WI: Gunpowder Discovered Under Justin I of the ERE?

The idea of Rome discovering gunpowder has been touted before, largely on YouTube to be honest. It's the sort of thing that would revolutionize warfare no matter what, and has been used in numerous atls to save rome. But what if the Eastern Roman Empire discovered the secrets of gunpowder under Justin the first, predessecor to Justinian? Would the byzantines weaponize it with canons, and fuel their reconquests of the west, or would it be a historical trivia bit not often thought of?

I had it be under Justin's reign since that would give Justinian his entire reign to use it
 
The idea of Rome discovering gunpowder has been touted before, largely on YouTube to be honest. It's the sort of thing that would revolutionize warfare no matter what, and has been used in numerous atls to save rome. But what if the Eastern Roman Empire discovered the secrets of gunpowder under Justin the first, predessecor to Justinian? Would the byzantines weaponize it with canons, and fuel their reconquests of the west, or would it be a historical trivia bit not often thought of?

I had it be under Justin's reign since that would give Justinian his entire reign to use it
Honestly, very likely they would be of limited use, maybe enough to scare horses. Still, it would be quickly copied by their rivals, just as they themselves had copied the Persian cataphracts.

Honestly, it would likely change a few details of individual battles, but would be unlikely to change history significantly until the cannon became powerful enough to be used against Fortress walls.
 
The idea of Rome discovering gunpowder has been touted before, largely on YouTube to be honest. It's the sort of thing that would revolutionize warfare no matter what, and has been used in numerous atls to save rome. But what if the Eastern Roman Empire discovered the secrets of gunpowder under Justin the first, predessecor to Justinian? Would the byzantines weaponize it with canons, and fuel their reconquests of the west, or would it be a historical trivia bit not often thought of?

I had it be under Justin's reign since that would give Justinian his entire reign to use it

Inventing gunpowder and weaponizing it are two different processes. The latter would be a long-term, multi-generational affair with gradual innovation increasing the utility of gunpowder in warfare, but initially it isn't likely to be as decisive as the examples of 18th or 19th century armies facing enemies without firearms. Designing and building firearms on a large scale that don't explode in the hands of the wielder and reliably send even inaccurate shot toward the enemy isn't easy, and any early attempts at such weapons are likely to be inferior in most respects to bows and crossbows.

The actual time of discovery of gunpowder isn't as important as the time of its first military applications, which we can put in Justin's reign as per your post. This first use is probably going to be as fireworks for battlefield signals, or as one of several types of incendiaries in naval or siege warfare. The goal of such uses isn't to propel shot or blast the enemy with shrapnel, but simply to help spread fire, frighten horses, etc. Getting the gunpowder mix right to maximize explosive as opposed to incendiary potential would take time and experience, but it's not impossible for very simple bombs to be introduced as a natural evolution of incendiary use. Mixing some explosive pots filled with shrapnel in with whatever incendiaries you're flinging into the enemy fleet/city/siege equipment has some value, after all.

After all that, maybe you could get something like fire arrows and fire lances in Justinian's reign, but they're still going to be expensive specialty weapons. Part of the problem is that mass production of gunpowder and weapons that use them is expensive and capital intensive. The Eastern Roman state is centralized and powerful enough to feasibly begin producing it if deemed a priority, but scaling it up would take quite a bit of time. The good news for the Romans though is that this issue of supply means that many of its enemies will be unable to replicate gunpowder weapons in any meaningful number, with the possible exception of the Persians. Such a problem though is only likely to arise after Justinian's reign.

Ultimately, there's just not enough time for gunpowder and gunpowder weapons to develop if you want Justinian to have access to cannons and mortars, but it's not unreasonable for the army of his day to be using gunpowder fairly extensively in other forms.
 
It took China a few centuries to weaponize gunpowder, if I'm not mistaken. I don't see gunpowder being used effectively in warfare until a few generations after Justinian. It's not like they'll invent it and suddenly develop muskets. As for its effectiveness, it's not saving the ERE. Gunpowder didn't save China from the Mongols. In the long run, it made little difference against skilled mounted archers. The ERE was fighting a losing battle. It wasn't its neighbors who destroyed the empire. The rot came from within.
 
Early gunpowder wouldn't make a huge impact on the viability of heavy cavalry or medieval warfare immediately, but if the Byzantines continued developing the technology and weaponized it, it could mean that gunpowder firearms are introduced a few centuries earlier than OTL, where it took centuries for traders and craftsmen to spread the technology and refined it so that Europe could possess firearms and cannons of their own.

Overall, I don't think early gunpowder would've saved the Eastern Roman Empire at all. Their constant backstabbing and infighting is usually what doomed the Romans from making a concerted defense against their nomadic neighbors or their imperial rivals.
 
A different Greek Fire...

I imagine it would significantly alter fortification technology—the Walls of Constantinople would be built in a different manner with time.

Could it accelerate the reconquest of Italy so that that province isn’t so devastated during Belisarius’ campaigns?

On a broader social level, gunpowder armies tend to correlate with centralized states, so the early introduction of gunpowder to Western Europe might arrest the rise of feudalism.

Presumably this butterflies the Arab conquest, but how quickly do the Persians adapt to the technology? Might gunpowder see some religious use in Zoroastrian fire temples?
 
It took China a few centuries to weaponize gunpowder, if I'm not mistaken. I don't see gunpowder being used effectively in warfare until a few generations after Justinian. It's not like they'll invent it and suddenly develop muskets. As for its effectiveness, it's not saving the ERE. Gunpowder didn't save China from the Mongols. In the long run, it made little difference against skilled mounted archers. The ERE was fighting a losing battle. It wasn't its neighbors who destroyed the empire. The rot came from within.
Until muskets come it could only be really used in siege in battles just as a neat compliment till 14th and even then the first guns where horrible or should I say the hand canons inaccurate no trigger requieres two people to use it etc it's not until the late 15th century where we see your stereotypical arquebus so from song china to late 15th century yeah I that would mean the ming style hand canon would appear in 900
 
Until muskets come it could only be really used in siege in battles just as a neat compliment till 14th and even then the first guns where horrible or should I say the hand canons inaccurate no trigger requieres two people to use it etc it's not until the late 15th century where we see your stereotypical arquebus so from song china to late 15th century yeah I that would mean the ming style hand canon would appear in 900
Maybe, but Europe isn't China. China had the issue of steppe tribes. Clunky, slow hand cannons gave almost no advantage against skilled, fast, mounted archers. Europeans were more akin to fighting, well, each other. France invents hand cannon, so Germans develop thick armor and walls to counter. As a result, French develop stronger hand cannons to counter thicker armor. Eventually cannons and guns overcome any practical armor or wall and you have modern weapons.

I see Europe developing their weapons far faster than China. At this point, I could be wrong as Europe was plagued by migrating tribes, but even the foreign conquerors housed themselves in the high European walls.
 
Maybe, but Europe isn't China. China had the issue of steppe tribes. Clunky, slow hand cannons gave almost no advantage against skilled, fast, mounted archers. Europeans were more akin to fighting, well, each other. France invents hand cannon, so Germans develop thick armor and walls to counter. As a result, French develop stronger hand cannons to counter thicker armor. Eventually cannons and guns overcome any practical armor or wall and you have modern weapons.

I see Europe developing their weapons far faster than China. At this point, I could be wrong as Europe was plagued by migrating tribes, but even the foreign conquerors housed themselves in the high European walls.
Eh well eastern Europe where the Byzantines where had and would continue to have powerful steppe tribes
In terms of guns vs nomads depends Chinese guns helped but nomads could still win however by late 17th century guns had become so good as well as canons that s horse nomadic culture was in severe disadvantage if it did not adopt them in some form of degree to their armies .
In terms of development I agree the European competition allowed guns and weapons to constantly get better it was simple Darwinism at play especially for smaller states if you didn't keep up you would be destroyed that is why Europe turned war in to a complex science how ever the competitive situation of the late 15th century and early 16th does not exist in early 6th century Europe
 
Eh well eastern Europe where the Byzantines where had and would continue to have powerful steppe tribes
In terms of guns vs nomads depends Chinese guns helped but nomads could still win however by late 17th century guns had become so good as well as canons that s horse nomadic culture was in severe disadvantage if it did not adopt them in some form of degree to their armies .
In terms of development I agree the European competition allowed guns and weapons to constantly get better it was simple Darwinism at play especially for smaller states if you didn't keep up you would be destroyed that is why Europe turned war in to a complex science how ever the competitive situation of the late 15th century and early 16th does not exist in early 6th century Europe
Kind of why I retracted much of what I said. 6th Century Europe was not medieval Christian kingdoms with big castles much at the will of the Papacy. Europe was still a disunited continent full of feuding kingdoms. It wasn't like China, when not united, still existed with a Han Chinese identity, an emperor, and some outline of what China was, while almost entirely surrounded by steppe nomads. Much of European warfare was still heavy infantry and cavalry centric. The ERE definitely had an issue with steppe tribes, which is why I think gunpowder won't do much for them. It helps, but again, some handcannons will do very little against hordes of horse archers. The only use they had for heavy cannons would be in the event of an invasion of Central Europe, but you don't just develop heavy cannons and mortars overnight. Gunpowder simply won't help the ERE at this point. Not to mention, it definitely won't be weaponized effectively or at all in Justinian's time.

Finally, and most importantly. The ERE could conquer all of Europe and Asia, but the corruption and rot in Constantinople will eventually eat away at the empire. There's a reason why emperor's couldn't leave the capital. Everytime they did, someone jumped on the throne.
 
Top