How did the Bronze Age start?

[Cutlass]

Cheaper, yes. That's my point.

What I read is that early iron weapons weren't necessarily better than bronze (we're not talking about steel here), just infinitely cheaper once the basic problems of iron smelting were solved.
I too had always thought iron weapons were intrinsically better - thinking when an iron sword met a bronze sword, the latter would be cut - but I'm no longer so sure.

Swords don't really cut one another. Mostly they batter the edge dull and possibly chip it a bit. If one sword is very brittle, than a chip can lead to a crack to a full break. Swords don't really cut armor either. Not with just human strength behind them.

 

[North King]

Copper is brittle? Surely not - it is soft and malleable, the very opposite of brittle, as I understand the word. Copper is too soft and won't hold an edge, that is why bronze is more suitable for weaponmaking.

Copper is the malleable one of the pair, tin the brittle.

BTW, the usual perception is that iron weapons were superior to bronze - I've read that, on the contrary, early iron weapons, at least, weren't as good as high-quality bronze. Iron came to be preferred only because it was cheaper and more plentiful, due to the scarcity of tin.
Anyone know the truth of this?

Correct in some respects. Iron can hold an edge much better, making it more useful for certain weapons, but I'm pretty sure bronze was more useful in respects where tensile strength was required. Hence cannons, until high quality steel became cheap, were more effective when cast from bronze than iron -- the latter had a tendency to burst. But bronze swords rather sucked.

 

[Masada]

Copper is brittle? Surely not - it is soft and malleable, the very opposite of brittle, as I understand the word. Copper is too soft and won't hold an edge, that is why bronze is more suitable for weaponmaking.

Correct. Bronze is brittle, it shatters surprisingly easily if you smack it hard enough against iron, for instance. However, bronze holds a better edge than copper because of its relative hardness, which also causes it to be brittle.

I too had always thought iron weapons were intrinsically better - thinking when an iron sword met a bronze sword, the latter would be cut - but I'm no longer so sure.

You adopt a totally different form of fighting with the two. Iron is suitable for being smacked against iron for a substantial period without shattering. You can therefore adopt a style of fighting that involves more cutting which is easier to learn and allows you to use substantially more power. Bronze is better suited for thrusting which doesn't run the same risk of shattering the blade, that said, I doubt the incidence of thrusting was substantially higher it was probably easier to just pick up a discarded blade on the ground. You do notice the differences in construction after a while, iron can be relatively thinner and longer because of the reduced incidences of shattering while bronze swords tend to be shorter and thicker to mitigate against the same.

 

[BananaLee]

Correct in some respects. Iron can hold an edge much better, making it more useful for certain weapons, but I'm pretty sure bronze was more useful in respects where tensile strength was required. Hence cannons, until high quality steel became cheap, were more effective when cast from bronze than iron -- the latter had a tendency to burst.

It's not a question of tensile strength, but one of toughness. Cast iron tends to be ridiculously brittle (because it needs up to 4% carbon to be meltable), and would not be *tough* enough to handle the jerk stress of an explosion.

In addition, there is the problem of casting big iron blobs, uneven cooling and air bubbles would cause stress pockets and weak spots in an iron cannon. Bronze cannon didn't have the same problem mostly because the thermal properties of bronze (different rate of heat transfer, etc.) were more forgiving of contemporary casting method.

 

[Agent327]

I didn't mean finding bronze nuggets on the ground, I meant how did early civilization know to combine copper with tin to make bronze?

And I think that's been answered.

 

[Atticus]

About the cheapness of iron, I remember reading that Hittites made good money by selling iron to Egyptians. Egyptians had plenty of gold, but not much iron or knowledge how to produce it. As a result they considered iron valuable beyond it's practical uses, and for example iron rings have been found in tombs of Pharaos.

However this was probably when iron was meteorite-iron, and I might remember the whole thing wrong.

 

[Lord Baal]

I do know that iron was originally used in make-up, then in jewellery, before its practical uses became known.

 

[ParkCungHee]

About the cheapness of iron, I remember reading that Hittites made good money by selling iron to Egyptians. Egyptians had plenty of gold, but not much iron or knowledge how to produce it. As a result they considered iron valuable beyond it's practical uses, and for example iron rings have been found in tombs of Pharaos.

However this was probably when iron was meteorite-iron, and I might remember the whole thing wrong.

Well, everything is rare and valuable if you dont know how to make it.

 

[Lord Baal]

Well, everything is rare and valuable if you dont know how to make it.

No wonder I find love so rare and valuable. Wait, what?

 

[North King]

It's not a question of tensile strength, but one of toughness. Cast iron tends to be ridiculously brittle (because it needs up to 4% carbon to be meltable), and would not be *tough* enough to handle the jerk stress of an explosion.

In addition, there is the problem of casting big iron blobs, uneven cooling and air bubbles would cause stress pockets and weak spots in an iron cannon. Bronze cannon didn't have the same problem mostly because the thermal properties of bronze (different rate of heat transfer, etc.) were more forgiving of contemporary casting method.

Forgive me, engineering terminology is not something I'm familiar with.

Actually, do you have any recommendations for readable literature on the subject?

 

[vogtmurr]

Correct. Bronze is brittle, it shatters surprisingly easily if you smack it hard enough against iron, for instance. However, bronze holds a better edge than copper because of its relative hardness, which also causes it to be brittle.
.

Wrought iron is weaker than bronze, but because it was less expensive, and more easily sharpened, people used it anyway.

I believe bronze is considerably less brittle than iron, (and I mean wrought iron, not cast). That is why it is still used for things like springs. It is tough, but is softer and therefore incapable of holding an edge as well as good iron, or better yet steel. It is also far more corrosion resistant than most steels, has better heat conductivity, and has less metal on metal friction, which is why bronze cannon were highly desired in the early days, and why it is still used for things like bearings.

 

[BananaLee]

Forgive me, engineering terminology is not something I'm familiar with.

Actually, do you have any recommendations for readable literature on the subject?

Engineering School.
It really depends on what sort of level you're looking at, I picked up most of my things from coursebooks given in Eng School (i.e. they weren't textbooks), but try poking around for basic Mechanics of Materials or Materials Science books and you shouldn't be too far off.