Obviously iron and steel weapons are superior to bronze weapons there's no doubt.

But I notice on the internet and even a few TV shows like Deadliest Warriors there is a notion that bronze age weapons are so inferior that an Viking-age longsword or American Civil War saber would simply slice a bronze sword upon contact, if not outright shatter it into -tiny glass pieces.

So many discussions on bronze age vs iron age weapons assume that bronze is so weak that even the hard shields the Greeks used would be cut in half like butter by a Scottish claymore or smashed apart by a medieval war hammer.

Is this true? Was bronze weapons so inferior that giving an iron sword to some peasant would automatically enable him to cut a Spartan's sword and shield into pieces in a duel resulting in the Spartan being easily slaughtered?

That's the assumption of how much of a technological breakthrough it was for warfare when it was discovered that iron ore can be made into swords!

If the gap wasn't so great, what exactly made iron swords superior to bronze age weapons that lead to the dominance of iron in warfare (despite copper being far more commonly found)? I mean couldn't medieval peasants at least got the cheaper bronze weapons when called to war rather than the crappy improvised pitchforks and farm tools they often brought to war in the feudal era?

I prefer scientific documents but I think this video sums it up just as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjMtzJ6xgQ#t=615

Not the strongest of blows from a steel weapon but it does damage the edge of the bronze sword significantly. However using a shield with the bronze sword would largely prevent this from happening.

I think getting too focused on the weapon looses sight that training and skill have a bigger difference on how effective a weapon is. Obviously if there is too huge a difference in technology, training won't magically make up the difference. A Spartan fighting a plate armored knight is probably screwed. But handing a peasant a longsword and sending him in probably means a dead peasant. The peasant isn't going to simply cut through the Spartans equipment and the Spartan also knows how to use timing, distance, and strategy in a way that the peasant is just not going to have.

There's no magic super melee weapon that makes an outcome assured.

Matthew:

I may be off base on this but could the use of bronze as armour by the Greeks versus iron be a status symbol thing if bronze was in fact more costly? If you could afford hoplite equipment, bronze could make more of an impression on the plebians than plain iron... Just a random thought.

When iron first started to be used to make armour it is likely that this was the status symbol because bronze was more prevalent. At some point in time, iron armour became more common and cheaper than bronze and bronze was once again the status symbol. Bronze made better armour than iron until the intricacies of quench-hardened steel were understood.

My understanding (and i'm no proffesional, I've just talked with people who know things) is that while iron makes better weapons, bronze makes better armor.
Iron is more brittle than bronze, and thus is more prone to break when used as armor. Bronze bends more often when hit (while being used as armor), and thus is better than iron as armor.
Bronze's bending is good while in armor form, but you would never want your sword to bend. Since iron doesn't bend as much, it is a better material for swords (not to mention its ability to be sharpened).
Proof for this can be found in how greek hoplites used mostly bronze armor, but iron weapons. They clearly were aware of iron's better properties, and took advantage of them.
The reason, I gather, that iron replaced bronze as armor had little to do with superiority. Iron won out because it was cheaper and easier to make. To make iron, you need one thing: iron. To make bronze, you need both copper and tin. And not only is tin much rarer than iron (I don't know about copper), but often you can't find both copper and tin in the same places.
Often the best way to get both bronze ingredients was through trading. But your trade routes tend to get broken when in war, so bronze is harder to get a constant supply of.
Thus, when trying to build massive armies, you need mass supply of a type of metal. Iron can be made in larger quantities than bronze, and requires only one source, so naturally civilizations gravitated toward that, rather than bronze.
If I have said anything that is incorrect, I apologize. I'm obviously not an expert, and I'm open to correction.

I won't comment on the armour efficiency because testing would be needed, but you definitely want your sword to bend rather than break. You can still fight with a bent sword, with broken not. Unless you are Tony Curtis.

---

 Attachment: 177.72 KB

Seeing the idea of iron vs. bronze on this forum inspired me to write a two-page article on the question in Ancient Warfare XI.6. If you ever wondered where the idea came from, I hope you will learn something new!

If anyone has read it and still has questions, I might be able to answer quick ones.

Yes copper and tin are less common than iron but iron is harder to extract from it's ore and in the bronze age it was as expensive as gold because of this. Just like at one time aluminum was more expensive than gold, even though it is even more common then iron in ore form. To make steel the iron would have to be need to have carbon added to it which is not an obvious procedure as mixing tin with copper.

As far as bronze armor goes it wasn't as common in the bronze age as people think. Layers of linen glued together was more common and it was quite effective. Remember cloth armor was worn through the late middle ages to good effect at least for the common foot soldier and in the early middle ages it backed up mail.

Doug