemia from their gangrenous sword wound killed them rather painfully.

edit: though a subsequent post suggests you were being ironic, in which case apologies.

Epic. Fucking. Lulz.

Seems you never heard of a repeater crossbow. The Chinese were quite fond of them before gunpowder was discovered and even for a while after.
Oh, I know - whatever we come up with, the Chinese have had it a thousand years earlier...

And I have seen Van Helsing... ;)

And I already have a PhD in archaeology and think you're perhaps a teensy bit guilty of over-romanticising your period.

No doubt a serf knee-deep in pig faeces would have had a different perspective; and come ot think of it, the injured from your battle of 'courage, valour, and skill' might not have been too happy when the septicaemia from their gangrenous sword wound killed them rather painfully.

edit: though a subsequent post suggests you were being ironic, in which case apologies.

The wounded suffered due to lack of medicinal knowledge, which would have proceeded at normal rate.

And as for a world without gunpowder, well my job would be different, things would probably be alot better and easier. But beyond that, I'd say that chemical based weapons would be weapons of choice, along with Molotov cocktails and other such stuff.

Oh, I know - whatever we come up with, the Chinese have had it a thousand years earlier...
Not everything. Why would you say that?

And I have seen Van Helsing... ;)
Not what I meant. You have a hopper on top (a kind of magazine where the projectiles fall into place rather than being pushed there) of a regular crossbow that you pump just like a gun. The polybolos, a kind of rapid-reloading ballista, is another example of this.

edit: though a subsequent post suggests you were being ironic, in which case apologies.



No worries;)

how exactly can you come up with an answer to this hypothetical? I suppose we never would have left Europe and would still be living with Middle Ages technology but...

how exactly can you come up with an answer to this hypothetical? I suppose we never would have left Europe and would still be living with Middle Ages technology but...
How was gunpowder responsible for the boats used to cross the Atlantic?

How was gunpowder responsible for the boats used to cross the Atlantic?

it's not, the New World would have been discovered, but the lack of guns and cannon would make conquering it a lot harder, so most countries would probably end up acting like the French did, rather then steamrolling over them in a blanket of christen superiority.

Rolling squid;13466448']it's not, the New World would have been discovered, but the lack of guns and cannon would make conquering it a lot harder, so most countries would probably end up acting like the French did, rather then steamrolling over them in a blanket of christen superiority.
Arrows will kill. And the guns of that era took longer to reload than a crossbow, especially the repeaters. And there were ballistas, a kind of giant crossbow that functioned in much the same capacity as cannons before cannons were invented. There would have been a steamrolling of the new world, it just wouldn't have been quite so loud.

Arrows will kill. And the guns of that era took longer to reload than a crossbow, especially the repeaters. And there were ballistas, a kind of giant crossbow that functioned in much the same capacity as cannons before cannons were invented. There would have been a steamrolling of the new world, it just wouldn't have been quite so loud.

Add that to Divainci's steam cannons.

But why wouldn't gunpowder have been discovered, sooner or later, by some alchemist or apothecary somewhere? It's just a mixture of three quite commonly available materials, all of which were already used for various purposes, after all...

If humans were simply less curious than in RL then a lot of other discoveries probably wouldn't have been made either.
If some widespread church was suppressing experimentation then a lot of other discoveries probably wouldn't have been made either... but history would have had to have been changed a lot earlier, to explain how that single church could stifle innovation in Europe, the Middle East, India and China...
If you're changing the laws of science so that gunpowder simply wouldn't work then you've probably made life "as we know it" impossible anyway.

Arrows will kill. And the guns of that era took longer to reload than a crossbow, especially the repeaters. And there were ballistas, a kind of giant crossbow that functioned in much the same capacity as cannons before cannons were invented. There would have been a steamrolling of the new world, it just wouldn't have been quite so loud.

The New world had arrows too. Guns of the era had better punch than crossbows, and could be easily trained for. Ballistas couldn't fire explosive rounds, much less knock down fortified walls. Or grapeshot for that matter.

If anything, the new world would fight back a hell lot harder.

The only thing that throws the equation out of whack is smallpox. Europe had it. The Americas didn't. Expect to see a great deal more smallpox blankets.

Add that to Divainci's steam cannons.

Da Vinci, maybe?

Trebuchets, ballistae and catapults can. Fortified cities were conquered even before the foundation of Rome!

I'm not disputing that fortified cities were conquered way back then, but it wasn't until the cannon came around that siege tactics really began speeding up. Sieges could last for years over strategically placed and defended castles IIRC.


Wooden arrows with stone heads shot by simple bows and by unarmoured archers against steel-armoured knights, trained to fight in formation with crossbows, lances and maces.

Actually, the best military successes of the native americans against the europeans were achieved using firearms and fighting against unarmoured enemies. The Incas couldn't do almost anything against the heavily armoured Conquistadores.

Maybe so, but steel armored knights tended to be rather costly investments if I remember correctly, with most fighting forces consisting of rather less well armored soldiers even after the adoption of formal armies as opposed to conscripted serfs.


Aren't you forgetting steel?

You're right. Steel is a big equation. But smallpox does the job better, maybe slower, but its cheaper. I seem to recall reading that the Aztecs were reduced from a huge empire into a series of ragtag squabbling warcamps after the huge smallpox death tolls.

The New world had arrows too. Guns of the era had better punch than crossbows, and could be easily trained for. Ballistas couldn't fire explosive rounds, much less knock down fortified walls. Or grapeshot for that matter.


Trebuchets, ballistae and catapults can. Fortified cities were conquered even before the foundation of Rome!

If anything, the new world would fight back a hell lot harder.

Wooden arrows with stone heads shot by simple bows and by unarmoured archers against steel-armoured knights, trained to fight in formation with crossbows, lances and maces.

Actually, the best military successes of the native americans against the europeans were achieved using firearms and fighting against unarmoured enemies. The Incas couldn't do almost anything against the heavily armoured Conquistadores.


The only thing that throws the equation out of whack is smallpox. Europe had it. The Americas didn't. Expect to see a great deal more smallpox blankets.
Aren't you forgetting steel?

The Loldogs would conquer the Earth.

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z107/Kain1235/foolishfool.jpg

If gunpowder were not discovered, it would just mean the middle ages wouldn't ever end. It implies a fairly primitive understanding of science.

Anyone imagining we would be living in our nice modern world, except with swords instead of machineguns, probably needs to get a better grip on reality.