As an amateur historian of the ancient world, I’ve been aware of this debate for years:
Most historians state flatly that iron weapons replaced bronze weapons in the Middle East, about 1000 BCE, because iron is harder and stronger, therefore a better weapon. All it took was for someone (apparently the Hittites) to figure out how to separate iron from iron ore.
Other historians, however, state that the early iron produced was a spongy, wrought iron that was brittle and didn’t hold an edge well and was actually inferior to a good bronze weapon. The reason that these inferior weapons replaced bronze was that bronze was much more expensive since it involved shipping tin from as far away as Britain whereas iron was cheaply made (once you knew how) from widely available iron ore. A large army equipped with poor-quality weapons could defeat a small army with good-quality weapons.
The thing that bothers me is that none of the historians stating either of these views is a metallurgist…and I’m not either.
Does anyone have facts on the relative durability and usefulness of bronze vs. wrought iron, based on modern metallurgy rather than historical argument?
“Spongy” iron is what you would typically get out of a primitive iron extraction process, however wasn’t most/all iron used for edged weapons worked (in some fashion) by a blacksmith or swordsmith and essentially turned into a low grade steel through the working process and introduction of carbon into the iron matrix via cyclic re-heating and hammering?
A large army could defeat a small army anyway–it’s got nothing to do with the quality of their weapons, unless the large army is armed with sticks and the small army has guns.
But if the weapons were roughly equivalent–swords against swords–then the large army would win anyway, by sheer force of numbers, barring enormous tactical errors on their part.
With bronze having a density of 8300 kg/m3, and iron 7874 kg/m3, there is a slight advantage in terms of weight. But a larger one in terms of strength/weight. Perhaps this also played a part - for swords of equal strength, the iron sword would be lighter, and more easy to carry and fight with?
I do not believe they ship[ped in Tin from Britain. Sorry, I can’t believe this. I don’t care if you produce a 6000 year-old to say it to me facce, I don’t believe this statement.
The point of it being, though, that you can afford to equip a much larger army if the weapons are cheaper. Since iron weapons didn’t need imported (expensive) materials, they were cheaper and you could equip a larger army for less.
You know, even a seemingly slight difference in firepower can completely change the situation and outcome of a battle. Large differences can make otherwise insurmountable advantages vanish.
Would a 3000-year-old man saying it work for you? The period we’re talking about is 1000 BCE, just 3000 years ago.
Well, anyway, I’m not quite that old but…
There are indeed stannaries (tin mines) in southwestern England that, through archeological and geological evidence, are known to have been in operation in about that time, long before the native Brits had any use for tin.
At the same time, records in the Middle East speak of tin being imported from the “Tin Isles” which were far to the west, in the midst of the all-encircling Ocean.
It is not, of course, proof…but most historians accept the probability that the British Isles and the Tin Isles are one and the same.
In any case, tin ore is uncommon in the Middle East and it was definitely imported from somewhere far to the west, at great expense.
Having been just reading through a wealth of contemporary Early Roman history, I can say that it was known for tin to be the primary trade item from those few who journeyed from Britain to the continent BCE. In the justifications for Julius Caesar’s “invasion” of Britain, tin is often given as one of the reasons, although he kinda got the area wrong (he invaded over near Kent, instead of Cornwall, where is where I think most tin was produced at the time…)
It was the Phoenecians who were responsible for introducing tin to the Mideast. They loved to find a niche and exploit it.
In his book Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond talks about Pizarro with a force of 169 defeating the Inca leader, Atahuallpa, with an army of 80,000. Mr. Diamond seems to think that superiority in weapons will win the day. Looking towards our future in Iraq, I pray he is right.
Way back in a dark recess of my brain, I recall a lecture in an Archaeology class which talked about Roman bronze manufacture. To save copper they took old items, melted them together, added more tin, and recast them. (Their understanding of exactly what happened in bronze metallurgy was incomplete) Eventually the overall quality went down to where the bronze weapons were absolute crap.
I honestly can’t recall if this was put forth as an interesting theory or historical fact.
Don’t believe it all you want but during the bronze age tin was a major export from Britain. Tin is relatively scarce compared to iron, thus more expensive. As is evident even today nations do not want to be dependent upon a foreign commodity for their security needs and prefer homegrown sources. I think alot of people underestimate the amount of and sophistication of trade during the bronze age.
Why is this so unbelievable to you? Why assert that evidence will not convince you? Shall we just sit here and say “yuh huh” “nuh uh”? Then what’s the point of discourse?
I doon’t know much about bronze, but I know that getting iron pure and making a good weapon of it requires a great dealo of work, and more importantly, fuel.
Bronze is easier to make and form into shapes.
Mind you, neither material, bronze or iron (actually, low-grade steel, as exposing iron to a organic flame introduces carbon into it) is particularly good compared to good steel. If you bang a bronze sword against a hard surface, another sword or a shield or a rock, a hundred times, you will have to bend it back into place. A well-made iron sword is little better.
One easy way out of this porblme is to make the weapon a bigass simple one. A halberd or a claymore will kill many people before it becomes too curved for use.
Wow, I know this thread is VERY old, like a decade old, but I have an answer to this from a materials science professor at UC Berkeley.
Ch a pter 1: Introduction
1.1 THE THING CALLED MICROSTRUCTURE
I may, perhaps, catch your attention by beginning with a quotation. I have chosen
the following passage, which is Winston Churchill’s succinct description of the birth of
the Iron Age in Britain:
At this point [» 400 BC] the march of invention brought a new factor
upon the [British] scene. Iron was dug and forged. Men armed with
iron entered Britain from the continent and killed the men of bronze. At
this point we can plainly recognize across the vanished millenniums a
fellow-being. A biped capable of slaying another with iron is evidently to
modern eyes a man and a brother. It cannot be doubted that for smashing
skulls, whether long-headed or round, iron is best.
Winston S. Churchill, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Vol. 1, p. 10
Winston Churchill was individually responsible for a measurable fraction of the
history of his own age and was, perhaps as a consequence, an unusually perceptive commentator
on the histories of others. But in this passage he is wrong. I do not refer to his
social psychology, which I am not competent to judge. He is wrong in his metallurgy.
Modern research has shown that the iron that appeared in Britain at the end of the Late
Bronze Age was, in fact, inferior in its salient mechanical properties to the bronze that
preceded it. Since iron is also less dense than bronze, this metal was in every respect less
suitable for smashing skulls, whether long-headed (Nordic) or round (Mediterranean).
So why change from good bronze to bad iron? I shall return to that point at the
end of the chapter. I first want to excuse Sir Winston. His error is neither uncommon nor
unreasonable. It would be made by almost anyone who is unschooled in materials
science, and by a good many who claim intimate knowledge of the subject. To the
average person the properties of a material are uniquely associated with its name, which
is usually derived from its dominant chemical constituent or the whim of the company
that manufactures it. Almost everyone knows that the Iron Age succeeded the Bronze
Age. The idea that “iron” might be inferior to “bronze” is a possibility that a person who
does not know metallurgy is unlikely to consider. Even physical scientists of impeccable
credentials often assume that the properties of a material are uniquely associated with the
atoms that make it up, and that those properties would be thoroughly understood if we
only mastered behavior at the atomic level.
This notion is wrong. The material we call iron can be made weak (easily bent)
or strong (virtually impossible for a human to bend), ductile (capable of being bent or deformed
into complex shapes without fracture) or brittle (easily broken). Examples of all
of these manifestations of iron are common today and useful in engineering. It follows that when we describe a material as iron we have left out something important. In fact,
we have left out something essential.
That thing that is missing from the designation, iron, is called microstructure.
While the term “iron” describes the nature of the atoms that are present, or at least the
dominant atom type, the term “microstructure” describes how those atoms are arranged.
Both are necessary to understand the properties of iron. The same is true of any other
engineering material. The composition and the microstructure together define the
material; they specify what it is and what engineering properties it will have. Either,
alone, is insufficient.
…
1.4 WHY CHANGE FROM GOOD BRONZE TO BAD IRON?
To return to the question with which I began this chapter, there are a number of
competing theories, and I have described some of them in previous editions of these
notes. However, in keeping with Occam’s razor, the most probable reason is also the
simplest. They changed to iron because it was cheap.
In this the British were not unique. They were, in fact, repeating history from the
cradle of civilization in the Middle East more than a millennium earlier. Every society,
from the Hittites forward, changed to iron weaponry as soon as they learned how to make
it, despite the fact that the iron they could make was everywhere inferior to good bronze.
(When Goliath met David, in the biblical account, he was carried iron weapons but
wearing bronze armor. His choices give a pretty good indication of which metal he
thought would do the better job of protecting him.)
Early iron was inferior to good bronze, but it wasn’t that bad. And it was plentiful
and cheap. Given a choice between a thousand soldiers armed with iron and half that
number armed with bronze, the wise king invested in iron. In many societies of the
period soldiers were expected to provide their own weaponry. Given that he could afford
fifty arrows tipped with iron or twenty tipped with bronze, the smart soldier made up his
mind very quickly.
Iron is, arguably, the most versatile metal in the periodic table, and metallurgists
gradually learned to make tools and weapons of iron that were far superior to any that
preceded them. But that came much later. In the early days iron dominated the market
because it was available and it was cheap.
If this is the case, can we, in Churchill’s words, “plainly recognize across the vanished
millenniums a fellow-being?” Most of us will have little trouble doing that. In
fact, steel’s place in the world market today is largely due to the fact that it is relatively
cheap. One can make a better automobile out of more exotic materials, and the owners of grand prix race cars do that. But most of us will continue to buy cars made primarily of
steel and bank the difference in price. A surprisingly large fraction of the materials used
in industry are chosen on the simple basis of cost and availability.
J. W. Morris, Jr.
A Survey of Materials Science
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
Fall 2008
It is this which made me check the date. Pity prayers were not realised.
Anyway, I think Iron weapons replaced bronze because Iron weapons were cheaper. We did not get reliably good steel until the industrial revolution.
.
but…