What would the modern warfare look like if gunpowder was never discovered?

[Assurbanipal_II]

Yea I'm implying such a world with extremely questionable chemical laws that basically make almost any exothermic reaction work, but don't allow explosions to exist

Hmmm interesting I'll probably go check it out... though the hiatus aspect sounds... yea... but sometimes one has to make sacrifices

Story-wise that is possible. But from a logical standpoint, it is nonsense, very problematic nonsense. <.< God doesn't play dice. If you say A, you need to say B. I can't imagine a coherent plot with this idea.

 

[Ekfreet]

You don't really need gunpowder too make things go boom tho?

Guns might not have been too abundant but humans shouldn't take much to make their deadly sticks viable with alternatives.

Just look at how much damage you can do with some tons of fertilizer.

There are so many unstable chemical thingies in nature that the disappearance of gunpowder wouldn't make that much of a difference.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

You don't really need gunpowder too make things go boom tho?

Guns might not have been too abundant but humans shouldn't take much to make their deadly sticks viable with alternatives.

Just look at how much damage you can do with some tons of fertilizer.

There are so many unstable chemical thingies in nature that the disappearance of gunpowder wouldn't make that much of a difference.

I think he meant gunpowder as a synonym for propellants, and thus for explosives in general, and not for black powder in specifically.

 

[pyrak]

Air powered weapons would likely become the norm.

Girardoni air rifle - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

We can start all the way back with the Monguls not getting gun powder from the Chinese and bringing it to the West. Because of that, projectile weapons don't make much progress until someone figures out they can use a lot of sudden pressure to shove a ball at high speeds down a tube. Then from there most of weapons progress develops along the same lines just later and mostly attached to pneumatic power (Also very importantly, rockets wouldn't be made until liquid fuel rockets are developed).

As to actual changes to history? I have no clue.

 

[NotaNuffian]

I think he meant gunpowder as a synonym for propellants, and thus for explosives in general, and not for black powder in specifically.

So no explosives? That will be hard for the technological progression as I would imagine, seeing how we harnesses the power of Boom to help in our civil life as well as in the military. So assuming we still using chemical and biological warfare, plus the non-firearm weapons like swords, spears, bows and arrows, it might come to the point of selective breeding to churn the optimal type of humans to fight, those with muscle hypertrophy might be deemed better as well as those that can function better in a fight. Steam power I would assume is still present? Because a steam cannon sounds awesome.

 

[OneSixSeven]

Joerg's Instant Legolas

-Insert his laugh here- Let me show you its features!

Air-powered weapons would likely become the norm.

This^ I am sure high pressured air or some crap will be needed to make the projectile 'fast'. I have seen vids about airguns.

 

[Kldran]

I think the biggest issue with trying to find the limits of technology without explosions, is determining the maximum burn rate, as the difference between a fire and an explosion is how fast things burn. I'm pretty sure a large number of technologies could still exist in modified forms with slower burn rates. Combustion engines for instance, should still work, though they would likely need much slower cycle speeds. Likewise, I think cannons could still exist, but they might need longer barrels to ensure enough time for full burn. Guns could probably also exist, but a slower burn speed, would reduce maximum fire rates with single chamber/barrel guns (as slower burn would mean time required to fire a bullet is higher).

Actually removing guns entirely from the tech tree would require eliminating the expansion of air created by heat as this is what fundamentally powers guns and combustion engines (and jet engines). This would have far more profound impact than just eliminating explosions.

 

[Ekfreet]

I think he meant gunpowder as a synonym for propellants, and thus for explosives in general, and not for black powder in specifically.

It wouldn't make sense. Humans wouldn't even be able to exist in that situation. Even CO2 is a propellant, an explosive, in correct circumstances.

The sunlight itself is the result of a sort of explosion.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

It wouldn't make sense. Humans wouldn't even be able to exist in that situation. Even CO2 is a propellant, an explosive, in correct circumstances.

The sunlight itself is the result of a sort of explosion.

You dIdnt read my posts, did you?

 

[Ekfreet]

You dIdnt read my posts, did you?

*Insert @userunfriendly facepalm here* smh

 

[AbigailWP]

Taser batons go zzzzz

 

[Suzumiya]

Imagine for a moment that the Black Powder Trade had never started and China had never developed the bombs that they had. Their wars starting from the middle ages would have changed.

Think too about prehistoric alchemy, how that would've changed.

The expansion of Europeans into the Americas, how the Europeans' weaponry would not have been so powerfully different.

There are so many things that the creation of gunpowder has influenced that there really is no way to determine how its non-discovery would have affected contemporary scientific research and study throughout history, must less of today's.

I for one think we'd still be in the medieval or enlightenment period within Europe, and perhaps the Americas would be ruled by Aztecians.

 

[AryaX]

Firearms massively shifted the balance of power from defense to offense, which changed... Everything...

Before firearms, attacking castles and such walled fortifications required, significantly greater force than defending them did, but cannons changed that and the resulting need for larger defensive forces, forced the transition from feudal to centralized power.

Hand held firearms obviously also meant that the High Lords could no longer ride forth to slaughter the puny peasant soldier, confident that their expensive armor, weapons and training would protect them. It no longer mattered if you had the best body armor money could buy and had better training, as no amount of training would allow you to dodge a bullet, and no armor you could wear and actually fight with could offer any significant protection if you got hit... a single shot from some musket held by a puny peasant could still easily kill you...

And then we got rifled guns and telescopic sights and such... And all the security in the world can no longer stop a lone gun man, if they are willing to accept the "possibility" of being killed or captured, and if they are willing to bide their time, waiting for the perfect opportunity... We are at a point where almost anyone can kill almost anyone else, including kings, presidents, etc...

And as an inevitable consequence, we got democracy... The illusion of power for the masses, to keep us in line, by making it uncertain who our real oppressors are behind the scenes...

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Firearms massively shifted the balance of power from defense to offense, which changed... Everything...

Before firearms, attacking castles and such walled fortifications required, significantly greater force than defending them did, but cannons changed that and the resulting need for larger defensive forces, forced the transition from feudal to centralized power.

Hand held firearms obviously also meant that the High Lords could no longer ride forth to slaughter the puny peasant soldier, confident that their expensive armor, weapons and training would protect them. It no longer mattered if you had the best body armor money could buy and had better training, as no amount of training would allow you to dodge a bullet, and no armor you could wear and actually fight with could offer any significant protection if you got hit... a single shot from some musket held by a puny peasant could still easily kill you...

And then we got rifled guns and telescopic sights and such... And all the security in the world can no longer stop a lone gun man, if they are willing to accept the "possibility" of being killed or captured, and if they are willing to bide their time, waiting for the perfect opportunity... We are at a point where almost anyone can kill almost anyone else, including kings, presidents, etc...

And as an inevitable consequence, we got democracy... The illusion of power for the masses, to keep us in line, by making it uncertain who our real oppressors are behind the scenes...

The feudal times already ended during the late 14th century before the advent of firearms. Firearms have nothing to do with the disappearance of heavy cavalry and knights.

As for power, we all know true power always lied with the offence.

The illusion of power for the masses, to keep us in line, by making it uncertain who our real oppressors are behind the scenes... Sure.

 

[AryaX]

The feudal times already ended during the late 14th century before the advent of firearms.

Maybe... but firearms were already very much in use by mid 13th century...

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Maybe... but firearms were already very much in use by mid 13th century...

Very much is a bold statement. Firearms are defined as weapons carried by individuals, and not artillery pieces. Show me a statistical analysis that their impact on the battlefield was significant in the 13th century. Very much means for me common and widespread usage. Do we have that in the 13th century?

But the point is, the improvement of infantry tactics, economic decline, and population growth led to the disappearance of knights as a warrior caste. Not firearms. The days of knights were counted even without firearms.

 

[AryaX]

I was talking about cannons... If you go by, firearms = handheld firearms, then sure, it took a "bit" longer.. not quite sure how much...