What would the rennaisance have looked like without gunpowder?

[kenjib]

So, I've heard it said before that the discovery of gunpowder included a string of highly unlikely events. That begs the question: What would Rennaisance Europe have looked like if gunpowder hadn't yet been discovered?

 

[jgbrowning]

It would probably look alot like the later middle ages... only longer..

joe b.
*a little too brain dead for a real reply*

 

[Zaruthustran]

So, I've heard it said before that the discovery of gunpowder included a string of highly unlikely events. That begs the question: What would Rennaisance Europe have looked like if gunpowder hadn't yet been discovered?

Castles would still be important, and tall and beautiful (instead of obsolete, and squat and ugly).

Armies would still be dominated by mounted nights. But longbowmen and crossbowmen, and pikemen, will still eat away this dominance.

The conquests of Africa and the Americas would go a little differently...

More, but tired and have to leave work.

-z

 

[Turjan]

Re: Re: What would the rennaisance have looked like without gunpowder?

[Castles would still be important, and tall and beautiful (instead of obsolete, and squat and ugly).

Armies would still be dominated by mounted nights. But longbowmen and crossbowmen, and pikemen, will still eat away this dominance.

I would say no to both assumptions. Not long before the use of gunpowder, the normal ballistas and catapults had been replaced by the trebuchet, which uses two arms instead of one and a counterweight. Tests have shown, that a trebuchet can fire a stone bullet of 400 lbs with a speed of up to 200 km/h. This weapon was able to break every wall, thus making castles obsolete even before cannons came into fashion.

The same holds true for mounted knights. The constant development of better bows and crossbows had converted the advantage of heavy armor into a disadvantage, because the missile weapons were able to perforate even the thickest plate armour, while the knights couldn't move fast enough.

Therefore, I don't think the gunpowder is to blame for all development that could be observed at the beginning of renaissance.

 

[fusangite]

It would have looked almost exactly as it did; 150 years went by until gunpowder as actually more efficient except in siege engines.

The question of how the 18th century would have been different without gunpowder is a real question but the 15th century, not so much.

 

[Turjan]

Here you have an article about the trebuchet that has been published in the Scientific American.

 

[kenjib]

It would probably look alot like the later middle ages... only longer..

joe b.
*a little too brain dead for a real reply*

What about all of the developments in philosophy, science, navigation/ship building, mercantilism, the arts, etc. etc. etc.? Surely the world wouldn't have ground to a screeching halt were it not for gunpowder, no? What about Newton? The proliferation of the scientific method?

 

[kenjib]

It would have looked almost exactly as it did; 150 years went by until gunpowder as actually more efficient except in siege engines.

The question of how the 18th century would have been different without gunpowder is a real question but the 15th century, not so much.

What do you think the 18th century would have looked like without gunpowder?

 

[Deadguy]

What about all of the developments in philosophy, science, navigation/ship building, mercantilism, the arts, etc. etc. etc.? Surely the world wouldn't have ground to a screeching halt were it not for gunpowder, no? What about Newton? The proliferation of the scientific method?

As you rightly point out, kenjib, the Renaissance was an interplay of a great many different elements, brought about by a large number of different factors. Isolating the influence of a single factor is at best guesswork, at worst meaningless. For example, you mention the rise of the scientific method. To what extent was this influenced by the large influx of educated Byzantines, raised in a knowledge of the Greek classics and understanding of Arabic learning, after the fall of Constantinople in 1453? It's true that the Western Church - the repository of learning in Western Europe - was changing already. But did this influx overcome some inevitable inertia in being less dogmatic and more questioning of received wisdom? Or was this change inevitable, given the already considerable dissemination of the classics into the West? See what I mean?

Nevertheless, we can hazard some guesses about the absence of gunpowder. Zarathustran has already pointed out some elements, and Turjan has made some good counter-arguments. I suspect that from a pure battlefield perspective, efforts would have gone into creating alternatives to gunpowder. The trebuchet was clearly capable of being a deadly siege weapon, and crossbows and longbows were powerful, and accessiible battlefield weapons. Castles would start mtating towards the designs that later resisted the impact of cannons - squatter and bulkier, using stone and earthworks to provide greater mass to absorb impacts and deter sapping. Heavy armours are useful, but less so than once they were. That said, some of the developments in shaped (gothic) plate seem to offer some advantages in dealing with missiles rather than bullets.

However, one factor which might be different... the nation state. The increasing use of gunpowder artillery expanded the need for a professional, fulltime army to deploy it properly and to resist assaults. It becomes increasingly difficult for even powerful noblemen to field forces that could be truly effective in the field - they just lacked the necessary income to support the costs. Only nations, tapping the incomes of an entire realm, and with sovereign power to extract wealth from sources with its borders, were able to afford truly effective armies, and to pay for the necessary fortifications. I wonder if without gunpowder the era of the tradtional feudal state might have endured longer. if it is still possible for powerful and wealthy Dukes, Counts and Earls to provide themselves with effective armies and fortifications, then they are still able to resist the rise of sovereign power in the centre of the realm. For classic D&D this is probably advantageous. The social order - based loosely on feudalism - might well endure far longer.

In many ways, if you really want to explore this idea, then White Wolf's Mage: the Sorcerers Crusade might be what you are looking for. It is set in the Renaissance, but a Renaissance where there is a philosophical war, with metaphysical consequences, about what is and is not good for people to be able to do. Is empowering the Masses a liberation, or is it the arming of barbarians who will tear down the delicate balances of God's earth?!

 

[Turjan]

Only nations, tapping the incomes of an entire realm, and with sovereign power to extract wealth from sources with its borders, were able to afford truly effective armies, and to pay for the necessary fortifications. I wonder if without gunpowder the era of the tradtional feudal state might have endured longer. if it is still possible for powerful and wealthy Dukes, Counts and Earls to provide themselves with effective armies and fortifications, then they are still able to resist the rise of sovereign power in the centre of the realm. For classic D&D this is probably advantageous. The social order - based loosely on feudalism - might well endure far longer.

Well, Italy and Germany have effectively shown that the development of nations and the necessities of military relying on gunpowder don't show any dependency on each other. The idea of the nation is a typical Western European idea without much influence on Central, Southern or Eastern Europe. It took till the end of the 19th century for this idea to spread further east. In a certain sense, it still hasn't reached these shores .