Gunpowder was never invented?
>>919770
Go read guns, germs, and steel.
War would be a lot more fun.
>>919812
You don't belong here.
>>919815
This. Guns are not a true test of manhood. Any brony loser can wield and fire a gun (see : /k/)
>>919770
Nigga if people can figure out simple chemistry and external combustion engines such as steam they would figure out gunpowder.
Then guns would only appear after chemistry develops and nitrocellulose is discovered.
>>919860
>Let's assume scientific advancement permanently stagnates
So you are asking what the world looked like if science stopped around 1000 -1340 AD?
Do you count technical improvements in metallurgy and agriculture as scientific advancement? Your question is really unanswerable if you don't provide specifics and frankly is a rather bad question. Alternative history is not history, it's just a series of assumptions applied to a point in history, the number of assumptions increasing the further back in history this specific point is.
>>919770
>konstantinople wouldn't have been invaded by the ottomans
>america wouldn't have been colonized for the largest part in the first few centuries
>colonialization would have probably eventually happened in the wake of the industrial revolution although much slower
>During the industrial revolution the first other explosive are discovered developed. The evolution of the gun happens far quicker. Because it gets developed in a time of mass production and abundance
>Britain conquers the whole world, because there is no opposition outside, since there are no guns to even keep up with them
>a glorious world but no fireworks
>>919890
>konstantinople wouldn't have been invaded by the ottomans
Why not?
>america wouldn't have been colonized for the largest part in the first few centuries
How do you know if America would even be discovered if Eurasia didn't have gunpowder?
>During the industrial revolution the first other explosive are discovered developed. The evolution of the gun
How do you know people would even figure out external combustion engines and apply them? Who says economics would become advanced enough to reach the state where industrialization would happen?
>Britain conquers the whole world, because there is no opposition outside, since there are no guns to even keep up with them
If anything is was superior gunnery which made the Royal navy what it was, in the Anglo-Dutch wars the Dutch were quite successful at boarding and such.
But again this all rests on the assumption Britain would still be around and that it had a navy.
>>919912
>konstantinople wouldn't have been invaded by the ottomans
>Why not?
because the walls of konstantinople wouldn't have fallen without the ottomans cannons
>america wouldn't have been colonized for the largest part in the first few centuries
>How do you know if America would even be discovered if Eurasia didn't have gunpowder?
i don't, but since i see no necessary conflict, since one doesn't necessitate the other, i assumed it would have happened.
>During the industrial revolution the first other explosive are discovered developed. The evolution of the gun
>How do you know people would even figure out external combustion engines and apply them? Who says economics would become advanced enough to reach the state where industrialization would happen?
Again, i don't no for sure, but there is no direct contradiction, so i went with it. External Combustion engines would have been figured out eventually by someone anyway. The time and the place aren't a given fact, but the invention itself is.
Same goes for industrialization. It just needs the right knowledge/inventions and some nation would have eventually employed them.
>Britain conquers the whole world, because there is no opposition outside, since there are no guns to even keep up with them
>If anything is was superior gunnery which made the Royal navy what it was, in the Anglo-Dutch wars the Dutch were quite successful at boarding and such.
>But again this all rests on the assumption Britain would still be around and that it had a navy.
hmm.. maybe britain wouldn't have survived that long. I'm not so well read on the anglo- dutch war. Maybe the dutch would be the world power in that alternative world.
My guess would still be: Some european nation reaches the industrial revolution, it's the first to invent explosives, then conquers the whole world in one go.
>>919815
Remember when war was like a sport, and went at it at each other incurring only a few deaths and most of the casualties were cowards who didn't run away fast enough?
Me neither, man.
Heavy casualties, guns, bombs, nukes, and two world wars has made most of the relevant world squeamish.
Can't wait for another sequel.
>>919956
>because the walls of konstantinople wouldn't have fallen without the ottomans cannons
Who says breaking the walls is essential to the capture of the city? I mean the crusaders just went over them.
Really alternative history becomes more fantastical the further back in time you go. Asking what the world would be like if Internet or facebook was not invented is already going to end you up with an answer with tons of assumptions. At best OP could have asked a really specific question like what warfare would have looked like around 1500-1550 if gunpowder was not invented because that date is still quite close to the first large scale use of gunpowder. My answer would be that pikes would probably be more common but that in turn rests on the assumption that the absence of cannons still promotes pitched battles.
If gunpowder was not around Louis d'Armagnac, Duke of Nemours would not have been killed and he might have won the battle, perhaps winning this battle resulted in victory in the Italian wars which in turn would have made the King of France the king of most of Italy, this would finally allow him to launch the crusade his predecessor wanted to. Maybe this crusade would end in the capture of Egypt making the direct route to India more viable than the Portuguese router around the cape of good hope. Who knows?
>>919860
The population would be much smaller than it is now, likely feudal systems would dominate the landscape, and chivalry would not be dead.
>>920008
Why? The Romans had no gunpowder yet they were not feudal.
>>919956
The Byzantine Empire was just that city and a bit of the Morea at that point. I think guns may have sped things up but the Ottomans easily had the resources to wait it out in a long siege. They were long since doomed at that point.
>>919770
We'd go straight to lasers and electromagnets.
>>919860
> Lets assume the world now works this particular and impossible way to satisfy my larping fetish
>>920006
crusaders attacked from the sea-side walls, not the theodosian
>>920056
Turks had ships too. It's not like they are allergic to water.
>>920063
did the turks penetrate the golden horn and get pass the sea chain?
I've not read up on that period so I'm not 100%
>>920069
Getting past is a more adequate description...
Absolute madmen desu.
>>920078
even with 200 years between them the Ottoman fleet would've been much inferior to the Venetian Fleet used in the fourth crusade considering they were based mainly on maritime trade and war and the Ottomans were steppefaggots with horses, so an assault via the sea probably wouldn't have gone all that well
>>920098
Would the Venetian fleet remain better without gunpowder? Would Venice be a thing without gunpowder? Would Venice not simply become a French city after the capture of it by the French?
Around 1450 you could see the Ottoman lands from the walls of Constantinople, it was literally a single city that had a twentieths of it's former population. It would have fallen anyways.
>>920117
>Would the Venetian fleet remain better without gunpowder?
wut
>Would Venice be a thing without gunpowder?
ye
>Would Venice not simply become a French city after the capture of it by the French?
wut
I'm talking about the fourth crusade senpai
>Around 1450 you could see the Ottoman lands from the walls of Constantinople, it was literally a single city that had a twentieths of it's former population. It would have fallen anyways.
they still had Trebizond and Athens/ the Peloponnese, but the chances of any comeback of the empire at the time would be very very very low
>>920098
>the Ottomans were steppefaggots with horses
Who had a tradition of Aegean piracy going all the way back to the First Crusade and by the 15th century had incorporated the local shipbuilding and sailing traditions of Greece and Asia Minor.
>>920015
Empire has within it the seeds of its own destruction; it is both mandatory and prohibitively expensive to project power at a distance.
With or without gunpowder.
>>920252
>comparing light pirate vessels to venetian merchantmen and warships
senpai
"sailing traditions of greece and asia minor" didn't even exist by the 15th century, the Byzantine navy was long long dead since Manuel I
>>919815
But, its takes more courage to fight a gun weilding enemy in my opinion because anyone can be trained to use them kinda good
>>919994
>most of the casualties were cowards who didn't run away fast enough?
Most of the casualties were the people who were brave enough to keep standing and fighting when the cowards were routed.
>>919956
Jesus fuck.
No.
The city was absolutely fucked with or withotu cannon, and their use had little to do with why it fell.
Fuck off.
>>920716
kek
>>921757
>and their use had little to do with why it fell.
Are you saying stupid shit just to get replies?
>>919770
We'd have been force to adopt air rifles, and war would have been way deadlier from the 1770s through the late 19th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
>>919770
Europeans would had dominated even harder
>>919770
i hope you like walking
>>921798
Are you?
The great gun was so slow and inaccurate that the Greeks had time to patch every single hole it made before it could fire again.
The other guns weren't able to much aside from wreck the battlements. The walls themselves continued to stand, and continued to act as a force multiplier for the greeks.
The circumventing of the chain was what doomed the city- the greek had a chance when they could focus all their men on one front. Once they were forced to defend the sea walls, they were spread far too thin to deal with the number of troops facing them, and would have lost even if they had cannons and the ottomans did not.
The fighting came down to hand to hand combat, had the cannons been so decisive, the ottomans would have sat out of range and pulverized the Greeks, not rushed in to die at their hands and piss away thousand of soldiers for no reason.
>>921888
this.
A lot of myths about the people who got conquered being super skilled warriors who were only killed because guns would simply not happen.
>>920636
This haha, aut/his/t have no nuance
Keking at the replies thought
>>919880
He didn't say "science stagnates" only thst gun powder wasn't invented bitch
