Alternate History The Medes and the Persians invent the Flintlock Musket

Buba

A total creep
Genghis - yes, as had had large parts of China at his disposal.
Alexander - maaaaybe
Atilla - nope
 

ATP

Well-known member
Genghis - yes, as had had large parts of China at his disposal.
Alexander - maaaaybe
Atilla - nope
1- agree.
2- no,he would do nothing,becouse Persian Empire with muskets would take down both Greece and Macedonia
3.-true,he could only get light calvary and german infrantry,it never win against muskets.If Goths get muskets,then there would be no Attilla at all - they would slaughter his ancestors and create their own states.
Which probably would become some kind of swiss states - you could not get feudalism when everybody could kill elite warriors which later become knights.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
2- no,he would do nothing,becouse Persian Empire with muskets would take down both Greece and Macedonia
Ah, like the Ottomans conquered the Balkans. Which never broke free. No, wait. That's not how it happened.

Phillip being a Persian subject doesn't preclude Alexander uniting Greece and using their own weapons technology against them. It just makes it easier for the Greeks to get the technology.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Ah, like the Ottomans conquered the Balkans. Which never broke free. No, wait. That's not how it happened.

Phillip being a Persian subject doesn't preclude Alexander uniting Greece and using their own weapons technology against them. It just makes it easier for the Greeks to get the technology.

Balkans however only broke free because the Ottoman Empire was on a downswing anyway, and it was on a downswing because it had relied on expansion to stay viable, and once the expansion ceased following the Battle of Sisak and the consequent Long Turkish War, the Empire started to slowly fall apart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

Atarlost

Well-known member
Balkans however only broke free because the Ottoman Empire was on a downswing anyway, and it was on a downswing because it had relied on expansion to stay viable, and once the expansion ceased following the Battle of Sisak and the consequent Long Turkish War, the Empire started to slowly fall apart.
Alexander wouldn't have been able to conquer the Persian Empire in his short lifetime if it wasn't also on a downswing. Gunpowder isn't going to change that natural civilizational cycle. It may mean no one not a tributary with access to Persian technology can exploit it, but the empire's still going to fall as empires do.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Alexander wouldn't have been able to conquer the Persian Empire in his short lifetime if it wasn't also on a downswing. Gunpowder isn't going to change that natural civilizational cycle. It may mean no one not a tributary with access to Persian technology can exploit it, but the empire's still going to fall as empires do.
You are right - but not from Alexander.He was reckless,and keep on attacking with his elite unit,almost getting killed few times.
This time,he would meet some persian bullet with his name on it.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
You are right - but not from Alexander.He was reckless,and keep on attacking with his elite unit,almost getting killed few times.
This time,he would meet some persian bullet with his name on it.
Musket balls don't have peoples names on them. They're addressed "to whom it may concern" or "occupant." Aimed fire waits for rifles, which are a fair piece beyond Persian capability.

Cavalry doesn't start to fade until the socket bayonets are invented several centuries after muskets first appear. I don't think he's in much more danger than OTL and if he were an idiot he couldn't have used his dad's complicated army effectively.

The big advantages of muskets inserted into antiquity is that they go through shields that will stop arrows and that they don't take a lot of training to use effectively. A cavalry general may be in less personal danger because muskets that can't aim at an individual displace bows that can and he's not using a hoplon anyways.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Musket balls don't have peoples names on them. They're addressed "to whom it may concern" or "occupant." Aimed fire waits for rifles, which are a fair piece beyond Persian capability.

Rifles existed during the musket era - muzzle loading rifles appeared during the early 17th century. They were however expensive and had horrendous rate of fire, so they were issued to special "sharpshooter" units, whose task was pretty much killing the officers in the field.

But yeah, by and large, you are correct.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Rifles existed during the musket era - muzzle loading rifles appeared during the early 17th century. They were however expensive and had horrendous rate of fire, so they were issued to special "sharpshooter" units, whose task was pretty much killing the officers in the field.

But yeah, by and large, you are correct.
Rate of fire of rifles being less than muskets had to do with the process of loading them. Unlike Muskets, where you just tossed the ball in and gave it one quick tap with the ramrod to settle the powder and ball into place, rifles had to ensure a tight fit for everything to make sure the rifle grooves did their job.

That said, a good rifleman could still fire about once a minute once they got practice. Bearing in mind the best rate of fire with muzzleloaders was around 3 per minute with trained and practiced soldiers. And one cannot underestimate that accuracy advantage. The old show Deadliest Warrior did a contest between four shooters in a Washington vs Napoleon contest, two with muzzleloading long rifles as used by Americans in the Revolutionary war and two with smoothbore muskets as used by Napoleon's army. They each had to hit three targets apiece. Something to note: the rate of fire was CLEARLY different, the muskets fired around three times as often as the rifles; however, the rifles finished off their targets long before the muskets did... the accuracy difference was THAT SIGNIFICANT.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
Musket balls don't have peoples names on them. They're addressed "to whom it may concern" or "occupant." Aimed fire waits for rifles, which are a fair piece beyond Persian capability.

Cavalry doesn't start to fade until the socket bayonets are invented several centuries after muskets first appear. I don't think he's in much more danger than OTL and if he were an idiot he couldn't have used his dad's complicated army effectively.

The big advantages of muskets inserted into antiquity is that they go through shields that will stop arrows and that they don't take a lot of training to use effectively. A cavalry general may be in less personal danger because muskets that can't aim at an individual displace bows that can and he's not using a hoplon anyways.

Alexander was not idiot,but glory hound.Which mean,that he would keep charging at enemy muskets,and die as a result.
We would have Roman-Parthian wars earlier as a result,without greek kingdoms rise and fall.
But,you are right,old persian empire would fall.

Rate of fire of rifles being less than muskets had to do with the process of loading them. Unlike Muskets, where you just tossed the ball in and gave it one quick tap with the ramrod to settle the powder and ball into place, rifles had to ensure a tight fit for everything to make sure the rifle grooves did their job.

That said, a good rifleman could still fire about once a minute once they got practice. Bearing in mind the best rate of fire with muzzleloaders was around 3 per minute with trained and practiced soldiers. And one cannot underestimate that accuracy advantage. The old show Deadliest Warrior did a context between four shooters in a Washington vs Napoleon contest, two with muzzleloading long rifles as used by Americans in the Revolutionary war and two with smoothbore muskets as used by Napoleon's army. They each had to hit three targets apiece. Something to note: the rate of fire was CLEARLY different, the muskets fired around three times as often as the rifles; however, the rifles finished off their targets long before the muskets did... the accuracy difference was THAT SIGNIFICANT.

Thanks for info.I once read,that rifles had better range,too - up to 200-300m.
Another reason,why Alexander the Great life leading from the front would be much shorter then OTL.

And,about muskets - i once read,that elite british and prussian units fired 5 times per minute - forget source,as usual.
 
Last edited:

bintananth

behind a desk
And,about muskets - i once read,that elite british and prussian units fired 5 times per minute - forget source,as usual.
Three/min was more typical. Four/min was the goal for well drilled troops.

Brown Bess musket:


Pattern 1853 Enfield rifle:


The guy in the first video looks like he's rushing and isn't really aiming because he doesn't have sights. The guy in the second video appears to be taking his time and aiming because he does have sights.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
Rifles existed during the musket era - muzzle loading rifles appeared during the early 17th century. They were however expensive and had horrendous rate of fire, so they were issued to special "sharpshooter" units, whose task was pretty much killing the officers in the field.

The first hand held firearms date to the 1350s. The Persians have been jumped over centuries of lockwork development, but they should still be centuries from rifling or socket bayonets, which are unrelated paths of improvement.

Alexander was not idiot,but glory hound.Which mean,that he would keep charging at enemy muskets,and die as a result.
We would have Roman-Parthian wars earlier as a result,without greek kingdoms rise and fall.
But,you are right,old persian empire would fall.
He's probably in less danger from muskets than from the archers they displace because even if he has armor barding doesn't exist yet and a fall from a horse can kill and bows are capable of aimed fire. Gunpowder era cavalry generals have achieved similar active career lengths. Baner lasted through the Swedish involvement in the 30 years war. Pappenheim lasted a dozen years in the same war. Alexander had only been king of Macedonia for six years when he claimed the Persian crown and he was done conquering Persia and starting in on India in his ninth year.
 

ATP

Well-known member
The first hand held firearms date to the 1350s. The Persians have been jumped over centuries of lockwork development, but they should still be centuries from rifling or socket bayonets, which are unrelated paths of improvement.


He's probably in less danger from muskets than from the archers they displace because even if he has armor barding doesn't exist yet and a fall from a horse can kill and bows are capable of aimed fire. Gunpowder era cavalry generals have achieved similar active career lengths. Baner lasted through the Swedish involvement in the 30 years war. Pappenheim lasted a dozen years in the same war. Alexander had only been king of Macedonia for six years when he claimed the Persian crown and he was done conquering Persia and starting in on India in his ninth year.

Pappenheim do not charged frontally on enemy King standing among his infrantry.In this scenario,Darius would not flee,only waited for Alexander death.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top