Gunpowder in the Roman Empire

[Cowd]

I know there are a lot of history buffs here. Here's something to train your brain. How do you think history would evolve if the Romans had invented gunpowder? Or, if you like, the Greeks, Carthaginians, or any pre-Dark Ages civilization.

[Anthony]

Ignoring several reasons why it's very unlikely for any of those people to invent gunpowder (their chemistry wasn't anywhere near adequate) it probably wouldn't have had a lot of impact, as they also lacked the metallurgy to build guns, though they might have been able to build weapons similar to some of the early Chinese gunpowder weapons.

[nanoboy]

It would probably be used to improve their siege warfare, but as mentioned, they were not able to build cannon or muskets reliably and cheaply.

[Marblehead Johnson]

Originally Posted by nanoboy

It would probably be used to improve their siege warfare, but as mentioned, they were not able to build cannon or muskets reliably and cheaply.

At least, in large quantities. Elite Imperial guardsmen, or assassins, could probably be the only concievable owners of these weapons, since they'd probably take months to make. An assassin's dream, that's for sure.

[The Colonel]

Probably the same way as the Chinese used it - that is, mainly as an incendiary. Plenty of siege warfare applications - although the Romans were already substantially ahead of the curve in combat engineering techniques.

Might have had some useful civil engineering applications in mining, quarrying and roadbuilding as well.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Marblehead Johnson

At least, in large quantities. Elite Imperial guardsmen, or assassins, could probably be the only concievable owners of these weapons, since they'd probably take months to make. An assassin's dream, that's for sure.

Only if it was a flintlock, wheel lock or other self firer - cannon lock or matchlock were both pretty poor as assasination weapons. Steel was, and is still, a lot quieter and easier to conceal.

[jason taylor]

Though their miliatary traditions would have worked better with gunpowder then some. Gunpowder is a peasant's or burghers weapon(esp burghers-gunpowder is after all made in cities). In Asian countries the "knight-equv" were often cavalry usually horse archers and the peasants foot. Many Asian armies neglected to train their men in gunpowder tactics because of this. In European that system prevailed for a long time but it was quickly changed from one in which the ruling class simply formed the most prestiegious arm to the one where the knights are the officers and the peasants are the soldiers which still has traces today. Perhaps it was because Europeans were more used to pressure from competing systems both inside and outside Christiandom, and thus the knighthood was more flexible then you would expect a warrior caste to be.
The Roman army had already been following that system for centuries(a detail, the centurionate were all promoted from the ranks-they were like a NCO corp extended all the way to the rank of major. Roman "Officers and Gentlemen" were military tribunes, legates and commanders). And the pilum and gladius does bear superficial similarities to the volley and bayonet. Thus they would have adapted to gunpowder quite well tactically once the growing pains were gotten through. Most likly they would simply have thought of muskets as a revised pilum, cannon as a revised catapult-with the bonus that it can be used on the field(Romans did in fact use catapults on the field as well as in siege apparently like some other armies, however they were deucedly awkward things for that purpose and probably many comanders preferred to leave them at the depot until there was a real siege to deal with-like Custer and the gatling guns, an over criticised decision by the way but not hingeing on the subject).

[jason taylor]

My last post refers to how well Romans could have adapted to gunpowder tactically. The conclusion I came to was "very well indeed".
The technical points of metelurgy, etc are more difficult, but are somewhat out of my field so I don't give an opinion other then what has been given.
A Roman centurion probably could adapt quite well to the atmosphere of a modern Western army. He might take a while to understand the code of chivalry though("Whada you mean sir, why can't we sack those helpless peasant's village, take their food and livestock, ravage their women and sell their children as slaves?").

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Only if it was a flintlock, wheel lock or other self firer - cannon lock or matchlock were both pretty poor as assasination weapons. Steel was, and is still, a lot quieter and easier to conceal.

And if it was rifled-you can't really seek out an individual with a musket. I suppose you can concentrate the fire of several dozen skirmishers on officers hoping one or two will hit but that isn't really the same as conducting an assasination.

[Dalillama]

I imagine that Roman civil engineers would be ecstatic about the stuff. You can blast out flat roadbeds anywhere you please, sink bridge pilings straight into bedrock, all kinds of great things.