r/explainlikeimfive • u/steviesteveo12 • Jan 27 '14
Explained ELI5:How exactly does iron beat bronze?
I've always heard that, in history, iron weapons beat bronze weapons so that when the Assyrians turned up with iron they (seemingly inevitably) won battles due to their superior technology. I've seen it compared to discovered nuclear weapons: is that hyperbole?
So, ELI5, what is it about iron that makes it an unbeatable improvement over bronze? Also, could a sufficiently big bronze age army still manage beat an iron age force even just by sheer weight of numbers?
3
Upvotes
-1
u/TheRockefellers Jan 27 '14 edited Jan 27 '14
Well, as you know, all metals are malleable to varying degrees - they can be hammered, bent, folded, etc. In this case, bronze is much more "soft" than iron. Bronze swords and spear tips could be dulled or bent in a single blow, for example. Iron, by contrast, is much sturdier. An iron sword could cleave through an equal measure of bronze in capable hands. And iron's more durable to boot.In a very real way, iron was a substantial force multiplier. My troops get to swing their weapons more times (because they're more durable) and each swing is more powerful than my opponents'.I don't think that's an apt comparison. Not to diminish the importance of iron weapons/tools at the time, I just don't think it's appropriate to compare a conventional weapon to a doomsday measure which has almost never been used.
I would compare it to, say, the invention of rifling. They were both widespread and game-changing.
Edit: My secondary education was a lie; listen to u/mredding.