How is that less work than just hauling the cannons me over?
“Smelting Iron the Viking way is a remarkable simple process. It only takes some charcoal, some bog iron ore, roasted and crushed, plus a simple clay oven.” Bog Iron
The process was simple but there was a tremendous amount of work involved. The bog ore is sparely distributed requiring acres of digging and combing. Making enough charcoal was also laborious, after charring wood in a huge earth mound they’d have to douse the charcoal with huge volumes of water to cool it down so it wouldn’t self ignite. Gathering the wood itself to make charcoal became increasingly more difficult as the Vikings rapidly deforested the areas around their settlements.
One point hasn’t been stressed: The melting point of iron is 1538°C compared with 1045°C for copper. It is my understanding that this enormous heat required made iron processing much more difficult, and is a major reason why it took so long for volume production to develop. (There may be other relevant temperatures than the melting point but I think they are also much higher for iron.)
Moving five 100lb pieces is easier than moving one 500lb piece. Given the absence of all weather roads you could only easily carry objects smaller than a single pack animal’s load. Cannons didn’t fit that limitation.
Copper can be smelted from ore with a hot flame. Iron needs a reducing environment.
IIRC early iron smelting didn’t melt the iron. It was a solid process to make sponge iron. But yes more modern volume production requires it to be pretty damn hot.
Long long ago I watched a wonderful documentary in which Spaniards managed to haul a cannon over a mountain. (They did have a busty Italian lass along to improve morale.)
I was astonished the linked clip was not Aguirre, Wrath of God.
The cannon(s?) in Aguirre were much smaller, although the mountains were more impressive.
Well, you know, Spaniards hauling cannons over mountains while accompanied by busty Italian lasses is one of those timeless recurring themes of literature. I’m pretty sure there’s a TVTropes entry for it.
Pottery kilns come first, the use of controlled heat is one of the prerequisites for metal working.
sounds plausible but you got a cite?
That is true. The fact that copper is fairly common and tin fairly uncommon, and usually not in the same place, made places that had tin very valuable. It really was the beginning of the global trade networks in order to get tin so you could make bronze.
The lethality of the weapons helps me remember which came first.
A bronze sword would bend or break easily.
The first people with iron swords had a big advantage. The bronze age warrior wouldn’t do well against iron weapons.
Something I read - Smelting iron doesn’t happen with ordinary fires - you need to use an air blast too, i.e. consciously force feed air to get to that temperature. I would imagine the discovery would be easier when enclosed kilns and a desire to heat them for pottery was already part of the technology. A kiln would involve enclosed space - less heat loss - and a reason to force air to extract extra heat from fuel.
Wrong.
A bronze sword bends more easily…but then you can bend it right back. But iron doesn’t bend, it breaks. It’s much more brittle than bronze. And bronze can be much more easily worked and recycled than iron.
The reason iron supplanted bronze is not that iron makes better weapons, it’s that iron is orders of magnitude more common. If you have the technology and energy to convert common iron ore to iron you can crank out tons of iron tools. For bronze you have to find rare copper ores or copper nuggets, plus even more rare tin.
And so bronze weapons were extremely expensive relative to iron weapons. That’s why in the Iliad all the Acheans and Trojans are obsessed with stripping the weapons and armor from their dead foes. A bronze breastplate was a fortune in bronze.
Note that there is at least one locality (Termit, in Africa) that developed an Iron Age without going through a Bronze Age first. Also, the Japanese went from stone to iron, but that wasn’t independent development, the way Termit likely was.
Meteoric iron was in widespread indigenous use in the Arctic, as well, without a copper / bronze precursor (although native copper was used, too). Small, cold-hammered tools made from meteoric iron are a relatively common find on late Dorset and early Inuit sites. Despite their small size and simplicity, they probably contributed a whole lot to these cultures’ ivory-carving ways, and seeking the iron meteor sites was likely a major motivator in the expansion of the Inuit some 1000 years ago.
Let’s be clear here: using meteoric iron doesn’t mean being in an Iron Age. Even limited smelting of iron doesn’t mean that. An Iron Age is when that’s the go-to metal for your blades and tools - iron must be the dominant material over bronze, copper or stone, even while you still use those earlier materials. The Dorset and Thule people certainly used iron, but they were never in an Iron Age.
Does that mean that the Mayans and Aztecs were Stone Age cultures?
Obviously they knew how to work silver and gold so they were not stone age. Not up on the technology of their weaponry and that kind of irks me as a hole in my knowledge. I’ll make a point to look it up, but please someone elaborate.