What if Gunpowder Never Existed?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 сер 2016
- We all know guns. We all have opinions on guns. Yet how much did guns contribute to the modern world we know today? How much would have changed if gunpowder never existed? Here is one scenario.
Facebook: alternatehis...
Twitter: / althistoryhub
Music by: Holfix and Sam Kuzel
/ holfix
/ samkuzel
Ending Song by NoSustain
• Never Alive
Sound Editing by Tyler Franklin
I'm just imagining a soldier in titanium armor on a motorcycle charging the enemy lines with a lance.
Not a lance, something similar to one though
so we managed to refine oil into petrol, create a combustion engine but we couldn't make guns?
@@benjammin9350 Yes. Gunpowder is the only thing removed from this timeline.
Titanium is an inferior metal when it comes to arms and armor. It doesn't hold an edge and it doesn't take impact as well. The only thing that it does do is that it is much much lighter. Furthermore it's much harder to forge in fact it may even blind the person that's forging it so I doubt if titanium would be used.
@@michaelsauls1142 but the only thing that changes is the removal of gunpowder, so eventually the industrial revolution would provide a way to forge titanium via assembly lines.
It's much more likely that titanium would be used in an alloy that helps nullify its weaknesses rather than pure titanium though
Without gunpowder and after electricity, I could see a “powered crossbow” that’s basically a rail gun being developed shortly after the invention of batteries.
Pneumatic guns is a better choice
@@G0RSHK0V Agreed, even today we dont have railguns that are effective, but we had pneumatic guns since the civil war
@@G0RSHK0V fair enough
Steam power is another possibility. aka steampunk
@@Klaaism Eventually though they’d discover the superiority of oil and (after some time) nuclear power. Although, with the lack of gunpowder and therefore lack of explosives, I’m not sure if nukes would be invented
1:02 ''In the grim darkness of the 9th Century, there is only war''
Ah, A man of Culture.
Can you explain the reference please? I don't know what it's from.
@@Memeboi-bd8so Original quote: "“IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE THERE IS ONLY WAR.”"
@Rolling Stone Thanks man
@@lordicarus8807 when I originally watched this I didn't know it was a warhammer reference lol
mate this whole video is full of 40k refferences
*gunpowder never existed*
Crossbow: it is time to evolve!
"Decades later"
Crossbow: *AUTOMATIC POWER!!*
Decades later: railgun
@@DarthGTB Decades later: AUTOMATIC RAILGUN POWER!!
@@cmdrblaze6487 a railgun is if u mix metal, near light speeds, and a machine gun.
Chinese already made a semi auto version
The polybolos is already a thing? Its a fully automatic bolt launcher developed by a dude in sicily
They tried to make a potion for everlasting life, and created something that would end lives.
Irony
Even if they had succeeded, they would've used the potion to end lives.
+Fire Lord Sanders nope
Luis Almodovar They would use the potion on their own military and use it as an immoral weapon of war.
+Fire Lord Sanders IT'S THE EXTRA CRISPY COLONEL
Fire Lord Sanders nope I'm pretty sure they can still die .........they would just live forever if no one kills them ........
School Shooter: “Alright, imma light up the school.”
*proceeds to load the catapult*
*school seige*
Teachers: *YOU SHALL NOT PASS*
school stabing
O h. G o d
So this means schools would have to conduct seige drills lol.
"What if guns never existed?"
Americans: *AMERICAN SCREECHING*
Dont worry, Napalm and petrol would still be a thing, so instead of guns. you can just use FLAMETHROWERS
@@Aaronkbrown1125 Destruction ball
Flamethrower warfare
🤔
At least we still have oil
In this AU it will probably be that every American has the right to own swords and bows.
I can imagine that an alternative to gunpowder would have been developed such as a way to launch small metal balls fast enough to penetrate armour whilst still costing far less than a arrow. It could be done with steam or maybe even magnets especially with the extensive evolution in mettle’s. Idk who know maybe we’re just permanently stuck in a knights vs knight world, fun to imagine though!
airgun exists, that could be lethal given enough developtment
@@richie_0740 Not only could they be lethal, but they were. There were entire armies that tried to use air guns instead of rifles because they could be fired so much faster, but the cost and complexity was too high compared to cheaper firearms.
It’s real hard to make something better the an arrow while cheaper then it sling would probably be the closest to what your talking about
Air guns would almost certainly be invented but much more difficult to use on a massive scale. You would still need a compressed air source and those would be bulky and difficult to carry for individuals, because the power source would have to be contained within the gun and not the small amount of gunpowder contained in a firearm round. Even the most advanced air compressors of today need a power source to operate and cartridges like CO2 are large, limited and lose power rather quickly. The most powerful, portable air rifles use hand pumps and although useful for many shots, they would weaken in effectiveness and take longer to recharge than it would to reload an old flintlock musket. They would most likely implement the same tactics that were used by armies using early firearms. Constant fire through multiple, alternating ranks. But those ranks would be under fire by modern calvary and snipers, that would shoot and then retreat to recharge their weapons. It would basically be no different than the American revolution or Civil war tactics. There would still be air cannons to contend with and assuming that aircraft are involved, there would be all manner of nasty things dropped from above. I could go on and on but I'll be here all night! LOL
It’s much more difficult for high speed projectiles to be developed without gun powder. It takes a lot more innovation to go from no gun to pneumatics vs gun powder. Pneumatics have more caveats, for example air is compressible, so you have to be more careful with how your expanding the air to get a energy as it is possible for the energy of the expanding air to be less than the energy it takes to drive the expansion
imagine being the first victim of the first flamethrower, that mustve been the scariest thing
Philly Cheese well i doubt the first "shot" would've been spot on accurate so like one min of full fear
Ask the Arabs when they besieged Constantinople under Umayyad Caliph Mu'awiya. The Roman Empire was developing flamethrowers, which they called firethrowers, to combat their nemesis the persian Sassanid Empire, but before they could finish this secret weapon the Muslim Arabs finished their civil war and launched invasions into Erahnshar and Rhomania to conquer the Earth as they were taught to do so when they felt they had enough power to do so. Persia fell completely and Rome lost Egypt, Levant, Libya, and Karthage. By the time the Umayyad Caliphate had replaced the Rashidun Caliphate and besieged Constantinople (Roman Empire's capital at this time), they were already developing their firethrowers and eventually whipped them out and burned away the jihadist hordes.
Mongol: My khal... the chinese, they have... they have...
Khal: What do they have?
Mongol: They have SICK FLAMETHROWERS!!
Guillem Holmes Who Dragons on their shoulders!
+RC15O5 Not the same
We would basically have warhammer 40k style melee combat with dudes in power armor and chainswords.
QorinHalfhand.
Chain swords are ineffective since it takes a long time to make a cut that a normal sword would do in an instant and swords aren’t effective against armor
*power armor and supersledges
exactly
@@thatonekid640 Well actually no, (if it has strong enough teeth and motor) a chainsword is actually more effective than a normal sword against armor. A sword is a large single hit easily deflected by armor but a chainsword as it hits causes hundred of small nics/dents that add up fast, with Every tiny hit pulling the chainsword further and further into the armor. Arch Warhammer did a video explaining it better, I recommend that.
(Sorry if I appear "oh u wrong", that's not what I mean at all.)
@@leobracken2316 The significant problems are as you said; strong enough teeth and motor, but also the user's own ability to control the weapon. Even against relatively soft materials like wood, chainsaw teeth still blunt and break and both the chainsaw and what it's cutting through need to be held very firmly and carefully. Against hardened steel armour even the strongest chainsaw teeth we could make today would quickly break off and fly everywhere, becoming as much a hazard for the user as the target. And that's if the chain doesn't break or the chainsaw itself doesn't catch on something and tear itself out of the users hands (which is probably the most likely outcome).
A regular sword by comparison is a single big blade and therefore has much greater structural integrity. Swords were never used to cut through armour (the only thing that could penetrate hardened steel armour would be a full swing with a heavy penetrating weapon like a halberd. Even then it isn't going to penetrate very far and will likely get stuck in the plate, so at most the weapon's lost and the opponent's been winded.) Fighting against a fully-armoured opponent usually involves bashing and wrestling them to the ground and then either restraining them or stabbing them through a gap like the visor. This is why maces and other percussive weapons are far more effective against fully armoured targets as they can transmit enough raw force to break bones even through armour plating.
same as you. I'm just adding to the discussion :)
*WII starts*
Hitler: READY THE ARROWS
@Adolf Hitler Jawoll!
Probably it woudnt even happen, because the ww1, the motivation to hitler happened because of the assasination of a guy, Yes, With a *Gun*
I don't know why, but Ive always thought that it'd be cool for every village, town, and city to be surrounded by a wall. I imagine it'd add a real distinct feeling of security to each of those places, ya know? Also, I feel like it'd add a sense of adventure to every trip outside of the city walls.
i introduce to you
swimdon in the amazing frog
also attack on titan
@@droiddevx03 ... have you never seen or heard sarcasm or jokes
do you honestly think im serious when i say
Damn
attack on Titan
and
the AMAZING FROG
WHAT IN THAT SEEMS SERIOUS TO YOU
@@droiddevx03 well that was uncharacteristic
well thats a lie also :3
Those exist in rea life in the form of illegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank
Basically late game Civ V
dude you could of had truck knights, imagine a dude with a lance in an ford f350 running over a confused aztec empire
that would be awesome. but it would probably be a truck chariot not a truck knight.
i disagree you can't aim going 75 mph
i was thinking more of a scythed truck chariot for running thought troops
If we had combustion engines then we wouldn't need gunpowder that much anyway. We would probably have lots of hydrocarbon based weapons, some guns and lots of flamethrowers.
how would the guns work?
Terrorist 1: alright boys, let's attack this place
Terrorist 2: okay boss i'll fire the weapon now
*catapult is launched into crowd*
ha ha!
you love to see it
It would be great for world atleast there would be less
in israel terorists use knifes since they rarely can even get guns and bombs.
driving into crowds at high speed is also a tactic they employ.
(i am talking about terorists in israeli teritory, not hamas)
Yes, they launch the catapult in to the crowd, not the rock
Jacolite The Pumpkin Well that’s why you need a trebuchet that can use a counterweight to launch a 90kg stone projectile over 300m.
CAVALRY not CALVARY (where Jesus was crucified)
*_YES_*
In an alternate timeline, mounted troops ride calves.
YES. How can someone so intelligent mess up such a basic word? Has he never heard it pronounced anywhere else before? Doesn't give me much faith in him as a historian tbh
🤣
@@TheeGrumpy calfs not calves.
I would love to see some sort of fictional setting where walled cities and chivalrous combat with hand to hand weapons was still a thing in a 21st century. It could make an interesting setting for stories and games.
@CAT CHANNEL There is still America (the continents), just not our modern american countries
@CAT CHANNEL actually we're still hanging in there. And are taking back our republic. This election is a proverbial blood bath.
Metal Gear Rising
same
@@amooingdog3297RULES OF NATURE
We would've weaponized electricity alot more!
Send in the Tesla guns! ^^
Soldiers with Tesla guns tazzing knights:
"No so smart with your heavy metal conducting armor now, are you?"
@@MaitreKorda
Yes, because when your enemy has tesla guns you totally continue wearing your metal armour... XD
@@PerfectAlibi1 It's like a rock paper scissors, you may think you had a good idea to not wear armor to be immune to the tesla lances, but then your regiment come straight in the line of fire of a regiment of crossbowmen.
You're fucked.
In the end, it would be up to generals, and others officiers to move their troops and assets accordingly.
Because a knight would be better fitted to resist a projectile weapon, but will be destroyed in the eventuality of Tesla-powered weapon.
On the other hand, someone without armour would be destroyed by any conventional weapon.
Light armour (leather) would be a good alternative, but not protect much from projectiles or others weapons.
@@MaitreKorda So you equip your soldiers with both weapons.
@@fatalshore5068 Too expensive and heavy, they would be slower.
They would also still be at risk of getting caught by cavalery or another close combat unit that would slash them.
Polyvalent soldiers who can carry and use all weapons + armours are expensive, take a lot of time to train, and are not desirable for large battle, but precise objectives.
If gun powder was never created, then this video would never have been created :/
What does gunpowder have to do with the invention of the internet?
+Chief Keith the fact that the british empire would not have neccesarily become to powerful and took so much land, which in the future could mean that australia/usa might not exist and in theory that could mean the idea for a computer or internet was never thought of
Dr Muffin Mhm I think we would still have them but not at the same time as we do in this timeline. It would just take longer to create but I think it would eventually happen. But we don't really have a clear cut answer as to if it would or would not.
I think what +fastest skier means is that there would be no need for this video since gunpowder never existed in that timeline.
+Shadow Knight - Road to 100k subs Oh yeah.
Gunpowder: * doesn’t exist *
The Byzantines: * Greek fire intensifies *
Omg yes
Molotovs would be discovered later
The conquest of Mexico probably would've happened pretty similarly as Cortez's army barely made use of their canon, and it was mainly plague that did the work for the Conquistadores. But the conquest of North America would have been very, very different, and I could easily see Colonial/USA existing in small pockets.
Klaus! Panzer on the North! grab the bag of spears!
Tank crew: **loads a giant bolt at the giant crossbow mount**
Its called a ballista
@@inklun3172 if you mount a balista on a tank hull, is it still called a balista?
@@Satan-nw4lv yes, satan
ENEMY TRAIN INCOMING, AND THE BALLISTA IS AIMED RIGHT AT US!
"Load AP bolts!"
Or, they simply would have switchrd to flamethrowers. Oil still exists in that timeline and the Byzantines used something called "Greek Fire", which is basically the real life equivalent of Game of Throne's wildfire.
@John Saf Greek Fire
@@iplyrunescape305 greek will grow so massively
@John Saf For artillery, the launchers themselves likely wouldn't change all that much, but the ammunition surely would. Gunpowder isn't the only thing that explodes, and as technology improves you could replace the tip of a ballista bolt or catapult projectile with flammable materials, explosives or lethal chemicals. Eventually, rockets and missiles would dominate warfare just like they do today.
We could have explosives without gunpowder right?
@@martinpavlicek2299 Sure. Gunpowder was just the first explosive we discovered.
Imagine a modern world but with city walls and knights & armor.
Well we do have walls. On the borders. But we just shoot trespassers who're caught on drone or cctv
Riding a motorcycle and holding a spear
If it was like this, anyone can literally tell everyone how lasers can become weapons
Very bad ones.
2:23
"Armies had to improve the quality of their swords"
**swaps to golden sword*
@@nuphhrffe875 n o . . .
Thomas McNab no the diamonds are stronger
@@nuphhrffe875 iron is even better than gold swords. Gold swords suck
Gold swords are the same damage as wood just less durability
@@cringeboi498 yea they suck
Praise the emperor for that Warhammer 40k referance.
You deseve an iron halo for the second one, battle brother.
+Kc40k and a purity seal for the third
The emperor protects!
PURGE, KILL, MAIM THE HERETIC!!!
indeed
One of the biggest effects could have been japan. The person who single handedly reunified Japan, only survived early on through the use of muskets and there role in major battles were the deciding factor. Who knows what Japan would have looked like.
I wonder if, due to the more widespread use of crossbows in this timeline, we would have invented the railcannon sooner, as the principals of their function arent too distinct, its just "push a projectile thing with another thing until it flies off"
"Europeans put guns on boats" G U N B O A T S
bill wurtz
O P E N T H E C O U N T R Y
S T O P H A V I N G I T B E C L O S E D
By this time
Knock Knock, it's the Americans. With boats. Huge boats. With guns. G U N B O A T S.
We would have invented Light Sabers
Drax the Literalist LMAO😂😂
then we would be star wars, then in another galaxy there was real earth too watching star wars movie
TheGaming Lettuce multi-verse?
Drax the Literalist xD
true
10:47 Honestly, the strongest advantage that the conquistadores had against Aztecs and other Empires was their native allies from the Atlantic coast, as well as diseases and agricultural damage caused by feral pigs and the like, but I agree that many societies would be able to hold their own even then, without gunpowder.
Might be possible, that things like Gauss rifles would have been invented already. The idea of launching projectiles at enemies already existed, electricity would still have been discovered, why not?
@CAT CHANNEL I think you missed the whole point of the video
Interesting but you completely neglected the evolution of seige weapons or how new technologies like steam and electricity could have been weaponized in the absence of gunpowder.
No Gunpoweder = Steampunk? Cool!
@@Bronze_Age_Sea_Person We need to kill those chinese monks NOW! Build a time-machine god damn it!
@@eurasianlynx5584 But no more guns...
@@patch-fm Steampunk knights beat guns. They're far cooler.
Eurasian Lynx
The invention of gunpowder was inevitable, it’s made of 3 ingredients that every powerful nation of the 9th century would have Ámbar access to in abundance. China just lucked into it first
If Gunpowder didn't exist, war would have been the same.
Just nastier, with flame throwers and napalm (like the good old Greek Fire).
Air guns, crossbow-gatlings, mustard gas and MadMax style car rampage.
Also, Steel wouldn't change much. Because the best material for swords and weapons of war is springsteel, invented in the medieval times.
Eventually railguns in modern times
If gunpowder didn't exist, we would have called another similar powder "gunpowder" and used it instead.
@@Galactipod “powdergun”
@@Galactipod modern gunpowder isn't even original gunpowder anymore and hasn't been for over a hundred years. Without blackpowder (the original gunpowder) cannons and guns would just come a bit later using smokeless powder and different explosive compounds
I also wonder if Biological warfare would be used more, and earlier on time.
Id love to see a game made out of this idea
5:46
"Oi, Jimmy, why you dun bring a baby to a battlefield!?"
"'Aven't you heard? It's bring your child to work day. 'Sides, we couldn't afford a sitter"
"Oi, Jimmy, your son's been strung up on a bayonet like a wee squib on a stick!"
"Aw shucks, I'ma get a load outa the old woman t'nite"
I think you missed the most important effect, the relationship between the rulers and the population. Gunpowder, the flintlock and the ring bayonet not only make battles more lethal (leading to more siege warfare); they also change what is required for victory in war. By the 14th century the nobility itself no longer decided battles, mercenaries did, so in that period the ability to finance and hire mercenaries was the deciding factor in war. With the flintlock and ring bayonet that changed. You could simply shanghai a group of peasants, give them relatively cheap weapons and drill them for 6 weeks and you had an army. That makes control over access to recruits the most important factor in creating an army (in addition to equipping them). That means if the peasants refuse to be conscripted you lose your war, that means the peasants need to be heard when going to war. This is the fundamental cause of modern democracy. Rulers traded political power for military power.
Without gunpowder we would still be relying on mercenaries of the late medieval period because skill is decisive in melee combat while in ranged combat drill is decisive. You can drill peasants but only experience creates skill.
Great point! That's why the 2nd Amendment is so important to many Americans like myself. With my guns I'm not reliant upon a nobleman's knights in order to protect my family.
@@warpartyattheoutpost4987 if it wasnt a gun itd be an auto crossbow or something. technological progress is inevitable
@@godemperorofmankind3.091, an auto crossbow or some sort of pneumatic system that fired projectiles. This video should've explored the technological alternatives to gunpowder more, that was the reason I clicked on it.
@@warpartyattheoutpost4987 tesla gun
It's mostly a money play. Gunpowder units are expensive, canons for example used to be extremely expensive. It allowed richer countries to conquer and rule poor ones. Without Gunpowder the Spanish and English would've not been able to conquer half South America .
Maybe they would use gases under pressure
Jarid Gaming they do for airsoft weapons which are non-lethal
yes but you can mod those to become lethal
Jarid Gaming Well, in the end gunpowder weapons are just gas pressure weapons too. The question is just, how can you supply enough pressure to an infantry weapon, without a pressure source as strong as gunpowder?
They would also use other explosives.
THERE WILL BE MORE SOPHISTICATED AIR GUNS!!
Weirdly i imagine a tank rolling down like cavalry but there is no cannon gunpowder so it just ram people over.
In alternative world with No gunpowder:
"WW1 with laser crossbows"
"WW2 with space ships with bows"
2:22
"...Armies had to improve..."
Iron to gold.
"...Sharper and more durable..."
Thank god I wasn't the only one to notice that
If gun powder never existed, Harambe would've never died
He would've been stabbed instead.
He would've been stabbed instead.
Or shot with an arrow
Technically speaking, Harambe may have never even been born. Who knows if the parents of Harambe would even procreate with the amount of things gunpowder has helped do which could influence that very action. Britain may not have been as powerful which eventually leads to the USA which would also eventually lead to the Cincinnati Zoo never being made, including the animals inside.
Now that's a world I would like to live in
Every time I look back at this, I keep envisioning a world of pneumatic weaponry once the industrial revolution hits. We tend to think of them as toys or sporting goods, like BB Rifles, and airsoft guns. But there were actual air powered rifles that were made for killing. The Austrian military used an Italian design from 1780 to 1815. Theoretically, you could create pneumatic cannons firing metal spikes at high velocities, enough to puncture armor. Picture something like the press guns from Break Blade, only not powered by magic crystals.
when you mentioned technological stagnation it reminded me about how in warhammer 40k the imperium has used the same tech for millennia. Since it was both considered sacred and served it's purpose, there was less of a need to upgrade, while the tau needed to constantly upgrade to compensate for their small numbers. could something like that happen in this age without gunpowder?
what if Caesar was never backstabbed by the senate?
Things I see:
What you did there.
Caesar provoke his own death by goading the ' mob/ civilian population ' into proclaiming him King. Caesar was an old man at them time of his death, late 50's. He had epalipse/ the shakes, and was whereing Depends. The family records at the time show that he was slowly dying.
If Caesar killed his polical riviles the city civilians would turn on him and his family for trying to take control of the Empire. If his P.R. killed him/ the Great Hero of the Empire. The city would revenge kill his rivils and his family would gain all of the power.
I AM... The Senate!
Maybe the empire would expanded faster. Maybe they could have conquered Persia
+Terribly Charismatic Duck you, I like you! Hahaha
I apologize to you guys for having three weeks without a video. The reason I didn't was simple. This scenario was complex, and the history behind it involved a lot of research. If I wanted to do it right, I needed to research and rewrite.
I like to think I make quality content, but also I have to juggle that with content every week. I'll aim for smaller videos for the time being so I can release videos on a more regular schedule. I want to make more videos, but I also want to make great videos :).
Thank you all for 800,000 subscribers.
please review the what if homefront is happened.
if u respond u know who i am
It's cool Cody:3
This video was great
What if Operation: Market Garden (The Allied plan to invade and liberate Holland and cross the Rhine into Nazi Germany and end the war by Christmas 1944) succeeded and hadn't failed?
just found this channel and it's amazing!
Imagine trench warfare with swords and crossbows lol
Without gunpowder, I'm not sure trench warfare would be all that common
Without gunpowder, Bateman would be way more scary
Bateman. Autocorrect
Bateman ?
Batman. Autocorrect
With out gunpowder they wouldn't be able to shoot his parents batman becomes a rich kid with parents and a happy one.
Garmr well his parents died because i think they were assassinated, so someone was payed or ordered to kill them, if thats the case then technically he would still be batman because the point was that his parents were killed in general and not because they were shot, get what i mean?
Massive railguns
Nick Angelos Tanks with ballistas and gatling guns.
gatling guns also use gunpowder.
a I meant like an arrow shooting gatling gun.
And Tesla's Death Ray :)
I think the railgun idea sprung up from advancement in gun science.
So nope.
At 4:31 that's Pedro de Valdivia, infamous Spanish conquistador, asserting his dominion in 1541 over the valley of Santiago, Chile. From a Chilean painting from the 1800's. That image used to adorn the 500 pesos bank note until a couple decades ago. Lover your vids mate!
Imagine tanks with catapult and ballista turrets that used hydraulics to launch projectiles
We could have used lasers, Flamethrrowers, radioation or even Electricity!
Or some other flammable substance.
Split an attom so hard it laonches a black hole at them
Why does nobody factor in Railguns?
@@flare9757 Because we will maybe need a extra millenium to make them in this timeline and because of that it would be meaningless to consider by today standarts
Justin C. On the contrary. There are several fully functional railguns today.
@@flare9757 No i dont mean to say think i want to say is if we dont have gunpowder we would not have colonization of world by europe then because of that there is no industrial age then there is not technological advances that make us today okey maybe we would find some alternatives over time but if there was no gunpowder we need maybe 1 or 2 millenium to even come the place we are in now
Could you imagine carrying your sword handling permit? When your packing usually meant you had stainless steel
ZippyZach , people would protest for anti-sword movements, and others would advocate for the right to owning a sword. Daggers would seem as dangerous as pistols, and we'd us spoons to cut butter.
Unless that sword was for show or to hang on a wall, swords were never made of stainless steel. Stainless steel is WAY too brittle to be used for a sword. Shortswords, MAYBE... Daggers, yeah, you can have stainless steel daggers. The problem with stainless steel SWORDS is that the blade is so strong that it will shatter when impacted hard enough. It's just too hard. The harder the steel, the more brittle it is. The softer the steel, the more durable it is. A stainless steel sword may cut deeper than a high carbon steel sword but the stainless steel sword will break in two pieces once someone tried to parry another sword. The high carbon steel sword will have a shallower cut, but when parried with another sword, it will bend and flex and return to straight because it's not as hard as stainless steel. The edge on a stainless steel blade will last longer, but if parried edge-to-edge, the edge will chip off. The hardened edge also allows for the stainless steel blade to be sharper, because it can be angled at a shorter angle, since it's so hard. The edge of a high carbon steel blade will be wider, because it's not as hard, and if a high carbon steel blade's edge was as shallow as a stainless steel blade's edge, then it will dull very fast. The edge will roll to the side or be impacted in because it's softer than stainless steel. This is why I say stainless steel blades are usually sharper than high carbon steel, but a broken sword is worse than a dull sword, so high carbon steel blades were always used in combat. Stainless steel sword blades were either ceremonial, or decorative. They required less maintenance as well, since stainless steel is much more corrosion resistant than high carbon.
Thallanar Rabidtooth It's a fucking joke .-.
Yes I would. The Japanese literally aren't allowed to own a samurai sword without a permit. That's why there has been no incident of mass murders by a lunitic with a sword ever!
Thallanar Rabidtooth you know what humor is right? -_-
The Taoists didn’t discover gunpowder Because they figured out the potion of immortality
"Into the Badlands" came close, but that was a post-apocalypse, post-gun world. JoergSprave developed a repeating crossbow & improved on a repeating longbow on his YT page, also there's the rapid fire catapult from the 2nd Chronicles of Narnia movie; I think we'd see all 3 in a gunless world. Not to mention ballise on prop planes & helicopters.
It would be more gradual but eventually we would adapt. Small caliber compressed air weapons. Air dropped cluster / shrapnel munitions. Naval rail guns. Even nuclear weapons. If you want to be more literal you can even still have explosives without gun powder. Plastic explosives could still exist.
Exactly.
Natural gas would have been discovered, and its explosive capabilities.
> Small caliber compressed air weapons
Large caliber, with the discovery of coal and the invention of the steam engine...
Or someone could invent an automatic crossbow. With time it would get more compact and eventually fire solid projectiles instead of arrows. And there goes your gun...
ONI? Why are you here?
air rifles existed since the napoleonic wars. They fired almost completely noiselessly, used no gunpowder, and didnt make big smoke clouds, yet were more accurate than muskets. There were only two reasons why they didn't become more prominent: Cost, and complexity. However, these wouldn't have mattered when they could absolutely destroy fully ironclad knights.
But you need the building block for such an invention. Like natives liked using guns. They just didn’t know how to produce such weapon on a massive scale
You cant make an air rifle if you don't know what a rifle is
air rifles are designed off of the idea of something expanding with enough energy to push something small through a tube at high velocities. Without gun powder it would take lot longer for this concept to be realized
But people would still invent steam engines, easily learning about pressure and expansion, wouldn't they?@@davidkong8493
I wonder if an alternative would’ve been made, like a water-sodium type thing. I’m not a science guy but I know the elements related to sodium tend to react violently with water
There are many different explosive compounds, original blackpowder has been obsolete for a very long time so realistically barely anything would change in the long run
The funny part about this is that army's would probably use things like electric lances, gas weapons, flame throwers, hand held rail guns, and quite possibly crossbows
i would imagine pres Kennedy will get sniped by an arrow on that timeline
He’d probably get shanked
There would be no United States to begin with, at least nowhere near its modern day size and influence. European settlers would have a tougher time defending their colonies and -- most important of all -- conquering anything from the natives. Pretty safe to say there would be no president Kennedy.
The Supervisor pres. Kennedy would never exist or would be a fisherman with a different name in Europe. Hehe
CROSSBOW FROM RUST CRUNCH! SOUNDS LIKE PUTTING MILK IN RICE KRISPIES!
@@84Supervisor r/woosh
I can just imagine someone breaking into a house and the owner since guns dont exist grabbing a short bow from his closet
lmfao
i would like rob a bank in gta using my longbow
Imagine having a car that has a ballista on it as this universe's tank. Wow that would be super cool actually! Or maybe a tank with a ballista and crossbow hatches! The possiblities
No gunpowder, no guns, no european world domination, no world wars, no nuclear energy and bombs, no cold war, no internet, no youtube, no AlternateHistoryHub.
Król Cieni Alternate Histories are very scary
***** If there was no gunpowder, guns will never exist. If there were no guns, there will be no world wars. If no world wars, no nuclear energy and bombs. It's sequence of events.
***** Without nukes WW II may never end.
Król Cieni no any technology or industrial revolution without uk
When thinking about alternative history, it's easier to say "what will *not* happen?"
no gun powder = harambe still alive
they would shoot him with a cross bow or something bigger like a ballista
+smilermiles ftw bit ott
+smilermiles ftw a ballista bolt would kill the kid aswell (good riddance)
They probably would've just used a tranquilizer gun that used compressed air instead.
Bows, crossbows. And also someone already said that
2:55 is the Battle of Aljubarrota, one of the most important battles in the Iberian history and probably the most important of portuguese history, being involved even with the 100 Years War and having the oldest aliance in europe as a protagonist: the portuguese and the brittish vs the spanish and the french.
What about no dynamite for mining and tunneling? How would that have impacted the world? Would it be a bigger impact than just no guns?
Did you see modern crossbows? Imagine balistas with those materials. Then put em on a ship. Opium wars would've been much more epic
And now put a bundle of dynamite around the bolt tip.
@@CteCrassus the reason dynamite was invented was because of the fact that explosives at the time were dangerous to anyone who used them. without gunpowder, the need for a safe explosive would be nonexistent, therefore, no dynamite
@@jockeyfield1954 Dynamite was invented because *nitroglycerine* was far too dangerous, not gunpowder. Gunpowder doesn't need to exist for the mining industry to need a safe way to blow stuff up.
@@CteCrassus people just assume the absence of gunpowder means no explosives exist at all or that firearms are never invented
@@CteCrassus Wouldn't dynamite be obsolete since Gunpowder is removed?
What if the Sahara was not a desert? How different would the world be if trade between the Mediterranean -Mideast area and south central and west Africa was easier?
this is a good one!
interesting
I third this
Africa would probably have been much more advanced.
yasssśsssss
In 4:31 the painting shown is “Fundación de Santiago por Pedro de Valdivia”, by Pedro Lira. It shows the valley where Santiago is now located, in Chile. There weren’t any Aztecs there.
Eventually we’d probably invent railguns, coilguns, or some other form of energy ranged weapon, maybe even some sort of supermassive catapult or a modernized trebuchet
"Calvary" oh god please no.
it triggers me every time lol
RIGHT?!?!?!
I didn't trained for years just to get killed like this!!!
I fully support the "wrong" way.
CHEERS LOVE
CAVALRY'S HERE
You totally missed the effect of other siege weapons against fortifications, ships, and even open fields. The arms race would have centered around the catapult, trebuchet, mangonel, and ballista; and the types of ammunition that they used. The weapons would have impelled massive development of strong and lightweight metal alloys, and ammunition would have spurred a chemist's race for flammables, poisons, and corrosives. Basically the world would have been alchemist-punk and clockwork-punk until the advent of steam-punk.
The industrial revolution probably hits much earlier in Europe to support the new "high-tech" environment. Africa and the New World still get mowed down by European colonization regardless. And major intervention into Asia didn't really occur until the invention of ironclad ships, so in the new timeline this still occurs except these steam powered ships are armed with steam cannon and catapults with chlorine canisters and napalm instead of gunpowder shells. Also, even without gunpowder, you still have other solid explosives that would have been invented like TNT and plastics explosives like C4.
I think the only main difference is that the "common soldier" gets phased out in favor of engineers and technicians who escort and care for mobile siege weapons, and grenadiers who act as mini weapons platforms. War would be slower, cities would still have walls (until military flight and rockets). And the US war of independence, if it does occur, most likely fails horribly due to the lack of viable weapons for the rebel colonists. In this scenario, Britain and France either carve up the world or stay at each others throat until some new upstart topples them.
My thoughts exactly. He didn't really mention siege weapons here. And chemicals can also explode or poison.
I would love to see a movie like this
The first industrial revolution, that prepared the social organizatin for the second one, was based on textile industry stolen from India. Industrial revolution would probably happen there, unless imitated by China or taken by them or by other power.
Yep, steam cannons. Obviously much slower rate of fire but beggars can't be choosers. And with the industrial revolution and the extensive understanding of pulley systems, i think compound bows would be invented much earlier and become the front line infantry weapons, and actually more effective than allot of muskets! By the time you get to the invention of the internal combustion engine, modern weaponry based on combustible materials is inevitable regardless of not having gun powder..... for this scenario to work, you would basically have to eliminate all highly combustible materials, not just gun powder. And the world would be stuck in the steam age, compound bows, steam cannons, catapults, and steam technology would be pushed, how far it can get who knows? Probably eventually steam driven tanks!
Write a book
We take the paradigm changing technology for granted when discoveries made by random luck might go unnoticed or ignored for thousands of years.
10:04, however, they would still use “Greek fire”, if they found out its secrer recipe.
This is unlikely to be seen, but without gunpowder, cavalry would have remained very relevant. The need for tactical mobility in any operation is always a necessity, and the lack of it led to the destruction and loss of life during the first World War. Horses can be armored just as men can, and in a sense, the tactical usage of the cavalryman and the modern tank are functionally the same: heavier units can break through frontlines, and lighter ones can attack flanks and routed enemies. Without gunpowder, men on horses with lances and sabres are still an extremely important part of any army.
darkfireslide what if you would replace the horses with vehicles similar to motorbikes
World War 1 still had firearms. After the adoption of proper cavalry tactics, you cannot find a war pre-firearms where cavalry did not significantly change the way the war was fought. Even though Agincourt was a devastating loss for the French forces, the presence of heavily armored cavalry significantly changed the way the English fought and thought about their situation. Without guns, armor is still relevant and thus so is the heavy cavalryman.
Even after gunpowder, all throughout the age of the musket, cavalry is still a useful and present battlefield tool, although much less invincible.
In WW1, the cavalryman is replaced by the tank crew by war's end.
Horses aren't useful only on the battlefield.
That's actually where the myth about Polish cavalry charging on tanks was born.
Poland at the beggining of WW1 used cavalry, but not in the battlefield, but as means to reposition. It was basically hit squat of well trained foot soldiers with out of combat mobility of cavalry
I'm seeing motorized cavalry, like soldiers on bikes running at full speed with their swords
Also imagine breeding horses for ever increased strength (to better wear armor)
Small, fast tanks used for running over formations of infantry perhaps? Landships? Aircraft used for scouting and travel only. Man, this would be cool to see.
Stallion386 Even though it would be awesome, tanks would never exist. Neither would ironclads, neither would bayonets, neither would trenches, neither would periscopes. The first tanks were basically moving shields with rifles and machine guns in them to stop the bullets that came their way. The only problem, is that they broke down nearly all the time. Planes would probably still be a thing. Or maybe not, since the Wright Brothers were American and America would be very different without gunpowder of any kind if there even would be an America.
Trenches existed before guns as a method of slowing and trapping cavalry charges.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare#Field_works
Aircraft can always drop stuff. Kinetic bombardment is a thing.
maybe some kind of armoured carriage with a ballista on top?
Airplanes dropping big piles of stone on infantry lines... Wow.. :D
I like to imagine they just went from horses and bows straight to plasma blasters.
"In the grim darkness of the 9th century there is only war" it took me years to get this reference.
To be honest compressed air would eventually become more prominent. Idk how but it offers an interesting solution
It definitely would. For a while compressed air rifles for a while were more effective than gunpowder rifles (much faster reloading and quieter, though not as powerful) but were not used as much due to their cost and complexity.
@@whoiam5838 and for what I saw in a comment somewhere in the comment section (Ik its not very trustable but I if its wrong or right I learn either way) it has less range (can't tell if its compared to modern or old/muskets guns) and it gets reduced after each shot
@@ValphaVolf I believe that it had less range than even the old guns/muskets, and it did get a little less powerful after each shot, but the Girardoni Air Rifle we think Lewis and Clark took on their expedition had a magazine that held 22 bullets, and was reloaded by tipping the gun up and pressing a button on the side. That is is an incredible rate of fire during that time.
I also believe I heard that you could get off about to magazine's worth of shots before it lost enough air that it stopped being effective, at which point you would have had to take off the butt stock air canister and either pump it back up, or replace it with a fresh one.
Then we would have maybe exeskeletons of plate armor
wha makes you think we dont have that allready exept its not plate armor its more like reactive armor
Titantoons!!!!!
Just imagine you see someone in war holding a lightsaber with heavy titanium armor.
This channel is basically game theory for real life
im fighting north korea on a Apache helicopter with my crossbow!!
Crossbows would've been automated eventually.
Imagine a rocket launcher, but it shoots bolts.
Your helicopter would have 0 weapons so gotta hire the boys so you can drive and shoot
Air rifles are more efficient and reliable then bows and crossbows, but they arent good enough to match guns so they'd just be the new crossbows
Helicopters would still have "missile" launchers on them.
Missile=capable of being thrown or projected to strike a distant target.
@@mikepratt7437 but the explosion isnt there, so its just like a catapult. Throwing an heavy thing at a crowd or building
Then Harambe would be alive.
Yup if only 😭
Lol i was going to say that
He would be shot by a crossbow.
I used to be an internet meme like you, then I took an arrow to the knee ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Brutal
The horses googly animation cracks me up 😂
The way you say cavalry kills me in the opposite way of how your 40k reference did.
but...but....
war never changes
It's high noon.
but but
War has changed
JUSTICE RAINS FROM AHHHHHH
Heroes never die, for a price.
It doesn't people still murder and massacre each other
If gunpowder never existed USA would be boring
Common sense broad sword regulations and the prohibition of claymores for private use.
Jack McFadden-Finlayson I bet that claymores would be legal in Scotland xD
What would american people do while they shouted: " 'MERICA FUCK YEAAAA!"
The american stereotypes are so good lmao
or possibly never existed considering how hard it would be to establish a colony.
Without gunpowder, we would've probably turned to pneumatic firearms. They'd be clunkier, but they'd work. We'd invent magazine-fed crossbows a whole lot earlier. We'd still have guns, they'd just be different. Crossbows would've been a lot more fashionable in this alternative universe though, that's for sure.
Without gunpowder, we would have used another, less ideal, powder as gunpowder, naming it "gunpowder."
@@Galactipod But that'd still be gunpowder though.
@@sgtsaltstick2729 What we call gunpowder would never exist. The people in that world would name another powder, that we don't call gunpowder, "gunpowder."
You missed the opportunity to say that violence levels exploded
If there was no gunpowder, and the industrial revolution came much later (early-mid 1900's) There might of been an era of steam-powered ships/airships and pneumatic weapons. Air cannons, spear launchers, mortars, and possibly jetpacks
Pneumatic guns. Steam powered weapons firing what are essentially normal bullets. The range is inferior, but the concept is the same. Put enough force into a projectile, it doesn't matter how, and you'll go though armor like butter.
SCIENCE!
Yea he didn't put in to account gasoline and metal and stuff was later found and improved on. Welcome in the steampunk age
The steampunk age!
I think, with warfare and no gun powder people would have looked for the next best solutions, yours makes allot of sense really, some of your idea's would probably happen, but I also think, armor, as cody mentioned, would be extremely important. Can I put wheels on something and ram it into soldiers like a horse? How can we prevent this from happening and guard massive amounts of soldiers? Is there a way to fight and also be guarded with this happening? Using armored crafts as cover and a way to break enemy lines, defeat the enemy, attack without being attacked, which would then turn into a rush for figuring out more ways of having automotive vehicles, heavily armored, and how to attack VIA those crafts, almost similar to Boats with big ass rams on them and spears on the side. Getting to a scenario where you're practically playing crash-derby on a battlefield, and ways to counter-act that.
Steampower could easily play a huge hand into this type of warfare, and I think it would play a huge roll.
I think that this video misses a huge point, we use explosives for another important thing than killing people, basically blowing up rocks. And blowing up rocks is necessary in extracting calcareous materials for cement, and rocks that make aggregates for the concrete, and making tunnels to dig up basically every kind of mineral we use like iron. If we can't extract materials using explosives, we'd dig them up by hand, which would make houses and every single kind of iron machinery more expansive, meaning no fast mechanization of agriculture of fast urbanization, basically we can't feed and house all the humans now without explosives.
Marouane H True. It wouldn't be possible to dig through mountains and create tunnels, either. But that would be fine. There are plenty of other ways to solve problems.
a gas based explosive is possible and likely would of replaced gun powder in alot of ways. We wouldn't be as advanced cus it would of taken longer to develop I'm sure but it likely would eventually be a thing.
Well it would've been kinder on the planet. Rather than the fracking and levelling of mountains done today. We hardly needed to go looking for oil though, it was bubbling out the ground in some places.
Gold rush?
Most explosives aren't made from gun powder. There are hundreds of chemical formulations that can be used to create explosives.
The technological advancements made with the engine would shape the face of wars and we could as well be seeing battles fought with big tanks that just ran the other tanks and ppl storming out of the tanks trying to get in the enemy tanks just like old ship warfare
What about Cannons based on built up steam? If you can get enough steam pressure from heating up water, you may be able to produce a cannon based on it, though it would probably be very immobile.
No guns, no USA
A world without Donald Glover's 'This is America'--ua-cam.com/video/Y9P_-eC76lk/v-deo.html
dont tease me like this
No Ottoman Empire, no end to feudalism, no Spanish, French and English empires, and just about four centuries of Western AND eastern history wouldn't have happened before the Advent of the USA.
Really anachronistic reasoning you have there.
Technically the original goal was to go to india but they found amercia they saw the natives(because they thought they were indians) they enslaved the natives and yadayada freedom & purging the original land owners
The origin of america is dark
Which means no memes.
Imagine what the blitzkrieg would look like;
A literal blood bath of armour and lances
Nah, they'd probably use steam guns or air guns
There’s an object that’s not a weapon that uses gunpowder which is a powder actuated driver. It uses gunpowder which explodes to force the fasteners in tough surfaces like thick concrete and metal. Also fireworks during New Year and Independence Day use gunpowder. So does dynamite for mining.
Man I would love to see the forts nations around the world would have today w/o the advent of canons