schwhatever wrote:One of my history teachers last year had the theory that continual contact with Central Asian groups (like the Mongols) that relied on compound bow-using horse-back archers stunted development of firearms among Indians, Chinese, Middle Easterners, and Russians. Central and Western Europe slowly progressed into slightly more functional weapons than the flintlock because they had the slight advantage of isolation from the best bows around.
Again, the Central Asian groups used
composite bows, not
compound bows. Composite bows were occasionally referred to as compound bows before the invention of the compound bow, but afterwards, we should try to keep our terms straight so we know what each other are talking about.
Composite Bows are at least 3500 years old, and are made of multiple materials laminated together, such as wood and horn.
Compound Bows are 45 years old, and use pulleys (or similar mechanics).
But it's a good point about something to think about the differential development of firearms.
schwhatever wrote:A superior economy and different political system that somehow survived a massive percentage of the population dying of smallpox? Europeans didn't win by the sword alone, there was also wheat, plague, and horses on their sides in the initial battles
Depends on what the point of departure is in Chuma's alternate history. A superior economy and different political system imply the presence of several factors which could have developed their own home-bred epidemics like smallpox.
If that is the case, there's some advantage to the home team. The first European ships would have brought some diseases to the Americas and been exposed to the local diseases. Each group is decimated. The European ship crews likely don't have enough survivors to make it back to Europe. So the Americas are receiving a safer first exposure to European diseases than vice versa.
It could go other ways, too. But that's a pretty reasonable scenario, imo.