Re: Cool Stuff & NPCs update

From: Paul <kax_at_...>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 07:28:30 -0000

> wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 Sep 2004, Paul wrote:
> 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.

After some research (which I should have done earlier) bronze was better than iron for a while, until iron smelting skills matured and weapons and armour weren't being made of bog iron. After that point no-one made bronze weapons if they could help it. But, to the same level of workmanship, iron is better. ;) It's harder, more resilient, will hold an edge longer, can be sharper... Yes, hammered bronze was tough - but not up to properly forged and tempered iron.  

> > 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.

True. Although what had more effect with the Romans, particularly, was organisation much more than iron, although having lots of iron helped. The Macedonians did much the same thing the same way but with bronze weapons a little earlier, after all. ;)

Paul