Nomadic lord
Simply better.
There's no way the British would have conquered as much land without guns.
How different would history be without guns?
- Thread starter Nomadic lord
- Start date
Every successful empires didn’t use guns; and they were still advance at conquering and ruling.
Guns were only a cures to the indigenous populations.
Guns were only a cures to the indigenous populations.
lol.
Muslims and Christians are the only Abrahamic faith that received billions of followers; while Jews received 14 mill.
bidenkulaha
GalYare
It’s actually airplanes that changed the dynamics. Made it very easy to conquer lands. Guns have existed for centuries before them
Agree and also disagree.
Boats were the first to give us new worlds and that made things challenging for the indigenous groups and other settlers.
Air forces and air strikes are only good for reckless wars.
Unless we’re talking about nukes.
It's like some of the saaxiibs on here don't know that the dominant Muslim powers of the early modern era were known as the "Gunpowder Empires":
Horners and the Sudanese were doing relatively well against westerners in battle until they started introducing things like planes and more modern heavy artillery. The west became a big deal, if you ask me, mostly through finding places like the Americas, Southeast Asia and Australia. Loads of new gold, silver and farmland to obscenely bolster their wealth. Before that they were overshadowed by China, India and the Middle East.
Last edited:
The Golden horde brought gunpowder to the Russians (& rest of Europe), Europeans just further built on the technology
Karaboga
Lions don't lose sleep over the opinions of sheep
Yes. Interesting point i forgot to mention. Archery was still preferred over guns because you could rapidly shoot multiple arrows whereas with guns needed to reload after every shot.
What do you mean by modern heavy artillery? Do you mean the maxim machine gun invented in 1884 which was used in Sudan/Somalia by the British? If so, I agree that it was a game changer and tilted the balance of powers massively in favour of Westerners unlike other guns. However if you don’t mean that, then the Mahdist war ended well before then invention of airplanes.It's like some of the saaxiibs on here don't know that the dominant Muslim powers of the early modern era were known as the "Gunpowder Empires":
Horners and the Sudanese were doing relatively well against westerners in battle until they started introducing things like planes and more modern heavy artillery. The west became a big deal, if you ask me, mostly through finding places like the Americas, Southeast Asia and Australia. Loads of new gold, silver and farmland to obscenely bolster their wealth. Before that they were overshadowed by China, India and the Middle East.
reer
VIP
i think the dervish would have survived without modern weapons imo.
Without airplanes the British couldn’t achieve a decisive victory against them because they were masters of evading tactics and only engaged in battles they knew they would win. Unlike the Mahdists who kept going into pitched battles against automatic firearms that each fired 10 rounds a second.
reer
VIP
what could have been.
We held out our own until the planes were invented. That was the European equivalent of the Hyksos inventing the chariot and conquering lower Egypt.
Now finding a way to counter satellites and building up a nuclear arsenal, grants a nation the advantage in warfare.
