I have always wondered what effect not having discovered gunpowder would have had on civilization? Would a suitable replacement been found? How would the battlefield evolve without it and where would be today without it?
Printable View
I have always wondered what effect not having discovered gunpowder would have had on civilization? Would a suitable replacement been found? How would the battlefield evolve without it and where would be today without it?
my best guess that's steam engine still can be invested, and we may have machine-crossbows fire by steam powers tanks. So it'd be roundly the same history we have passed :laugh4:
Man has always put a lot of effort in better, deadlier weapons. So is would have been gunpowder or something else. 3 things in life never change, Death, taxes and man's need to destroy!:smg:
To answer your question you could check civilisations who started using gunpowder rather late, for example, Japanese (until they eventually did). They perfectionated their weapons to a degree hardly seen in western europe.
*tries to imagine World War Two with Romanesque weapons*
I agree that if gunpowder wasn't discovered some subsitute would have been found.There are more things that go boom than just gunpowder.
Custard Powder Artillery!Quote:
Originally Posted by EasternScourge
Foot
Is that a reference to the katana? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bovarius
Oh man, I wish we could post in the public what Matt posted in EBH about katanas.
Why can't you??
Cheers...
Empires raised and fell before gunpowder just like after. One way or another, mass destruction is man's agenda for a long long time. Full genocide have been perpetrated with only machete, chamber gas, atomic bombs or machine guns are not really relevant and I think that they did not influencate very much History.
Someone with the right economics will always find a way to equip his people with just the necessary level of arms to fulfill his goals, good or bad. Look how fast Japan coped with "Western" weapon and kicked russian's ass!
I don't think there is an example in History where technology won alone a war. Let's take the Zulu example.
A lot of people think the zulu were defeated because they opposed assegais (isQla) to Martini-Henry's rifles.
In fact they did own a lot of guns, rifled or not. Bought or captured on battlefields.
They even captured artillery at Isandlwahna.
Their problem was that they did not use them efficiently for education reasons and for cultural reasons.
And also that they were not rich enough to afford enough gunpowder for drill and exercise.
But with their Assegais they crushed a full british regiment supported by artillery and a few cav. They lost only to superior numbers !!!
Technology alone explains nothing. Otherwise, how could the US loose the Vietnam and Iraq wars???
Arrogance?
Vietnam because of terrain difficulties. The Vietcong was used to the forests, while the US wasn't. Also, fighting against Guerilla tactics is pretty difficult.Quote:
Otherwise, how could the US loose the Vietnam and Iraq wars???
Iraq's something different. The word "Bush" comes to mind...
But I do not wish to turn this thread into a political one, so that'll be that.
Not to mention the lack of discipline and decent leadership, and the overestimation of chopper insertions/extractions for missions. Choppers land in the open, giving the troops little cover at the beginning of a battle, and the troops also lacked proper artillery and other heavy support... To solve this problem, deforestation chemicals such as Agent Orange was used, killing and poisoning millions of civilians, still without cutting casualties much because of the difficulties of properly giving close, accurate support to the ground troops from choppers and planes... Besides there was always the possibility for the guerilla to avoid the already deforested areas, and next time strike where there were still trees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus
Same for me :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus
Well, yeah the Chinese did have gunpowder for ages before the Euorpeans thought: something that goes boom, should make for a decent weapon...Quote:
Originally Posted by Chirurgeon
Anyhow, exploding missiles were age-old by then; and a bit of Calciumcarbonate + Strong Acids... :shrug:
The katana is quite possibly the most overrated weapon of all time. Firstly, it is made using a differential tempering process, by which the spine is softer than the blade. All well and good, but -how- much softer becomes an issue. It is not unknown for a katana that was hit on the blade to be cut in two, simply because the steel is -hard- but not -tough-.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bovarius
The weapon itself was made entirely for dueling. The tachi, its longer, more deeply curved cousin, is a fine cavalry blade, but not quite as good as the saber that Japan's contemporaries were using.
The katana cannot (as a slashing sword) defeat armor properly... More to come (I hate katanas, yar).
Definately over rated.
Now the Gladius, thats a weapon...
https://img261.imageshack.us/img261/7748/katanayl6.jpg
To get back on topic, I think had gunpowder never been invented, chemical weapons would have been developed in it's stead. And there would still be other types of explosives used, and things like tanks and airplanes.
Now that's not entirely true is it? The Impis lost at Rorke's Drift against far fewer British, but they had a favourable position. Most victories against Zulu's came through a good defence. At Isandlwana and other Zulu victories, the Zulu could use their superior speed to attack when the enemy was least prepared. When their opponents had guns and were properly organized, they lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip of Massalia
Yeah the katanas are way over rated :) But, they have such a fine propaganda that a WWII japanese oficer appeared at the army armory with a beautifully crafeted katana centuries old (you know the works, water quenched clay tempered etc...) all bent up. He heard somewhere that their swords could cut trough steel and attempted to cut an mg barrel with it. Lol.
As for the VC and Iraq wars (and Zulu), it's the proof that an army cannot defeat the people. They have too big a disadvantage in terms of terrain knowledge and culture.
Cheers...
The British lost at Isandlwana because they were overconfident and placed their defences to far apart, so it was mainly the falt of a bad commander (who paid his fault with his life :skull: ). The only other battles the zulu's could win were skirmish battles when they used guerilla-tactics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conradus
The reason the zulu's never really changed the war in a full-guerilla was because they weren't united. The brother of the kind rebelled against the king with the aid of the british so the british only had to deal with the zulu's occasional and were then in a strong defence ( strongholds)
The reason we don't win guerilla wars is because we don't hold on to imperialistic views anymore meaning that we are trying to win these wars by winning over popular support instead of just killing everyone that opposes us.
Na. you don't win guerilla wars because you have a conventional army with little knowledge on the field. It's impossible to dislodge the Talibans from the mountains as to tell if an Iraqui is a friend or foe. For you to slaughter everyone, you'd also deplete your source of popular support. So, it's a no win situation.
Cheers...
As Steam advanced one would still move into an industrial age being that countries had already centralized by this point. This of course seems like it as well as other factors reduced the highly trained born soldiers that made up the ranks of archers and such meaning that levied national armies could still be formed just as they had in the past just primarily with pike and crossbow. Napatha would mostlikely mantain its role in warefare.
I believe this may have also given Constantinople another chance without heavy turkish cannons to batter down the walls
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian the apostate
most of the turkish cannons were european mercenaries
The influence of weapons is often overestimated (x won because they had weapon y...). But gunpowder had indeed a huge impact to political, social and economic developments in my opinion.
Without gunpowder sieges of the many smaller fortified places would have been not so easy as it were. So the central powers in the European states would have been not so easily able to crush local feudal resistance. The might of the kings and princes would have been not the same. Because of cannons warfare became more and more expensive and the focus changed from small scale warfare to bigger state scale war. Pesky barons could not longer withstand the central government.
Strong central governments and expensive wars forced the development of a better financing and organisation of the state, through more taxes, merchandise, land building etc. The people were drilled to be good and quite citizens, no longer the individual chaotic quarreling peasants and nobles of the middle ages. We often think we are free and live on our own but in fact we are long trained to be small cogs in a big enterprise (society). Gunpower favoured the building of loyal and disciplined standing armies in the longer run (of course such armies were possible without gunpowder -look only at the ancient states- but the development from medieval armies towards modern ones was accelerated by gunpowder). Without these armies the way to world power for the western way would have been rather difficult.
Colonialism would have been a lot more difficult without guns (and the disciplined armies who used it). One premise for it was the rule of the sea and without their invincible sailing ships full of cannons the Europeans would not have been able to rule. On land the influence of gunpowder might have been less decisive but f.e. in the Americas one of the most favourable factors for the Conquistadores was (beneath the horse and steel swords) the cannon (not the clumsy handheld guns). And wether the fights in India would have been the same without European gunpowder armies?
Steam machines or torsion catapults are too fragile to offer the same might on battlefields as gun powder weapons. I think history would have been quite different without gun powder.