How comes it was the Europeans who improved guns when they got access to gunpowder much later than Chinese or the...

Is this somehow just pretending that the Ottomans weren't constantly fighting against the Venetians, Spanish, Austrians, and Russians?

That is not a "1480 arquebus". It looks more like an early to mid 17th century musket.

>it's only through violence and war that humanity progresses.
Except that in China wars like the Imjin war, the Qing conquest of the Ming, and the Taiping Rebellion just caused economic problems and social unrest and millions of dead people that wrecked the economy.

You mean 14th

Competing free market economics.

Europe had multiple customers for firearms ranging from individuals to towns to royalty and multiple arms manufacturers who competed for contracts.

China had 1 customer in the form of the government and Chinese producers produced pretty much only for them.

The ottomans arms industry wasn't innovating. They largely relied on importing Italian, German and Flemish workers to run their canon foundries and had English and Dutchmen built them new galleon type ships in the 17th century.

Same goes for Russia which had very little innovation in gunpowder tech until the soviet era.

>Yes. Empires are know to be stagnant and it's only through violence and war (Ancient Greece, Warring States China, WW1) that humanity progresses.

The Chinese ended the horsenigger problem via liberal application of firearms.

Europeans have higher IQs and much more competition within and between states which drives innovation

China did innovate somewhat with gunpowder weaponry during the Yuan and early Ming (when they leaned about matclock guns from europeans in the mid 16thC), but it wast more with rockets and types of explosive.

Indians also developed rockets.

>How comes it was the Europeans who improved guns when they got access to gunpowder much later than Chinese or the Muslims?
Bells, clocks, and armor.
>Europe's wide-spread use of bells meant that people familiar with the art of flawlessly casting large metal cylinders were common.
>Europe invented the mechanical escapement clock, which meant that people familair with precision fitting little bits of metal and spring into mechanisms were relatively common.
>Europe's heavy use of plate armor meant that people skilled in working with metal in a martial context were common.

The bellmakers gave us mass produced cannons.
The clockmakers gave us the mechanical locks that create match, wheel, and flintlocks.
The armorers working around people using smoothbore guns (for reasons which are not entirely clear) gave us rifling.

Then throw in the industrial revolution and smokeless powder (which is an entirely different animal from Chinese style blackpowder), and you wind wind up with modern repeating firearms.

I would agree with that. You can look at Japan for a microcosm of instability and its effects on the firearm industry. When the islands were all divided and warring with each other, Japan damn near outproduced most European countries at the time in firearms. After the daimyos were reunited, there was no need for them, and firearm production slowed to a crawl.

I never thought about this, but that makes a lot of sense.

I guess it's the little factors that matter.

You say that like the mudslime world and christendom existed in their own separate vacuums.

If you ask me it's because of proto-industrial growth and productivity, giving Yuros a lot of materials to mess around with. So, it's not necessity who is the mother of invention, but material abundance. Keep in mind it's only Western Europe that we're talking about here.

Safavids weren't really a threat to the Ottomans.

That's my point. There was constant fighting with its rivals, but it didn't innovate, so that thesis is nonsense. And yes, the Houses of Hapsburg and Romanov were the Ottomans' rivals, not the Safavids. The Persians were to the Ottomans what the Parthians were the Romans. Strong enough to defeat the odd invasion force, but not a true threat or focus of imperial policy.

>but it wast more with rockets and types of explosive.
Rocketfaggotry ended in the Ming Dynasty.

The Ming dynasty was all about making cannons. An obsession worse when they learned how to manufacture European cannon.

While Japan was making & experimenting with matchlock muskets, Ming China was making & experimenting with artillery.

Pic related: a solution for fast firing and easy reloading was the obsession of the Ming, leading to their love for breech loaders and experiments with breech loaders. One particular idea proposed by their gunsmiths was to make a large musket/swivel gun with a brace of removable, preloaded barrels, which can be attache into the stock, fired, and replaced with another loaded barrel to avoid time consuming traditional muzzle-loading

Go to bed, Skwisgaar.

best answer....

Probably because of the improvements in metalworking which made it easier to make better weapons, armors etc.

...

Ottomans had the best artillery for a long time.

Actually the Samurai Japanese improved their guns from the version the Portuguese gave them.

/thread

Indeed they did, because in Japan there was a standardized system of uniform casting of weapon pieces. However, I don't think they continued to improve afterward.

>Same goes for Russia which had very little innovation in gunpowder tech
The Russians did invent a few great weapons though.
For example, the Licorne(Eдинopoг) was a versatile artillery piece that could be used both as a moratar and as a cannon.

Pic realted is a Russian licorne from 1805

Pic related*

Why would the Chinese need to improve their guns, when they barely even used them?

The asiatics are culture bearers who may absorb the advancements of Nordic society but not inovate. Their development of gunpowder was a fluke accident and they did fuck all with it.

>nordic society
>culture bearers
>invention is pure accident
You can't be serious. Lmao

>when they barely even used them?
>Oh_look_it's_that_meme_again.jpg