Yes, but it's a *lot* harder to extract and work, and takes more energy (both personal and resources) and skill. It's why there was bronze _then_ iron, not the other way around, and why the blacksmith not the redsmith was regarded as a magical figure in some places.
> For a long, long time iron was an inferior metal to bronze, but it
was
> much more readily awailable. When the iron age got away, people
could
> suddenly affoard much more metal items.
How inferior? There isn't anything bronze does better than iron, both treated at the same level of skill, except corrode slower - and it's possible to get iron that doesn't rust at all. Crappy iron weapons are better than reasonable quality bronze ones, in general.
If what you say is true, then why are bronze eating utensils still common well into the Iron Age? ;)
The Iron Age was pretty sudden, IIRC. Everyone had bronze, and copper if you were backward, then suddenly people with iron weapons are coming in and taking over. One people, armed with iron and on horseback, managed to overturn things in a big way (the Scythians, IIRC). They were only fought back once other peoples learned the iron trick as well.
> So equipping armies with iron (lot's of people with good metal
weapons
> and metal to harden armours) beats armies of bronze on quantity
alone.
> Even if the quality isn't up to the same level yet.
The metal may be cheap but the work isn't. :) But governments and kings don't care too much about cost. If iron weapons and armour are available, armies will be issued with them. If nothing else, the populace are easier to control that way.
Look at historical records. If a people had iron at all, their armed forces were equipped with it. If they didn't, and it was available from someone else, they bought it from someone else, even at ruinous cost.
Paul
Powered by hypermail