Liz Bourke foisted this question upon me on Twitter using her profound ability of psychic suggestion and the promise of free alcohol.[1] The question is this: what would the world look like if gunpowder had never been discovered?
First, a few caveats:
- I’m only going to consider worlds like our own in which the materials for gunpowder exist. I feel inadequate to the task of arguing the science involved in imagining the absence of gunpowder materials.
- I’m only going to consider worlds like our own in which the inhabitants didn’t discover gunpowder until much later — up to about when the early modern period began. I find it unlikely that gunpowder would go undiscovered indefinitely.
- Due to my limited knowledge of other gunpowder-using cultures, most of what I will say below will come from a largely Western perspective. It will likely be somewhat reductive primarily because I can’t write a 200-page book about the subject and expect anyone to read it. However, if you can shine some light on how the above question might have affected different cultures before (or after?) colonization or contact w/ other cultures, please write a post in response. I don’t have that expertise, and so I will refrain from making too many assumptions.
My understanding of gunpowder is that it was discovered by the Chinese sometime between the 9th and 11th centuries (the Tang and Song Dynasties, respectively). Its explosive potential, however, wasn’t fully realized until many centuries later — somewhere around the 13th century in China. The rest of the world more less caught on after the powder’s discovery, using it eventually to make weapons at roughly the same time as the Chinese.[2] Between the 15th and 17th centuries, the formula was perfected and put to use in weaponry on a wide scale.[3]
But if a world were to exist where gunpowder did not get discovered by the Chinese (or anyone) in the 9th/11th century and did not change the course of history until some centuries after the 200 year period mentioned above, wouldn’t the world we know now be a drastically different place? Obviously. For one, the course of warfare would have to change considerably to meet the demands of battle. More advanced form of crossbows would likely fill the gap as medieval technicians created better ways to load and fire bolts. I suspect we’d see widespread use of ballistas and crossbows with the ability to fire multiple shots before the need for reloading. Some of these weapons already existed in the day, but they were inefficient and were eventually supplanted by better forms of weaponry (the musket, cannons, etc.). The Chinese, for example, had a repeater crossbow as early as the 4th century BC, and the Greeks had designed a repeating ballista in the century afterwards. These devices were certainly difficult to create and expensive, but without the explosive power of gunpowder, the need for more accurate, efficient, and speedy forms of these devices would become necessary.[6] Over time, the adaptations of warfare would include changes in armor, greater use of castle defenses, and perhaps the development of other forms of explosives or flammable liquids for use in catapults and other siege machines. Personally, I like the idea of Greek fire becoming a common tool used in warfare, though this would eventually become less useful over time as everyone began to prep their defenses against such things.
While I’m no expert on medieval sea warfare, I imagine the absence of gunpowder-based cannons would mean greater need for well-trained soldiers on the decks of ships and a frequent use of flammables either in the trapping of enemy ships or as a matter of the boat siege process. In my mind, I imagine balanced crews of soldiers, sailors, and chemical experts, each in place in just the right numbers to combat the onslaught of chemicals and soldiers trying to crash or take over enemy ships full of supplies or ground troops. And don’t forget the crossbows and ballistas. A ballista whose tip contains a pouch of flammable liquid could be launched through the wooden hull of an enemy ship, and fire-tipped bolts or arrows could be used to light the enemy ship on fire. In a weird way, I just imagine warfare to be a more violent, flammable, terrifying endeavor, such that it might actually be against the better judgment of monarchic leaders to consistently wage war against their enemies. At some point, the cost would become too great to constantly grab for territory.
The more interesting part, for me, is the impact all of this would have on the colonization of the Americas.[7] Because muskets and cannons were such a strategic advantage for the Europeans who eventually took the Americas for themselves, it is curious to think about the ability of the Native Americans to actually combat the invasion. Though Native American weapons would have to adapt to the needs of warfare, there wouldn’t be as large a difference in terms of the technology between European projectiles and Native American ones. The Europeans could certainly outmatch Native American warriors in terms of firing range and speed, but I wonder if they would still have the advantage in hand to hand combat or in dealing with guerrilla tactics, particularly with reduced ability to deploy explosives at long distances (cannons, etc.). In particular, I imagine the Europeans would have kept to their armor-based marching style, which might work in a frontal assault, but against a non-traditional fighting force, such as that deployed by Native Americans at various stages of the conflict in our own world, I don’t think it would help in the long term.
Unfortunately, I still think the Europeans would come out on top, but that’s largely because the inevitable bio-warfare would become a center piece. There’s nothing to be done about the introduction of smallpox and other diseases into the Americans that the Native Americans simply hadn’t survived yet. And I imagine the Europeans would eventually figure out, as they did in our own world, that one could infect the natives with diseases that would kill a lot of them off. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that the movement West (after the formation of America in our world, but perhaps without that expansion in this imaginary one for this post), would have been halted or at least severely delayed due to the weaker advantage on the part of the Europeans.
All of this, however, assumes that the Europeans would have arrived in the New World at roughly the same time as they did in our own world. Imagine, if you will, what the New World might have looked like if the Spanish hadn’t arrived in Central and South America until 200 years later. Imagine if the British and French had been delayed in their colonization of the New World, too. I can’t say whether there would have been any enormous technological advances among the Native American populations with that extra time. Certainly, some things would have changed, but would those changes have been warfare based? I don’t know. However, I do think it’s fair to say that the advancement of Europeans across the Americas would have been considerably slower, and perhaps far less violent. Conflict was probably inevitable, but it’s much more difficult to justify the mass extermination of another people when you are not, in fact, that advanced in warfare technology OR in numbers. There would be a greater necessity for cooperation. And that cooperation would, I think, work partially in the favor of the Native Americans, if only because the cultural transmission would have been measured and more open. That, in my mind, produces the conditions necessary for organic adaptation within cultural groups.
But all of this is loose, strange speculation on a topic about which I know considerably little. On that note, I’ll end with a question: What are some short stories or novels which imagine a world without gunpowder (or a world where someone else discovered gunpowder and Europe didn’t become a super power)?
——————————————
[1]: Most of this sentence is not true.
[2]: I’m not a historian, so a lot of the dates I have given here are loose.
[3]: Gunpowder had been used in explosives and other forms of weapons after its discovery, but it didn’t completely alter warfare, as I understand it, until that 200 year period. I’m getting much of this loose information from the source list on this Wikipedia page (many of which come from a fellow by the name of John Merton Patrick, who wrote an essay for a University of Michigan academic journal). So, yes, I’m using Wikipedia, but only as a nice pointer for better sources.
[6]: I also imagine a world where assassinations are more frequent as a method for avoiding physical conflict.
[7]: I hope readers will forgive me for the somewhat reductive view of the Native Americans here. Most of what I’ve written is fairly reductive, so my focus is less on the particularities of these real world conflicts than on basic concerns as they relate to the topic. If one were to actually use the idea of a gunpowder-free society to create an alternate history, they would have to do far more research than I have done here. This is a scratching-the-surface type thing.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Speculation Station: Worlds Without Gunpowder
Reading Time
Liz Bourke foisted this question upon me on Twitter using her profound ability of psychic suggestion and the promise of free alcohol.[1] The question is this: what would the world look like if gunpowder had never been discovered?
First, a few caveats:
While I’m no expert on medieval sea warfare, I imagine the absence of gunpowder-based cannons would mean greater need for well-trained soldiers on the decks of ships and a frequent use of flammables either in the trapping of enemy ships or as a matter of the boat siege process. In my mind, I imagine balanced crews of soldiers, sailors, and chemical experts, each in place in just the right numbers to combat the onslaught of chemicals and soldiers trying to crash or take over enemy ships full of supplies or ground troops. And don’t forget the crossbows and ballistas. A ballista whose tip contains a pouch of flammable liquid could be launched through the wooden hull of an enemy ship, and fire-tipped bolts or arrows could be used to light the enemy ship on fire. In a weird way, I just imagine warfare to be a more violent, flammable, terrifying endeavor, such that it might actually be against the better judgment of monarchic leaders to consistently wage war against their enemies. At some point, the cost would become too great to constantly grab for territory.
All of this, however, assumes that the Europeans would have arrived in the New World at roughly the same time as they did in our own world. Imagine, if you will, what the New World might have looked like if the Spanish hadn’t arrived in Central and South America until 200 years later. Imagine if the British and French had been delayed in their colonization of the New World, too. I can’t say whether there would have been any enormous technological advances among the Native American populations with that extra time. Certainly, some things would have changed, but would those changes have been warfare based? I don’t know. However, I do think it’s fair to say that the advancement of Europeans across the Americas would have been considerably slower, and perhaps far less violent. Conflict was probably inevitable, but it’s much more difficult to justify the mass extermination of another people when you are not, in fact, that advanced in warfare technology OR in numbers. There would be a greater necessity for cooperation. And that cooperation would, I think, work partially in the favor of the Native Americans, if only because the cultural transmission would have been measured and more open. That, in my mind, produces the conditions necessary for organic adaptation within cultural groups.
[1]: Most of this sentence is not true.
[2]: I’m not a historian, so a lot of the dates I have given here are loose.
[3]: Gunpowder had been used in explosives and other forms of weapons after its discovery, but it didn’t completely alter warfare, as I understand it, until that 200 year period. I’m getting much of this loose information from the source list on this Wikipedia page (many of which come from a fellow by the name of John Merton Patrick, who wrote an essay for a University of Michigan academic journal). So, yes, I’m using Wikipedia, but only as a nice pointer for better sources.
[6]: I also imagine a world where assassinations are more frequent as a method for avoiding physical conflict.
[7]: I hope readers will forgive me for the somewhat reductive view of the Native Americans here. Most of what I’ve written is fairly reductive, so my focus is less on the particularities of these real world conflicts than on basic concerns as they relate to the topic. If one were to actually use the idea of a gunpowder-free society to create an alternate history, they would have to do far more research than I have done here. This is a scratching-the-surface type thing.
Share this:
Like this:
Related
Shaun Duke
Follow Me
Newsletter
Support Me
Recent Posts
A Reading List of Dystopian Fiction and Relevant Texts (Apropos of Nothing in Particular)
Why would someone make a list of important and interesting works of dystopian fiction? Or a suggested reading list of works that are relevant to those dystopian works? There is absolutely no reason other than raw interest. There’s nothing going on to compel this. There is nothing in particular one making such a list would hope you’d learn. The lists below are not an exhaustive list. There are bound to be texts I have forgotten or texts you think folks should read that are not listed. Feel free to make your own list and tell me about it OR leave a comment. I’ll add things I’ve missed! Anywhoodles. Here goes:
Share this:
Like this:
Duke’s Best EDM Tracks of 2024
And so it came to pass that I finished up my annual Best of EDM [Insert Year Here] lists. I used to do these on Spotify before switching to Tidal, and I continued doing them on Tidal because I listen to an absurd amount of EDM and like keeping track of the tunes I love the most. Below, you will find a Tidal playlist that should be public. You can listen to the first 50 tracks right here, but the full playlist is available on Tidal proper (which has a free version just like Spotify does). For whatever reason, the embedded playlist breaks the page, and so I’ve opted to link to it here and at the bottom of this post. Embeds are weird. Or you can pull songs into your preferred listening app. It’s up to you. Some caveats before we begin:
Share this:
Like this:
2025: The Year of Something
We’re nine days into 2025, and it’s already full of exhausting levels of controversy before we’ve even had a turnover in power in my home country of the United States. We’ve seen resignations of world leaders, wars continuing and getting worse and worse (you know where), the owner of Twitter continuing his tirade of lunacy and demonstrating why the billionaire class is not to be revered, California ablaze with a horrendous and large wildfire, right wing thinktanks developing plans to out and attack Wikipedia editors as any fascist-friendly organization would do, Meta rolling out and rolling back GenAI profiles on its platforms, and, just yesterday, the same Meta announcing sweeping changes to its moderation policies that, in a charitable reading, encourage hate-based harassment and abuse of vulnerable populations, promotion and support for disinformation, and other problems, all of which are so profound that people are talking about a mass exodus from the platform to…somewhere. It’s that last thing that brings me back to the blog today. Since the takeover at Twitter, social networks have been in a state of chaos. Platforms have risen and fallen — or only risen so much — and nothing I would call stability has formed. Years ago, I (and many others far more popular than me) remarked that we’ve ceded the territory of self-owned or small-scale third party spaces for massive third party platforms where we have minimal to no control or say and which can be stripped away in a tech-scale heartbeat. By putting all our ducks into a bin of unstable chaos, we’re also expending our time and energy on something that won’t last, requiring us to expend more time and energy finding alternatives, rebuilding communities, and then repeating the process again. In the present environment, that’s impossible to ignore.1 This is all rather reductive, but this post is not the place to talk about all the ways that social networks have impacted control over our own spaces and narratives. Another time, perhaps. I similarly don’t have space to talk about the fact that some of the platforms we currently have, however functional they may be, have placed many of us in a moral quagmire, as in the case of Meta’s recent moderation changes. Another time… ↩
Share this:
Like this:
Categories