In a World without Firearms
- Home
- Board: /his/ - History & Humanities
- Reading: In a World without Firearms
Who would be the ruling powers if guns never existed?
The people with the most rockets or gyrojet rifles.
>>468288
>ho would be the ruling powers if guns never existed?
>
Mongols.
>>468288
Mongols, Manchus, Turkics
>>468294
>India
>>468293
Cheeky cunt, you.
You know what I meant.
Who were the first people to be BTFO by guns anyway?
>>468305
Mongols were BTFO by Han Chines Red Turban soldiers with guns.
>>468288
the most populous and the one that spread like vermin
>chinese and turks
>>468294
This. An alt history with Mongols would be interesting
>>468322
Slant eyes would be coveted instead of blue eyes.
>>468322
>An alt history with Mongols would be interesting
Slavery would never be abolished and you would probably be a slave if you were not ethnically Mongol
>>468328
>Slant eyes would be coveted instead of blue eyes.
But they already are
>>468297
Babur was a nomad.
Europeans. Their power was never just guns (which everyone else got a hold of pretty fast anyway), it was naval and economic power.
>>468445
That doesn't make it a part of the Mongol empire.
>>468318
That horse looks just utterly outraged
>>468702
>I've seen some shit
>>468321
>the most populous
Chinks had lost many times to Mongols despite their superior manpower over the steppe units ..inba zerg rush..... inba Tumu Crisis
How would a world without firearms be conceivable?
Let's say there's a world where gunpowder doesn't exist, someone would one day make a firearm with another explosive propellant.
>>469862
>or maybe spears with a blowtorch as the 'tip'
That sounds fucking awesome
>>468446
What do you think made their ships so succesfull?
Was it perhaps... cannons?
>>468288
Europe with automatic crossbows instead of guns and catapults instead of cannons.
>>470436
The Dutch ships were successful because they were cheap and fast to make and then used for trade. No Cannons needed.
>>469872
that sounds fucking retarded. blowtorches aren't used as a weapon because it just doesn't work. some hobo around here tried it while robbing a drug store, didn't go well.
>>468445
and he got BTFO by Sher shah suri
>>468445
He won because of his gunpowder weapons though.
Rajputs were autistic bastards.
>>470436
I'm pretty sure just about everyone had cannons.
>>468288
The major ruling powers and huge trends as to which continent level geographic powers would be pretty similar. Wealth, martial discipline, and social organization was more important for both pre and post gunpowder armies than things like population count.
At least personally, what changes for me is a lot of the tactics and technological developments. Assume that gunpowder doesn't work, and no post gunpowder inventions take off like explosives or things like tazers; but you still have a lot of other modern technology, like industrialization and modern medicine.
You'd still get more or less modern sized armies at the same times they historically showed, hundreds of thousands in the Napoleonic wars, millions in the world wars, but armies would be concentrated in smaller geographic units, as projectiles as accurate and deadly as 20th century firearms never exist, and logistical needs become smaller as bulk ammo never needs to be delivered.
You wouldn't get, say, the Trenches system in the western Front, because you wouldn't get a situation in which you're limited in lethality projection by the amount of front space you have available over the entire length of border running from Switzerland to the North Sea, which allows for concentration of local force and a local breakthrough somewhere.
tldr, the tactics and imagery would be different, but operationally, strategically, and macrohistorically, not much changes.
>>470512
>babur got BTFO
Historical knowledge of /his/ everyone.
His fucking son Humayun got BTFO
>>468288
>no firearms
How horrible
