2

For a setting I'm working on I have an evil empire that I need to be highly connected as opposed to more medieval or earlier states low connectivity. I'm sure Roman roads were great but still we are relaying on mounts for travel.

So. Is there any possible way to have trains without having guns in the setting? Obviously what that way might be?

Now I don't want half attempts to explain that like: the evil empire decided to cut the funding for guns research. That is not history nor science but rather something in the world.

Also stuff like lack of materials seems like it would be a problem to the development of trains as much as guns.

I also don't like to hinder science in the world that much so I can't just say no Newtonian physics, I mean can we even have train without them?

So. I just need a way that makes sense both scientifically and historically.

And since I really know little about trains and their science I ask you.

Can you come up with a way for humanity in that world to develop trains but not any sort of guns?

Seallussus
  • 8,295
  • 1
  • 24
  • 58
  • 1
    When you say train are you referring to the locomotive, the concept of coupling wagons together Or the idea of putting things on rails? I assume that ‘train’ as a synonym of ‘caravan’ isn’t what you’re after.. – Joe Bloggs Oct 26 '20 at 08:07

4 Answers4

6

It's possible, but going to be a narrow window. The problem is that rail infrastructure requires a developed metallurgy industry, both to create the metal vessels strong enough to handle the steam without bursting on a regular basis and to produce amount of metal needed for the rolling stock and the rails; this is not a trivial issue. For a straightforward comparison, the rail alone, if you use lightweight rail, will be about 80 tonnes of steel per kilometer, using heavy mechanized forming processes. This implies large-scale industrialization, which is going to imply other things, such as people fooling around with chemistry.

As you suggested, you don't want to hinder science, so that means someone, somewhere, will eventually find something that will go BOOM! Guncotton, for example, was discovered by accident in 1846 when Schönbein wiped up a spill of nitric acid and sulfuric acid (two common industrial chemicals) with a cotton apron and had it go off when the apron dried. What's less known is that another chemist, Rudolf Christian Böttger, discovered the same thing at the same time, although not in such an amusing way. Picric acid salts were known to explode by 1799, and in the 1830s it finally occurred to chemists to see if the acid itself could go bang. And it could.

That said, the first practical explosive that wasn't gunpowder was nitrogycerin, developed in 1847. So, if no one happens to stumble on gunpowder, you've probably got a narrow window of opportunity where you'll have rail, at least early versions, but no practical explosives. Once they get that chemical explosive, however, things are going to move fast. It took a thousand years to come up with an alternative to gunpowder. It took 16 years to go from nitroglycerin to TNT. In 1871, picric acid detonation was demonstrated, and it quickly became the basis of most military explosives.

If you've got steam engines, you've already got the basic concept of the gun (cylindrical housing using a blast of gas to propel something down its length). Someone will have inevitably tried steam cannons, which don't work great and certainly aren't man-portable, so there won't be man-portable steam guns, but as soon as those explosives are discovered, all bets are off.

Keith Morrison
  • 21,416
  • 1
  • 38
  • 76
  • On the other hand, having a certain discovery doesn't mean it'll lead to either follow up discoveries, or if the follow up discoveries exist that they are implemented. Aztec's were aware of the wheel as it was implemented on some toys, but they didn't apply it in real life. Religion, culture, impracticality or simply not thinking about that application can all mean guns won't be used. Nowadays we can see something similar. Gas, poison and nuclear exists, but we don't, or more accurately rarely use them due to conventions. Cluster bombs, incendiary bullets and much more examples can be found. – Trioxidane Oct 26 '20 at 10:02
  • There are exactly zero cases where as soon as a culture had access to guns they didn't immediately take it up, for hunting if nothing else. Even that favourite go-to examples when a society supposedly "gave up" guns, the Japanese Edo Period, they never actually got rid of firearms; they just didn't have large-scale conflicts where mass guns were necessary, and gunsmiths still produced firearms. – Keith Morrison Oct 27 '20 at 19:18
  • that's a fallacy. That it didn't happen doesn't mean it can't happen. Vaccins are adopted by any country that can afford it. There are people against that. Culturally not impossible for a country to not implement it. Amish ignore most technological progress. Swords have a long history of arms race, yet in Japan the progress more or less halted with the katana. A gun can seem unnatural, not fitting culture, religion or simply be too advanced for the time to be understood by the general populace, causing them to skip it's use. – Trioxidane Oct 28 '20 at 12:04
  • Individuals make those choices, perhaps even small cultural groups. Civilizations do not. And there's a good reason for it. The civilization that ignored such an obvious technological advantage would either quickly adopt it or be subjugated by someone not quite as limited. – Keith Morrison Oct 28 '20 at 15:00
  • a small group is all that is needed. Gun laws in the US are still what they are because of a small group of people and a lobby, despite the majority not being opposed to stricter gun laws. But whole civilisations can do that too. Aztecs were a civilisation that didn't use the wheel while having knowledge. It can only be advantageous. Why didn't they use it? Why wouldn't this be possible for guns? Also guns in their first iterations were often worse for longer engagements, more complex and more expensive than bow and arrow. Same with the crossbow. – Trioxidane Oct 28 '20 at 15:09
5

Very primitive steam machine were invented by the Greeks without them having knowledge of the existence of gun powder, see the Aelopile.

Since there are more than 1000 years between the Aelopile and the gun powder, it just takes the right clever man to have steam powered trains without gunpowder.

L.Dutch
  • 286,075
  • 58
  • 587
  • 1,230
  • 3
    There's a bit more than that: you need a serious metallurgy industry to provide the metals of sufficient strength and quantity for the moving equipment and the rails. – Keith Morrison Oct 26 '20 at 04:47
  • 1
    @KeithMorrison, you wouldn't start with a perfectly efficient train. But once you have steam power you can work better quality metals. And the Greek had quite high level metallurgy, as proved by the Antikythera mechanism – L.Dutch Oct 26 '20 at 04:55
  • 2
    The Antikythera mechanism doesn't prove advanced metallurgy: it's made of bronze, and is handcrafted using similar technology to making jewellery or other decoration, and has the flaws you'd expect from something made with hand tools (the teeth aren't all uniform and even, for example). It indicates some advanced mechanical thinking, but in terms of metal production and working, it's nothing special. – Keith Morrison Oct 26 '20 at 05:28
  • The aeolipile was a toy (or at best a laboratory demonstration), not an engine. The first practical cannon came four or five centuries before the first practical steam engine. – AlexP Oct 26 '20 at 07:55
  • The other question would be whether the mining technology to provide the immense quantities of iron for production of engines or rails existed in the aeolipile era. That seems unlikely. – GrumpyYoungMan Oct 26 '20 at 16:24
1

Well, you could turn it around of course.

Problem is, a gun is a thing anyone with a drill and a piece of metal could make in their garage, while a train is a comparably complicated high tech machine if it is the steam powered variant. The ancient Greek experiment would not be efficient enough to power a train.

You could invent horse powered trains maybe?

The first guns were tried very early but they were considered impractical and heavy. So the soldiers had swords, too, for the "real" fight. Then it took from around 1300 to somewhere near 1600 to make the handheld variant practical to use, and then until mid of 1800 to make them loaded from the back, which was really when they took off.

Anderas
  • 3,331
  • 9
  • 24
1

Just make gunpowder not work. Alternately, make gunpowder too unsafe to work.

Introduce microscopic fungus M. Sulfurii Explosivo This otherwise harmless sulfur-loving fungus grows everywhere, and excretes a complex organic waste molecule that triggers spontaneous combustion in normal sulfur-saltpeter-charcoal type gunpowder.

It is quite possible to make gunpowder. It's just impossible to store it, transport it, or realistically use it in a real-world military environment.

Other non-sulfur explosives are quite possible and usable, but without the discovery pathway via black powder gunpowder, their invention will be delayed many, many years.