> but the significant characteristics of iron improved by=20
> even the marginal addition of carbon (almost inevitable in=20
> primitive smelting) and the high effectiveness of tempering=20
> on even poor steel (vs bronze, on which tempering's effects=20
> are much less) makes iron and its products an order of=20
> magnitude better in all respects.
A good steel is a lot better than any bronze (in almost all respects other than "not rusting", I suppose), but you seem to be implying that all smelted iron is steel, and all "steel" is better than all bronze. This is not true -- cast iron, for example, has _too much_ carbon to be considered steel, and would make a pretty shitty sword. Steel per se has to produced deliberately, though by processes which were somewhat mysterious, hap-hazard, and generally not well under understood until it was made on a large scale, and in a repeatable, systematic fashion in the Industrial Revolution.
Your assumptions appear to be that the iron-workers in question are able to refine a reasonably pure iron, introduce the right amount of carbon, and know how to use hardening, tempering, annealing, and what-not to produce the sort of _quality_ steel swords you're referring to; I don't think it's by any means safe to assume this is true throughout the entire iron age, everywhere. (I won't pretend to know dates and places of discovery of any of the above, myself.)
> Now, how do I wander back on-topic?
ObGlorantha: this doesn't really apply in Glorantha, evidently, where "Iron" and "Steel" are seemingly interchangeable terms, at least unless you're a Lunar mystic. Or perhaps a Lunar metalurgist...
Slainte,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail