Here is the article. It's pretty good.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/sword-wielding-scientists-show-how-ancient-fighting-techniques-spread-across-bronze-age#
Here is the video. It's kinda cringey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP2Pu3Dgir4&feature=emb_logo
It's a light article, but its enough to start up some discussion.
Looking forward to seeing posters link to other articles / videos related to Bronze Age Swords. Even if they all do D6 damage, its interesting to learn about their place in the Bronze Age! The more I've learned about the Bronze Age over the decades, the more I'm inclined to make that era the default for my OD&D.
Yes, good article. I'm often tempted by a bronze age game, though I usually end up going with early dark age tech instead. Both periods have a lot to offer for anyone that doesn't want a powerful government in place in the campaign world.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1127196Yes, good article. I'm often tempted by a bronze age game, though I usually end up going with early dark age tech instead. Both periods have a lot to offer for anyone that doesn't want a powerful government in place in the campaign world.
em... Bronze age had some fairly extensive and powerful governments in place. If I recall right that would include the kingdoms of Assyria/Babylonia, Mesopotamia and Sumeria. And maybee ancient Greece or Minoa? In something like 1000 years from the advent of bronze these kingdoms were getting increasingly powerful.
Theres also some really interesting vids up on the advent of writing which in some cases co-incided with the rise of these kingdoms.
There were SOME rather large areas claimed by various powers, but they were also vast regions (ex. Myceanian Greece) that were instead run by independent city-states and were far enough from the major empires that places like Egypt or Babylon could be regarded as distant lands and the occasional invading power that requires said bickering city-states to band together against their common foe (the fantasy equivalent is basically Lord of the Rings the independent realms of Men, elves and dwarves banded together against the armies of Sauron).
Location is everything in making a "no centralized power" setting work. The early Dark Ages were also cited as a place lacking in such authorites, but that's only if you're set in Western Europe. The Eastern Roman Empire continued to thrive throughout the Dark Ages and it also saw the rise of Islam as a similarly centralized power in the East.
Similarly, you could tell stories of independent and largely isolated cities/towns that are still mired in medieval feudalism all the way into the Renaissance-era of the late 15th to early 16th Centuries if you shifted your focus to Eastern Europe.
Well yes. I failed to mention that I'm nearly always running from a primarily Western European analog, with sometimes a bordering region influence. So I generally want to avoid most of the Roman period and the later medieval. Powerful, local city states with lots of competitors still seems to work for me. And because my campaigns world are fantasy analogs of Western Europe, not historical, spun out to a larger territory, any empire that may currently be in existence is much further than, say, Egypt from Greece, or alien in some way (e.g. elven "empire" very isolationist).
However, more directly to the topic, such a world in the early dark ages with iron pretty much presumes a civilization fall or the recent discovery of iron (Hittites maybe?). Nothing wrong with that, but not what I want all the time. With a bronze age setting, all of those concerns are much easier to finesse.
Plus, we aren't just talking fidelity to reality here. Not only is it fantasy, there are player expectations to consider. I'm usually running for groups of players that are not history buff but do have some broad understanding. You say "bronze age" to them, you invoke an image of city states, very limited technology, maybe even a lot of barter. Yeah, I know you have regions of that in other periods (relatively speaking), but with "bronze age" I don't even need to specify no "plate mail", for example. There's also an element of the earlier the technology, the easier for some players to buy into the concept of magic. Not that they won't roll with it in any case, but I think it is a little easier to accept the setting seriously instead of just as a conceit for play. It is similar to the same way that players will cheerfully go into the dungeon because that's where we have to play today, versus also having a good reason for their characters to do it. No iron, or only scattered fragments of iron, is in itself somewhat magical.
Quote from: Omega;1127198em... Bronze age had some fairly extensive and powerful governments in place. If I recall right that would include the kingdoms of Assyria/Babylonia, Mesopotamia and Sumeria. And maybee ancient Greece or Minoa? In something like 1000 years from the advent of bronze these kingdoms were getting increasingly powerful.
Theres also some really interesting vids up on the advent of writing which in some cases co-incided with the rise of these kingdoms.
You forgot the most well-established government of all: Egypt
One of the most common swords in the Bronze Age was actually the khopesh. It was used by Egyptians, Canaanites, and Hittites and others.
(http://www.bronze-age-swords.com/forsale/Canaanite_khopesh.jpg)
Minoans and Mycenaeans were also known to produce so-called Bronze Age "rapiers", looking like really long daggers.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1127224Yeah, I know you have regions of that in other periods (relatively speaking), but with "bronze age" I don't even need to specify no "plate mail", for example.
Spoiler
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Mycenaean_armour_from_chamber_tomb_12_of_Dendra_1.JPG)
Greetings!
Well, yes, the Bronze Age civilizations did not have Late Medieval Age *Plate Armour*, this is true. However, as Bren's photo demonstrates, and additional research sheds light on the reality that while most of the armours available in the Bronze Age were more or less on the lighter side--bronze hauberks and bronze breastplates seeming to be the common standards--there were some kinds of impressively heavy armours available during the Bronze Age.
In game terms, I'm not sure what AC I would give such armours, though. I know from what I have read, while effective and superior protection, they were often very heavy, cumbersome, and restrictive. I'd also add that they were likely unbearably hot and uncomfortable to wear, especially in so many regions that have that wonderful, blasting hot climates.:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Bren;1127239Spoiler
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Mycenaean_armour_from_chamber_tomb_12_of_Dendra_1.JPG)
I'm guessing this stuff was chariot armour.
Quote from: S'mon;1127254I'm guessing this stuff was chariot armour.
Humanoid chariots?
I knew it. The Mycenaeans had mecha!
Quote from: Trond;1127230One of the most common swords in the Bronze Age was actually the khopesh. It was used by Egyptians, Canaanites, and Hittites and others..
Khopesh videos!!!
Good animated historical overview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URzziLLeOtU
Watch a khopesh being made
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6t-bAVezAs
Khopesh in action vs. dummies full of blood, and an EMT talks about the wounds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkiJY2QJmjg
Pony-tail dude chops stuff with a modern khopesh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUzuXvBm9Ng
Quote from: Trond;1127229You forgot the most well-established government of all: Egypt
I was more aiming at the big kingdoms. Egypt was oddly small when compared to some of the other cultures despite having a head start in some ways. But yeah could include them too depending on when you set things. Early on in the bronze age alot of the noted kingdoms were still small or scattered and not yet coalesced into the larger alliances.
Quote from: Omega;1127299I was more aiming at the big kingdoms. Egypt was oddly small when compared to some of the other cultures despite having a head start in some ways. But yeah could include them too depending on when you set things. Early on in the bronze age alot of the noted kingdoms were still small or scattered and not yet coalesced into the larger alliances.
Why do you say Egypt was "oddly small" and compared to what?
Quote from: Bren;1127307Why do you say Egypt was "oddly small" and compared to what?
If you look at the actual habited area of Egypt at the time is alot smaller than its actual reach compared to the later bronze age kingdoms that would soon come on the scene. And had a slower growth. Despite having a bit of a head start over some other lands. Though if I recall right didnt Egypt have certain alliances with neighboring kingdoms in the area?
Egypt under Ramses II conquered lands of Canaan and invaded both Nubia and Syria.
The area they considered "Egypt" may have been geographically smaller, but in terms of territory controlled they were among the great powers of the age.
Basically, they had an attitude sort of like the British and their Empire... just because they controlled India didn't mean all the people of India became British. Just because Egypt controlled Canaan didn't make the Canaanites Egyptian.
Quote from: Omega;1127335If you look at the actual habited area of Egypt at the time is alot smaller than its actual reach compared to the later bronze age kingdoms that would soon come on the scene.
What bronze age kingdoms did you have in mind? I'm struggling to think of any/many that are significantly larger in area than the Egypt of the Land of the Two Kingdoms.
Of course kingdoms rose and fell throughout the Bronze Age and the area that Egypt controlled or strongly influenced waxed and waned. Here's one map circa 1450. Egypt doesn't seem smaller in area than other major powers at that time.
Spoiler
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Ancient_Egypt_and_Mesopotamia_c._1450_BC.png)
Greetings!
Egypt is fantastic! Even in the Roman Empire, tourists flocked en masse to Egypt, to gawk at the ancient temples and monuments--that were thousands of years old *then*.
While certainly Egypt was at various times formidable in military and diplomatic power, through the years such influence went up and down, as a kingdom. Especially in the later centuries, but even to some extent during the years of powerful dynasties, Egypt seemed to always be more or less introverted, and reclusive. Egyptian culture in many ways seemed ageless and unchanging, and many scholars believe that this huge cultural and historical stability contributed to Egypt's arrogance, introspectiveness, or just a prevailing sense of contentment. This cultural ennui seems to have overtaken Egypt in a decisive manner even before they were subdued by the Persian Empire. While Egypt was exuberant with their liberation from the Persian yoke by Alexander the Great, such a liberation only presaged an emotional though mostly symbolic cultural revival. Egypt continued to be more influenced and dominated by foreign powers onward, through the Greeks, and then the Romans. Egypt's philosophical, religious, and cultural influence was always pretty enormous, and remained significant throughout the Mediterranean, even into the age of the Roman Empire. In some ways it can seem though like Egypt's cultural and political influence waned swiftly, like the shifting sands of the great desert.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
The thing is, bronze is actually pretty darn hard...harder than wrought iron.
Not as hard as steel, but the real rise of iron weapons was due to a lack of tin to make bronze. And then once steel was made, that was clearly better.
Quote from: JeremyR;1127375The thing is, bronze is actually pretty darn hard...harder than wrought iron.
Not as hard as steel, but the real rise of iron weapons was due to a lack of tin to make bronze. And then once steel was made, that was clearly better.
This is definitely worth repeating. Early iron weapons were often inferior to bronze, they were just less expensive and more readily available once the import of tin became problematic. Presuming you're doing a Bronze Age collapse setting, you wouldn't particularly need special rules for making bronze weapons inferior to iron... if anything the bronze items would be your +1 weapons (or masterwork if you're using 3e) vs. iron as the non-magical versions (indeed, if I recall, AD&D 1e actually indicated in the magic items section that your basic +1 weapon wasn't actually "magic" but rather was forged of superior materials... ex. a sword of Damascus steel).
There's a reason smithing is often associated with magic in folklore; those smiths who knew the proper techniques (i.e. knew how to make good steel) produced weapons and armor far superior to those generally produced... as if the power or protection of the gods were upon the wielder of such implements. There are theories that many "magic swords" in various myths and legends are recounting an instance of a steel weapon being used in a region where the majority of weapons were of inferior iron or even bronze.
Quote from: Chris24601;1127434(indeed, if I recall, AD&D 1e actually indicated in the magic items section that your basic +1 weapon wasn't actually "magic" but rather was forged of superior materials... ex. a sword of Damascus steel).
I don't recall that. And it would conflict with an explanation for why some monsters can only be damaged "magical" and not mundane weapons.
Quote from: Bren;1127444I don't recall that. And it would conflict with an explanation for why some monsters can only be damaged "magical" and not mundane weapons.
You are correct.
I went and looked it up and the discussion of materials is actually listed under ARMOR (page 164); +3 is meteoric iron steel, +4 is mithral alloyed steel and +5 is adamantite alloyed steel.
Its been probably 30 years since I last looked at my 1e books so I'm just happy I remembered something in the general ballpark.
A recreation of the Dendra panoply. Achilles' armour may have been similar. [ATTACH=CONFIG]4305[/ATTACH]
I believe they have also recovered bronze age military picks that look remarkably similar to medieval versions. While no one thinks bronze plate was especially common, it appears to have been common enough that people developed weapons to deal with it.
Quote from: JeremyR;1127375The thing is, bronze is actually pretty darn hard...harder than wrought iron.
Not as hard as steel, but the real rise of iron weapons was due to a lack of tin to make bronze. And then once steel was made, that was clearly better.
I have a few objections to this view (although it's a common one)
Looking at the Iron Age as a whole, when was steel NOT invented? There are examples of steel being used before the Iron Age proper started. Steel is just a specific part of the continuum that is iron combined with carbon. Of course, they did get better and better at making it.
Also, many early Iron Age people frequently used steel/iron for blades and bronze for armor (e.g. Classical Greece). There are also examples of razors with steel blades and bronze handles. It seems to me that the switch happened more because iron implements could hold a better edge, not because of the scarcity of bronze (although that was a problem, for some people at least).
The Bronze Age collapse in the Mediterranean seemed to cause or be caused by scarcity of tin which was often shipped pretty long distances e.g. England to Phonecia, Crete, and the Peloponnese. It doesn't seem unlikely that tin scarcity and societal collapse drove and allowed innovation in metallurgy in much the same way the the end of the Western Roman Empire with its latifundia and large slave populations drove and allowed for the development of a better horse collar.
There's seldom just one reason for a disruptive change.
Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1127488I believe they have also recovered bronze age military picks that look remarkably similar to medieval versions. While no one thinks bronze plate was especially common, it appears to have been common enough that people developed weapons to deal with it.
That's interesting. Do you have a citation?
I like the idea of Achilles and the other warriors at Troy being in heavy armor e.g. some kind of plate, but I've never been able to warm up to the look of the Dedara armor.
Here's some inspiration for roleplaying in a Bronze Age setting.
- Wereblood and Werenight by Harry Turtledove and published in 1979, under the pseudonym 'Eric G. Iverson. Combined and republished in the 1990s under the title Werenight under the Turtledove name. Followed by 3 sequels Prince of the North, King of the North, and Fox and Empire all and under his own name. The series is set in a fictional setting, Elabon, that has magic. I like that the warriors use actually use chariots for transport and warfare.
- Haven't read it but, Between the Rivers, also by Turtledove sounds interesting and is set in not-Mesopotamia.
- The Kaphtu Trilogy: The Golden Griffon Feather, The Stolen Goddess, and The Mirror of Helen by Richard Purtill is set in a mythological Mycenaen/Minoan setting. It has magic, gods, mortals, and the Stolen Goddess features a Runequest-style Heroquest.
Quote from: Bren;1127541That's interesting. Do you have a citation?
https://koryvantesstudies.org/studies-in-english-language/page215-2/
On rereading the article, there's only one notable example, and it's possible it was a tool.
The link is highly relevant to this thread though, and covers quite a few bronze age weapons and armours.
Thanks!
Speaking of chariots, armor and such; I think the Hittites are pretty interesting in this context. Here's one reconstruction of a Hittite chariot. (notice bronze armor)
The spear heads might be bronze but could also have been iron. The early use of iron by the Hittites is pretty controversial, but they may have been slightly ahead of the others in iron working. We know that they exported iron at least to a certain degree. (iron weapons may have rusted or have been reforged later)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f2/dd/b4/f2ddb4df52db8107b9de61a7fed75ddc.jpg)
And some more Hittites with swords.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JeOUsacOouU/Vf2vHckJueI/AAAAAAAAAp4/jQgt4aizJl8/s1600/KadeshHittiteKing.jpg)
India also had a significant bronze age period. In my Arrows of Indra game, the period is the early Iron Age, so there are still bronze age weapons around, and I have some basic rules for it.
Would not be too hard to do Bronze Age in D&D, but this Blood & Bronze system is also really great for this period.
Very simple, intuitive for old school players, and lots of atmosphere.
Here is a great review by Questing Beast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rmsqJsOczQ
Getting back to swords, this is apparently a Kassite (Middle Babylonian) sword from around 1400-1100 BC. It's 16.250 inches long. The handle probably had wood inlays.
(https://i1337.photobucket.com/albums/o673/AlaeSwords/AlaeSwords030/bronzesword%201.jpg)
Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1127488A recreation of the Dendra panoply. Achilles' armour may have been similar. [ATTACH=CONFIG]4305[/ATTACH]
I believe they have also recovered bronze age military picks that look remarkably similar to medieval versions. While no one thinks bronze plate was especially common, it appears to have been common enough that people developed weapons to deal with it.
Jeebus... am I the only one on this forum that's read the Anabasis?
Xenophon is going on and on about these day long battles (against the motherfucking Kurds of all people) where they are upset that, like, one guy gets wounded... sometimes killed. Too late for ya? Fine, the Uluburun Shipwreck was carrying copper and tin sufficient to make ELEVEN TONS of Bronze, almost certainly all of it was meant for military use. I doubt they were planning to make eleven tons of spear and arrowheads... some of that shit was almost certainly armor. That is ONE ship, one load of cargo, and it wasn't even the entire load.
Regarding swords: I've read that the Carp's Tongue was the single most common Sword in use during the bronze age, so regarding the earlier comment about the Kopesh's popularity, I'm curious as to source.[ATTACH=CONFIG]4330[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Spinachcat;1127182Here is the article. It's pretty good.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/sword-wielding-scientists-show-how-ancient-fighting-techniques-spread-across-bronze-age#
Here is the video. It's kinda cringey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP2Pu3Dgir4&feature=emb_logo
It's a light article, but its enough to start up some discussion.
Looking forward to seeing posters link to other articles / videos related to Bronze Age Swords. Even if they all do D6 damage, its interesting to learn about their place in the Bronze Age! The more I've learned about the Bronze Age over the decades, the more I'm inclined to make that era the default for my OD&D.
Have a look at the full article (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10816-020-09451-0?fbclid=IwAR2oWvKIkWm5ObDizWkq2yz3nx3_egG3OmIH1ouxnSWp-dX1A9XLGazRm4E#Fig1), it's very interesting.
Quote from: Spike;1127879Jeebus... am I the only one on this forum that's read the Anabasis?
Oh I've read it, but it's at a pretty far remove from the Bronze Age. Be that as it may, I didn't notice anyone arguing that heavy bronze armor like the Dendara plate wouldn't provide good protection so I'm not sure how casualty rates in the March Upcountry tell us anything about how common heavy bronze armor was among the Mycenaeans.
QuoteFine, the Uluburun Shipwreck was carrying copper and tin sufficient to make ELEVEN TONS of Bronze, almost certainly all of it was meant for military use.
That does sound like a lot of bronze, but why do you say that "almost certainly all of it was meant for military use?" Are you arguing that armor like the Dendara plate was a very common item in the Mycenaean culture?
Quote from: Spike;1127879Jeebus... am I the only one on this forum that's read the Anabasis?
Xenophon is going on and on about these day long battles (against the motherfucking Kurds of all people) where they are upset that, like, one guy gets wounded... sometimes killed. Too late for ya? Fine, the Uluburun Shipwreck was carrying copper and tin sufficient to make ELEVEN TONS of Bronze, almost certainly all of it was meant for military use. I doubt they were planning to make eleven tons of spear and arrowheads... some of that shit was almost certainly armor. That is ONE ship, one load of cargo, and it wasn't even the entire load.
Regarding swords: I've read that the Carp's Tongue was the single most common Sword in use during the bronze age, so regarding the earlier comment about the Kopesh's popularity, I'm curious as to source.[ATTACH=CONFIG]4330[/ATTACH]
I could of course ask the same of you.
But as for my sources, it's not one, it's several. The khopesh pops up in books about Egypt, Canaan, and the Hittites. It is often called a "scimitar" or "sickle sword" but if you look at the figures you'll see the khopesh. They found one in Tutankhamun's grave, so it clearly had some prestige as a weapon. With the Hittites, it's strange how iron weapons are often mentioned in texts, but they have found very few of those, but they HAVE found several bronze swords including khopesh. I don't have any numbers though, and I do know that straight swords were more common towards the west (e.g. Minoans and Britain). You also have some of those in the M-E and other shapes like the Middle Babylonian one I showed above. (EDIT: found it in "Cultural Atlas of the World: Ancient Egypt" by Baines and Malek, they call it "scimitar". But again no numbers of course)
Found another Babylonian bronze sword very similar to my earlier image. Searching around a little, this seems to have been a common sword type in Babylonia.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Babylonian_Royal_Sword.jpg/900px-Babylonian_Royal_Sword.jpg)
Watching Skallagrim's youtube testing of bronze swords, I think it may indirectly point to another reason why bronze weapons were phased out relatively quickly many places when the iron age started. The bronze swords stand up pretty well against most "normal" material, like wood etc. But the moment it clashes against steel, bronze starts chipping quite horribly. Not a big surprise, and the effect may have been somewhat less against really old-fashioned impure steel of course. But perhaps when SOME people started switching to iron blades, then everyone had to do the same, simply because the old bronze weapons were very easily damaged by the new weapons. This was less important on suits of armor, because as long as they absorb the blows they are still doing their job.
Quote from: Trond;1127521I have a few objections to this view (although it's a common one)
Quote from: Trond;1127521Looking at the Iron Age as a whole, when was steel NOT invented? There are examples of steel being used before the Iron Age proper started. Steel is just a specific part of the continuum that is iron combined with carbon. Of course, they did get better and better at making it.
It not a matter whether it was invented it was a matter of how easy it was to create. Bronze as a material was "good enough" and you could both easily forge and cast it without a loss of quality. Iron and steel was much more difficult to deal with and required higher tempature to get a better quality metal.
Finally the process of carburization didn't happen right away with the discovery of iron smelting during the bronze age. However by the time of the collaspe of the Bronze Age happen in the 13th and 12th century BC the idea of adding carbon to produce steel was rapidly spreading. This made for a superior metal for tools and weapons than bronze.
Quote from: Trond;1127521Also, many early Iron Age people frequently used steel/iron for blades and bronze for armor (e.g. Classical Greece). There are also examples of razors with steel blades and bronze handles. It seems to me that the switch happened more because iron implements could hold a better edge, not because of the scarcity of bronze (although that was a problem, for some people at least).
Steel is more durable in all respect. Bronze was easier to work with. So as long as trade existed there was little reason to try improve iron working. But once the great empires of the Bronze Age collapse along with long distance trade, people fell back on local resources including abundant iron ore. Combined with the spread of knowledge of carburization ment that Iron supplanted Bronze.
Finally because of the relative ease of finding Iron compared to Copper and Tin, Iron tools and weapons were cheaper once enough people started making it.
Greetings!
Indeed, it also seems that the proliferation of iron-smithing knowledge allowed numerous secondary nations, smaller powers, and tribal groups to rise in power against previously powerful kingdoms and empires, and also the proliferation of rebellions. Iron weapons and armour were a kind of powerful "equalizer" between states and tribes, and created an enormous shift in power and societal change overall.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I found this two days ago, the docx version is excellent to build off of.
https://github.com/Umbyology/OGL-SRD5/tree/master/formats/docx
Quote from: Bren;1127890Oh I've read it, but it's at a pretty far remove from the Bronze Age. Be that as it may, I didn't notice anyone arguing that heavy bronze armor like the Dendara plate wouldn't provide good protection so I'm not sure how casualty rates in the March Upcountry tell us anything about how common heavy bronze armor was among the Mycenaeans.
To be fair to myself, I did point out that it was a 'bit late'. I don't think, technologically, we are actually too far removed from the Bronze Age, and the way armor actually worked in the field, but I think we're lacking contemporary 12th Century BC texts involving armies marching in the fields, so it's as close as we're likely to get. Now: if we were talking tactics and strategy, I would never have brought it up... not only is it 'too late', but by all accounts Xenophon was a god damn genius, inventing half a dozen new methods of combat on the fly that are still used to this day... though maybe he just has a really good PR flack in his corner...
QuoteThat does sound like a lot of bronze, but why do you say that "almost certainly all of it was meant for military use?" Are you arguing that armor like the Dendara plate was a very common item in the Mycenaean culture?
The second clause of your question is confusing to me. Maybe I've had a bit too much Gin and Tonic? What I mean (and mind you that the analysis of the intended use of the wreck is not my own, but was repeated (paraphrased?) in multiple academic sources that exposed me to its existence. Certainly Bronze could be, and was, used for things other than weapons and armor. Decoration comes to mind, as does 'high end' utility use (bronze cups and plates for the wealthy?), but the experts (names... fuck me, If you insist I'll dig up some names...) seem to agree that this sort of shipment was meant for arrowheads, swords, and we can assume (Because we're talking about it...) armor.... and probably also chariot fittings I'd guess. Military stuff.
When talking about the Myceneans and the Bronze Age, however, things get a bit dicey. The Myceneans were very much outsiders, and culturally unique in the interconnected world we consider the 'bronze age civilization'... you know, those cool guys like the Egyptians, the Hittites, the Ugarites, the Mittani and Assyrians and so forth. They were much more militarized, with their 'cyclopean' fortress cities, and appeared to have thrived on mercenary work and raiding, while still being respectable enough to entertain diplomatic envoys from Egypt and to engage in trade*. In other words, from the perspective of the Civilized Bronze Age world, the Myceneans may very well have, to a man, worn Dendara Panoply, while at home it was only common among the upper class warriors and raiders who 'brought home the bacon' leaving serf-farmers to tend the land in homespun wool.
* Sorry, I just really want to make an analogy to Vikings of the Aegean here, but couldn't quite make it fit with the narrative flow, so you get it as a footnote. Enjoy.
That aside, from the contemporary Hittite view, the famous Battle of Troy was not about rescuing some Thot, but instead the Myceneans taking advantage of civil unrest in the Hittite Empire to stir up some trouble and bring home some loot. Interesting stuff.
Quote from: Trond;1127894I could of course ask the same of you.
But as for my sources, it's not one, it's several. The khopesh pops up in books about Egypt, Canaan, and the Hittites. It is often called a "scimitar" or "sickle sword" but if you look at the figures you'll see the khopesh. They found one in Tutankhamun's grave, so it clearly had some prestige as a weapon. With the Hittites, it's strange how iron weapons are often mentioned in texts, but they have found very few of those, but they HAVE found several bronze swords including khopesh. I don't have any numbers though, and I do know that straight swords were more common towards the west (e.g. Minoans and Britain). You also have some of those in the M-E and other shapes like the Middle Babylonian one I showed above. (EDIT: found it in "Cultural Atlas of the World: Ancient Egypt" by Baines and Malek, they call it "scimitar". But again no numbers of course)
Unfortunately I can't cop to a single source, as it was one of the first things I learned about the bronze age when I seriously began my kick on Bronze age military stuff some... ugh... 15 years ago. If I may, I would expand on my original phrase of 'most common' to be, as I recall more accurately, 'Most Widespread'. As I have a few days of kicking back on my heels, I'll see if I can't dig up some more on the topic. I'm terrible about keeping track of where I learned things... the curse of the hobbyist, one might say... I only lately learned the value of proper source citations from my desultory forays into academia...*
The Kopesh would feature heavily in history due to its use by the Egyptians, who were both one of the great Bronze Age Empires, and also the only Bronze Age Civilization to weather the Bronze Age Collapse. This gives the Egyptians and outsized imprint on history, without really telling us much about the Bronze Age as a whole, though we do learn a lot from their perspective.
Interestingly, in regards to your comment: The image of the Carp's Tongue Sword I posted is a recreation of a bronze age sword found in England, so you may be on to something with regards to regional favorites.
*The best I can do off the top of my head for my source was that I was researching bronze age weaponsmithing, and that I may have gotten that information from a guy who specialized in recreating bronze age swords... also from England, so may be biased, now that I think about it... I've done a casting, but it came out terrible and I haven't had the time to try again. I seem to fail hardest at mold making...
Quote from: Spike;1128423Xenophon was a god damn genius, inventing half a dozen new methods of combat on the fly that are still used to this day... though maybe he just has a really good PR flack in his corner...
Probably a bit of both. Like Caesar.
Thanks for the explanation. I wonder if we know enough about the Bronze Age to figure out if that ship was just some average merchant vessel rather than the Bronze Age equivalent of a Spanish Treasure ship.
Estar, I agree with most of that, just a few notes.
Quote from: estar;1128233It not a matter whether it was invented it was a matter of how easy it was to create.
That was sort of my point. My second point is, I am among those who don't really get the "it's not iron, it's steel" argument. The gold ring you have is less gold than your steel knife is iron. If it's carbon steel, then it's likely nearly pure iron, except for a small percentage carbon.
Quote from: estar;1128233Bronze as a material was "good enough" and you could both easily forge and cast it without a loss of quality. Iron and steel was much more difficult to deal with and required higher tempature to get a better quality metal.
Finally the process of carburization didn't happen right away with the discovery of iron smelting during the bronze age. However by the time of the collaspe of the Bronze Age happen in the 13th and 12th century BC the idea of adding carbon to produce steel was rapidly spreading. This made for a superior metal for tools and weapons than bronze.
Steel is more durable in all respect...
Well, except for rust of course.
Quote from: estar;1128233Bronze was easier to work with. So as long as trade existed there was little reason to try improve iron working. But once the great empires of the Bronze Age collapse along with long distance trade, people fell back on local resources including abundant iron ore. Combined with the spread of knowledge of carburization ment that Iron supplanted Bronze.
Finally because of the relative ease of finding Iron compared to Copper and Tin, Iron tools and weapons were cheaper once enough people started making it.
Possible, but there is a lot of "story telling" about how it happened out there. It took a slightly different trajectory in China. My suspicion is that it would have happened either this way or that. Even as late as around 400BC people were still phasing out bronze (notice differences in armor between the Greeks 400 BC and the Romans 100AD), so you could say that the border between Bronze Age and Iron Age is a bit arbitrary. But my third (?) point was this; notice how it was used. Almost nobody points this out. Bronze was used in armor and iron was used in blades. This supports the view that one of the main advantages of iron was edge retention.
Found this yesterday. Found it quite interesting. Identifies the sea peoples, and reveals the First Dark age which occurred during the Bronze age...
1177BC The Year Civilization Collapsed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRcu-ysocX4
Quote from: Bren;1128430Probably a bit of both. Like Caesar.
Thanks for the explanation. I wonder if we know enough about the Bronze Age to figure out if that ship was just some average merchant vessel rather than the Bronze Age equivalent of a Spanish Treasure ship.
I think we have a pretty good grasp in the abstract for how trade was being conducted during the Bronze age, at least in the Eastern Med/Aegean to say quite a bit. I don't think there was really much of an equivalency to Spanish Treasure Ships, per se (though again, my take on the Myceneans indicates at least a possibility). I'm no expert on the subject, but recall that this is prior to the invention of coinage, and a lot of trade was conducted at the 'royal' level through exchanges of gifts, though for example we have documented existance of dedicated merchants (tax exempt even!) through Ugaritic documents.
Insofar as this particular wreck, I believe the understanding is that the ship was making a circuit of ports, trading portions of cargo for more cargo, filling a sort of shopping list for whomever it sailed for (due to a certain uniformity of seafaring technology of the age and a lack of any documentation, as far as I know they haven't figured out where 'home' was for this particular ship.) I can speculate all day long if the entire load of bronze was going to a single nation, or if it was parcelled out in ingots as a trade good for cypress from Lebanon, or olive oil and wine from Greece or what have you, but I couldn't hope to give a definitive answer, and I doubt the experts are in much better shape in that regards.
Bronze weapons from Iran (Elam) around 2000BC-1000BC
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/cb/29/1d/cb291d78e33a87687484f2a4462775d0.jpg)