If the atomic bomb was developed in the Middle Ages...

[AkJay]

well, seeing as EVERYONE in that time were religious/stupid radicals

Do you ACTUALLY believe that? Even if your impression of the time encompasses the beliefs and views of those in power, and who wrote history, I'm pretty sure that isnt a majority.

Basically I'm playing the 'wild assumption' card on you

You're right, i am making a wild, biased assumption, you're right and i am wrong, feel better? feel like a big man?

 

[1trakm1nd]

think how easily the plague could have been stopped if we just nuked the initial town with a little 5mt bomb...

 

[Yegargeburble]

I can imagine somebody launching it from a catapult

That would be so hilarious to see. Of course, the bomb would kill both armies if it exploded from a catapult launch.

 

[Fronken]

Well the middle-east wouldnt exist, that's a fact, i mean they did some major damage using swords and catapults, if they would've had nuclear bombs they would've just nuked the crap out of all the "heathens".

Oh, and i would guess that humanity would have ended as well, seeing as they werent all that smart back in the day, they would've probably tried to burn the bombs in order to destroy them, setting them off causing them all to go kabloowie.

 

[sirdiealot88]

I'm guessing burn the creators along with a bomb at the stake because of the high belief of witchcraft during that era

Yeh that about sums that one up lol - but if they didn't it would certainly create an entertainingly different modern world

 

[gh0ti]

Now, can I get an ounce of whatever shit it is you've been smoking? Middle ages? No nations? What the fuck are you talking about? I think the British, the Portuguese, the Italians, and maybe even the French would have something to say about that.

You know, when, in the Middle Ages, people fought The Crusades over supposedly holy land in Jerusalem? Or did you miss hearing about that?

see nationalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism]

by nations you have people who see themselves as "British" or "French" rather than just a subject of a kingdom. prior to the birth of nationalism (in the 18th/19th centuries) people were just subjects of their kingdom/empire. after the falls of both ancient rome and greece people just became the effectual property of the lords and kings.

also what you think of as the middle ages is undoubtedly wrong, it went all the way from roughly 450ad (fall of rome) to 1450 (fall of constantinople). in 450 there was no such thing as england or france and with the departure of the romans each area fragmented into small kingdoms. people may have been roman before but once that ended (and the middle ages began) no-one was anything anymore.

also with the invasion of england in 1066 the saxon kingdom of the british isles ended and effectively became norman, norman language and laws became common with many normans diluting the bloodlines. the english were no longer english anyway.

portugal didn't exist as an independant state until 11 hundred and something.

plus the crusades were entirely political while using religious ideals to inspire the support needed. think about it, the leaders of the expedition had to give up all their wealth at home to pay for it. if they didn't think there would be something in it for them then they wouldn't have gone. eternal salvation is a nice idea but it takes money to get people to do things.

Eeek.

Just because 'Nationalism' as a political idea didn't take root until the eighteenth century does not mean that people did not identify themselves with a political entity prior to that. For example, it is now commonly accepted that the distinctive "Scottish" identity was a key factor in the Wars of Scottish Independence in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The Scots used their national identity as a rallying cry, allowing them to mobilise sufficient forces to blunt the English invasions. In medieval charters of England, it was considered a courtesy to address the audience as "French and English" - these were people who took their national identity very seriously indeed.

The Norman Conquest of 1066 did not destroy the English state either. In fact, much of the mechanics of the state remained in place long after the Conquest. True, at the highest level, French became the common language, but the laws, taxes and most widely spoken tongue were English, with some Norman innovations - the Danegeld for example. The aristocracy itself may have become Norman in character, but the people beneath them were still very much English.

And what you say about the Crusades is completely innaccurate. The driving force behind the Crusades WAS religious idealism, at least in current historical thought. Like you say, many leaders of the First Crusade spent vast amounts of money and risked their lives in an endeavour where there was a 75% mortality rate. The only logical reason to do so was genuine religious commitment to the ideal of salvation. When they arrived in the east, most wound up a good deal poorer than they would have been had they stayed in the West.

 

[WittyName]

I can imagine somebody launching it from a catapult

That my friend would be suicide...

And that's why the crusades would have been ridiculously hilarious.

"Are you sure this is gonna work?"
"Umm... yes."
"OK.... here goes!"

BOOM!

 

[Typecast]

I think by now we'd be extinct from irreversible mutations.

 

[solidstatemind]

Oh, and i would guess that humanity would have ended as well, seeing as they werent all that smart back in the day, they would've probably tried to burn the bombs in order to destroy them, setting them off causing them all to go kabloowie.

Just an FYI, you can't set off a nuclear warhead by burning it. The chain reaction which causes the big boom is caused by accelerating a neutron into a fissionable mass. Yes, in primitive bombs, they did this with a primer (much like how a bullet works), but on modern nuclear technology, it's done electromagnetically. And regardless of the iteration of the technology, there was a safety in place until the warhead or bomb was 'armed' that would prevent anything from happening until it was specifically triggered. If there was a silo in your backyard, you're much more in danger from leaking radition (that shit doesn't stop, so I hope you have lead underpants) than you would be from an accidental explosion.

Think about it: if there was going to be an accidental nuclear explosion, don't you think that, at least once in all these years, it would've happened by now, particularly given the group idiocy of some of the governments that possess these things?

As to a delivery system, the OP implied that the Bomb was developed by the people in the Middle Ages, so I've got to think that someone who could invent that could also create a simple mechanical device like a FUCKING EGG TIMER! You hide your bomb in a very sturdy hay wagon, drive it into the target city, park the thing and hope your horse is fast enough to prevent you from ending up as an alternative light source.

Well, that was an amusing way to waste 20 minutes...

 

[SilentHunter7]

They wouldn't be fighting over Israel/Palestine today.

 

[Sir Ollie]

Lets hope they never used it for a firework.......

 

[Fronken]

Oh, and i would guess that humanity would have ended as well, seeing as they werent all that smart back in the day, they would've probably tried to burn the bombs in order to destroy them, setting them off causing them all to go kabloowie.

Just an FYI, you can't set off a nuclear warhead by burning it. The chain reaction which causes the big boom is caused by accelerating a neutron into a fissionable mass. Yes, in primitive bombs, they did this with a primer (much like how a bullet works), but on modern nuclear technology, it's done electromagnetically. And regardless of the iteration of the technology, there was a safety in place until the warhead or bomb was 'armed' that would prevent anything from happening until it was specifically triggered. If there was a silo in your backyard, you're much more in danger from leaking radition (that shit doesn't stop, so I hope you have lead underpants) than you would be from an accidental explosion.

Think about it: if there was going to be an accidental nuclear explosion, don't you think that, at least once in all these years, it would've happened by now, particularly given the group idiocy of some of the governments that possess these things?

As to a delivery system, the OP implied that the Bomb was developed by the people in the Middle Ages, so I've got to think that someone who could invent that could also create a simple mechanical device like a FUCKING EGG TIMER! You hide your bomb in a very sturdy hay wagon, drive it into the target city, park the thing and hope your horse is fast enough to prevent you from ending up as an alternative light source.

Well, that was an amusing way to waste 20 minutes...

True, detonating an a-bomb isnt all that easy, but still, my guess is that they would've messed it up somehow anyways ^^

 

[similar.squirrel]

This thread would most likely never existed. And there'd be some WEIRD fucking animals scuttling around Romanesque ruins..

 

[Lord George]

If everyone had nukes then I guess everyone would have become peaceful a lot earlier, much like today. Though without the 1st and 2nd world war we would be a lot less technically advanced then we are now, we wouldn't have computers or the internet for a start. Also no superpowers would have been formed if no one could risk doing anything hostile towards one another. It would have been a brilliant thing in many ways.