DBWI: Byzantines Dont Discover Gunpowder Before The First Crusade

[AltoRegnant]

Otl, gunpowder was discovered independently in the byzantine empire, and in contemporary china, most dating the difference by only 70 years, in favor of China.
In any case, the Byzantines were in dire straits, and Alexios Kommenos ordered as much development of the explosive powder into weapons as possible. Early canons were used in the first crusade, and muskets were popularized throughout european and muslim armies by the middle eleven hundreds, I think about 1160. This is actually a large reason why the mongols failed to conquer the keivan rus- the chinese they were used to fighting by then didnt use gunpowder that way yet, whereas the constantly warring states of europe, the middle east and india all had better military structures for it.

But what if the Byzantines didn't discover gunpowder around the time of the chinese discovery? Would constantinople fall centuries earlier, instead of being captured by turks after the fourth crusade? Would the mongols conquer all europe? Would the west still rise?

 

[Heldenhammer]

While certainly not the biggest impact, it is noteworthy to say that the Constaine Reformations of 1321 wouldn't have been implemented. The creation of a professional army wielding powerful firearms and pikes dramatically changed the way armies fought. England was one of the first to implement it in the West, and shattered the French cavalry armies at the 1st Battle of Agincourt in 1344 with it. Adrian Goldsworthy said that the Reforms were the key to the survival of the west, and first step in the development of the modern European state.

 

[AltoRegnant]

While certainly not the biggest impact, it is noteworthy to say that the Constaine Reformations of 1321 wouldn't have been implemented. The creation of a professional army wielding powerful firearms and pikes dramatically changed the way armies fought. England was one of the first to implement it in the West, and shattered the French cavalry armies at the 1st Battle of Agincourt in 1344 with it. Adrian Goldsworthy said that the Reforms were the key to the survival of the west, and first step in the development of the modern European state.

So do you think France would have avoided the personal union with England? Granted it didn't last, but Angevin England used the power and prestige from being rulers of France to exert serious power over ireland and scotland, with Richard II of England becoming King of Scotland and Ireland off the backs of the Angevin realm, something his son William III would consolidate into the Kingdom of The British Isles, whereas his brother got the whole of France, since the development of the realms had equalized in the Union Period.

 

[Dolan]

The creation of a professional army wielding powerful firearms and pikes dramatically changed the way armies fought.

Yeah, the return of (musket-and-sword-wielding) Roman Legionary / Romaioi Legeonari as the professional standing army of Eastern Roman Empire is basically the most noticable aspect of post-gunpowder Roman Empire (only those Holy Roman peons keep referring to Eastern Roman Empire in derogatory manner as Byzantines).

But after initial advantage in the Crusades, the professional army was outnumbered by Gun-wielding Muslim Militia, that while individually less skilled and having worse weapons than the professional ones, 20 vs 1 odds are not something to be scoffed off, forcing the Europeans to rely more and more to conscripted peasants and distributing muskets to the lower classes, paving the return of the Demokratia system, initially used in Anatolian frontier where everyone is basically armed with musket, all the way to the Hellenes and everyone else to Europe, where each man with a gun having a vote to say in the government.