What would the rennaisance have looked like without gunpowder?

[kenjib]

Those are really good points about the nation state. In addition to both Roman Empires as Turjan points out, what about India, China, and even Ancient Dynastic Egypt? Was feudalism a precondition for the nation state or was it a strange backwater/eddy in the history of human organization?

If we assume that the Renaissance nation state is slower to form then, at the very least, and power remains more decentralized, what effect does this have on the explosion in exploration and the rise of the merchant class? It seems like these factors would likewise have been hindered in their development.

 

[Turjan]

Well, when I think of Renaissance, I can't see many nations during that time. Renaissance has the sound of Macchiavelli, or the dukes of Florence . The first real nation in modern day sense was France, at the end of the 18th century - along with the U.S., maybe .

The merchant class had it's development much earlier. It's a medieval product, just think of all those merchants' guilds that usually ruled the most cities in the Netherlands, Flanders, Germany and Italy. Or the Hanse. Or think of the Fugger family, who had a big trade network all over Europe; most European rulers owed them lots of money .

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I've been playing a lot of Civ III lately, and let me tell you, the Renaissance is no picnic without gunpowder.

Wulf

 

[LostSoul]

I've been playing a lot of Civ III lately, and let me tell you, the Renaissance is no picnic without gunpowder.

I've never found that to be true. You should have enough knights to engage any opposing force that they send against you. You won't be able to take any of his cities, but he shouldn't be able to get through yours either.

It all changes when you get Cavalry, back to the side of offense.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

It all changes when you get Cavalry, back to the side of offense.

Cavalry need gunpowder, too.

In the game I am playing now I am holding out for Nationalism-- that magical time in the infancy of the industrial age, when a nation comes together as one to build riflemen without the need for iron or gunpowder.

Meanwhile the Renaissance continues to suck...


Wulf

 

[Tisvon]

Cavalry need gunpowder, too.

In the game I am playing now I am holding out for Nationalism-- that magical time in the infancy of the industrial age, when a nation comes together as one to build riflemen without the need for iron or gunpowder.

Meanwhile the Renaissance continues to suck...


Wulf

But riflemen need gunpowder too.....

 

[Celebrim]

I don't think it necessarily would have looked all that different if the invention of gunpowder had been delayed 100 years or so.

Military arms would have looked somewhat different. Steel hand held weapons might have evolved to the same level that they did in Japan, and for similar reasons. Crossbows would have improved in efficiency. Longbows probably would have become more widespread. Trebuchets would have replaced artillery. None of this is nearly as big of a change as it sounds. Castles already would fall to any determined professional seige. Even after gunpowder was introduced, there was a great deal of contriversy over whether it was a superior form of artillery and weaponry than the older methods. The longbow maintained its presence on the battlefield until the Napleonic wars. There was a contingent of longbowmen at Waterloo. The sword remained an effective weapon until the around the American Civil war. In rate of fire, reliability, cost, effective range, and so forth, early gonnes were less effective than bows, trebuchets, and the like. There principal advantage was in the realitive ease of mastering thier use, not necessarily in potancy. And in this regard, they are not superior to a well made crossbow. Throughout the reinassance, the land battles were dominated by units of pikeman. Musketry, by reason of its slow rate of fire, low muzzle velocity, and resulting inaccuracy, was only secondary and supporting, and high quality crossbows or longbows could have suitably replaced it (and frequently did). The pike charge might have held off the day of the bayonette charge for a just that much longer. The armies were already becoming far more professional prior to the introduction of cannon. Laying seige, the assembling and operation Trebuchets, and constructing castles required professional and highly skilled engineers and logistic professionals. The later medieval armies were already increasingly mercenary and professional.

In short, I don't think that gunpowder precipitated any significant philosophical or cultural change on its own.

IMO, the really big questions with the delay in the introduction of gunpowder have to do with Europe's comparitive military strength with other cultures. Would Venice have won at Lepanto without the gonne? How would the conquisitors fared without the ability to summon thunder (for the gonne has an effect on morale if nothing else)?

 

[LostSoul]

Cavalry need gunpowder, too.

What I mean is that your Musketeers should have nothing to do. They should never get attacked (or very rarely) because your Knights are meeting the threat on the field. When the Cavalry comes, though, you're screwed unless you have Cavalry to face them. (Riflemen really aren't worth producing, unless you just don't have enough Cavalry.) It's only when you have Infantry that you can stop Cavalry. And at that point, you have to attack using Artillery (and lots of them) to take a city.

Civ 3 is great!

 

[Deadguy]

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 .

I'm not sure I quite agree with this interpretation (though I am aware that my thinking ight be skewing my perceptions). Germany - the Holy Roman Empire - is a peculair beast. In many ways it resembles an early supranational structure. By that I mean that the Emperor is 'master' over several de facto nations within the borders of the Empire proper. The Empire, by the time of the Renaissance (which hits the north of Europe really about 100 years later than Italy), is already polarising into the future nations that will arise from it. Thus though they may have the titles of Dukes, these lords are effectively sovereign in their own large territories.

Northern Italy is, I agree, somewhat different. But then again it is hard to appreciate just how staggeringly wealthy the city-states of Renaissance Italy are. Many of them had considerably more wealth than entire nations of northern Europe, based on their skills as traders and manufacturers. So whilst they may not take the exact form of the northern sovereign nations, they are essentially still wealthy enough to maintain those new armies. It depends whether you treat that firm sense of identity and authority as being essentially a nation-state.

So I still stand by the notion that the change in the nature of warfare has a serious hand in influencing the rise of the nation state.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Right, let's say the invention of Firearms, gunpowder is a much earlier invention in a different part of the world, doesn't happen until 1700.

Biggest difference is: The Hapsburgs win. Most of Europe becomes owned by one family with France, Switezerland, Scandanavia, Poland, and parts of Italy and the Balkans holding out but heavily influenced by them. Plus whatever is occupied by the Turks and Byzantines.

IMHO, the Hapsburgs don't do this in the first place because:

1.) guns means common troops gain a comparative advantage to elite troops which means more infantry which means vastly more expensive armies. This dynamic neutralized the Hapsburgs vast wealth as they were constantly being bankrupted by keeping several huge armies in the field at the same time. If elite troops maintain their dominance then the Hapsburgs have access to more sources of them and way more wealth with which to buy them.

2.) no comparative cannon advantages on the part of French and English. Without Cannons the Armada is an unstoppable force which overwhelms England and the French are still unable to adequately defend their border cities from Hapsburg, English, and Dutch incursions.

3.) Constantinople falls to cannon equipped Turks forcing the Hapsburgs to spend vast amounts of the resources on defending their Easter border. Without Gunpowder the Byzantines do a lot better generally or at least Constantinople stays around long enough for relief to arrive.

With the Hapsburgs in charge and super strong the world becomes a happier place and they capitalize on firearms big time when they arrive putting them, the Turks, and the Russians in a three way unstable super-power conflict for world domination with China and the Moguls trying in much stronger positions as the age of Imperialism arrives.

I still think the Conquistadors would have taken out the Aztecs and Incas. Horses are a HUGE advantage as is the innate super crazy mad gutz of guys like Cortes and Pizarro. Aguirre the wrath of God is dead on about how mad those people were. And madness of that type is lethal.