Eric Cline makes a good case that the Bronze Age empires were organized around a “palace economy”, where only certain people (royals & their pals) were even allowed to trade. In some places the sovereign literally owned all the land and people on it.
One can imagine that a series of bad seasons, natural disasters, invasions & other stressors would open a window for revolt.
Yes tin was a factor, yes the “Sea Peoples” were a factor. But you don’t get the wholesale overthrow of so many empires without the common people being at least somewhat welcoming of the invaders (when not happily assisting them!) in throwing off centuries of elite oppression.
I wonder if the sea people were just displaced-farmers-turned-raiders that created some open loop feedback that in turn spawned more sea people in self defence or self survival.
The mythological idea of them just appearing out of nowhere is nice too. Makes it feel aligned with something like the pyramids having no explanation
This would (at least in part) mirror the dynamic during another major period of collapse and upheaval - the migration period. Displaced people trying to survive by raiding or squatting on new territory, thus displacing more people and collapsing complex networks of trade which were sustaining large local populations, thus displacing more people etc etc.
Similarly to the end of the bronze age, it was also a period in which shifts in climate stressed social structures. A runaway dynamic of lots of desperate people on the move is not great for stability, and if everyone is already experiencing some scarcity, then that's all the more vulnerable.
Yes, I think so. I remember Eric Cline mentioning this hypothesis in a lecture or a podcast about a decade ago.
Sea people as refugees displaced by drought, famine, war or just a general societal collapse.
In any case, the temporal coincidence of the bronze age collapse and the wide-spread adoption of iron working, which was inferior to bronze at first but more readily accessible, is fascinating*. I am not sure if we have a full picture of the role of that change yet. (Was it just a consequence of the collapse of trade and tin imports, or did it cause the destruction of the bronze age empires in the first place, or just prevent their return, or was it more complicated?)
(*) I do not mean the superficial tautology of "iron age" following the "bronze age" but the fact that the bronze age, in this region, ended in a societal collapse.
The Fall of Civilizations Podcast (nice one) had an episode on this topic.
According to it, the sea peoples could instead be vast numbers of western europeans fleeing the outcome of a massive volcanic eruption in Iceland, which would have triggered crop failures and mass starvation in western and northern europe.
A significant portion of the survivors would have fled en masse to the richer eastern Mediterranean empires, thereby causing their downfall.
They probably never existed in the first place. Most of the evidence for the “Sea People” story is extremely tenuous. Those maps you’ve seen with lots of cities burnt down? Bogus. Often it is really just one burnt down building in a village or town that looks like it might date to approximately the right century. The maps also cherry–pick the data by showing all the towns that they count as burned down wile ignoring the far larger population that were not, and by obscuring the fact that these fires were spread out over such a long period of time.
I don't know where you're getting your facts, but according to Fall of Civilizations, it's not just one burnt down building, we're talking of a layer of ash, charred wood and burned material throughout the Eastern Mediterranean.
"The archeological evidence is quite clear: at some point between the year 1200 and the year 1100 BC, right at the end of the period we call the Bronze Age, a wave of destruction washed across the entire region. It wiped whole civilizations off the map and left nothing in its wake."
Yes, that’s the exaggerated tale that everyone knows.
In “Destruction and Its Impact on Ancient Societies at the End of the Bronze Age” <<a href="https://www.lockwoodpress.com/product-page/the-fall-of-the-bronze-age-destruction-and-its-impact-on-ancient-societies" rel="nofollow">https://www.lockwoodpress.com/product-page/the-fall-of-the-b...> Jesse Millek examines 153 sites claimed to have been destroyed and found that 61% never happened, happened during a different time period, or had a different cause.
Even without buying the whole book you can download the appendix where he summarizes the results. A few notable entries:
Shiqmona: The possibly destroyed public building dates to the fourteenth century BCE. No end of the Late Branze Age destruction was uncovered.
Tell Irbid: C14 dates derived from short-lived samples places the destruction event between 1395–1260 BCE.
Krisa: There is only a statement that the site was destroyed with no published evidence of destruction in any structure.
Iria: Some burnt material in a pit was assumed to be a destruction. There was no damage visible to the buildings.
Athens: The Houses on the North slope were not houses at all. It was refuse that was dumped on the stairs.
Ayios Stephanos: Burning was uncovered in one room from Trench Beta 11. No other damage was recorded.
Amman Airport Structure: Evidence of burning in Room VII can be attributed to the hearth in that room.
Pefkakia: Adrimi-Sismani repeatedly cited a destruction, even though the excavators clearly stated the site was abandoned.
Tell el-‘Ajjul: Bell simply placed it on a map as destroyed with no citations. There was no settlement ca. 1200 BCE.
Obviously nobody knows. Whoever wrote those inscriptions apparently didn’t either. Even taking them at face value, however, the evidence that these “Sea People” systematically attacked all of civilization is extremely tenuous. There probably never was a power capable of kicking over all of the anthills and destroying civilization without leaving any other archeological evidence of their existence.
I've never heard that the Sea People were a cohesive force, attacking all of Bronze civilization in anything like a coordinated attack.
Waves of invaders can take many generations to wear down the native forces. They don't need to be allied in any formal sense, either. See for example: Saxons turning Britain Anglo-Saxon.
I am saying that even if these battles did take place, there is no evidence that “the Sea Peoples” fought any other battles anywhere else at all. The story of a wave of violence sweeping around the entire Mediterranean and ending all of the civilizations there is largely fabricated.
Furthermore, just because these inscriptions didn’t give the raiders a specific name doesn’t mean that they were from an unknown civilization.
My above post was factual/historical so I’m leaving my moral judgements here in a separate post.
I believe the Bronze Age collapse was a good and necessary thing for humanity. It was required to get out of the local stable point that post-Neolithic society had evolved and settled into.
By the 12 century BCE the noble kings that Marduk and Maat would have smiled upon had long been replaced by the same flavor of sociopaths that lurk the halls of our major governments today.
But these Bronze Age despots had a LOCK on the economy that today’s crony capitalists could only dream of. And they had a lock on the culture too, mostly via the state religion.
BUT: years of bad harvests, disasters and bad omens become increasingly hard to explain. Higher taxes and worse service from the state. No protection from invaders.
Do you revolt? Join the invaders?
No living soul, not even your oldest relatives, can remember time before the empire. No one knows what comes next, so you don’t do this high risk thing unless life really sucks. But people did, because life really sucked.
Proposition: The Bronze Age collapse is to be celebrated as a triumph of the people over the most unequal societies that have ever existed.
In the absolute you’re right. In the relative, far from right.
If Mr T could literally order anyone murdered at will with absolute impunity, you might have a case. As of today, he’s having legal difficulties flying people out of the country. A Ramses II does not exist, and thankfully cannot exist, in today’s world.
Just like the Cambrian explosion only happened once, and could only happen once, so did this transition.
It was an awakening of the people that is difficult to imagine today: everything you’ve been told, everything your parents and grandparents have told you, might be flat-out wrong. You’ve never known any other system. You owe your life to the state, so you’re told, to bring glory to the gods. But life sucks a lot lately, and you’re not buying the party line any more. Your neighbors are grumbling too.
It was the first world-scale transition of state order, and it happened because the elites had amassed so much absolute power they’d been corrupted absolutely.
Not even totalitarian dictators of the modern era have had the kind of power these royals had.
There absolutely exist dictators that can kill people at their whims. The CCP comes to mind, so do Iran, North Korea and Hamas, but especially Putin's Russia where even being filthy rich does not protect you from falling out of windows.
And make no mistake, Trump and Erdogan want this power for themselves.
They had laws in the bronze age too. The difference is in what those laws protect.
"protect power" is always in there, but in modern democratic style states there are some extra details that greatly limit the abuse of said power.
Meh. I think you underestimate the psychological difference between Putin level "I can kill you if you step out of line by pushing you out a window" vs ancient king level of "I can kill you at will because I am a god".
Regardless of whether this is true or not you have basically described the UK and how people think about a Russian invasion.
You already have elites siding against their own people and tyrannically collecting taxes and giving it to their Mercenary base.
It isn't hard to imagine a benevolent Sea People offering to free the locals from their despotic elite.
The Bronze Age would not have had the same migration structures obviously but one might imagine it happening locally.
What is funny is that a lot of these explanations of what happened seem to fly in the face of what people find is possible to ascribe to situations now.
> the UK and how people think about a Russian invasion.
That is a very Thought Bubble perspective. It's not a mainstream view of any kind in the UK. The Man on the Clapham Omnibus is not in favour of a Russian invasion, nor is he expecting one. Nor is his mate in the pub.
That's handwaving the mass-suffering caused by systemic collapse. I have a few issues with this. The first one is dialectic, you can't posit that since the following state reached a place you're fine with later on, the process that led to it was necessary. That's thinking backwards. You don't know that it wouldn't have reached a better or equal state without collapse.
The following ones are ethical and philosophical. My own standing is that :
- Individuals can't be treated as fungible or dispensable, even when thinking in macro states. That opens the door for extreme suffering and simplistic thinking.
- On longer scales, stability wins. Collapse should be treated as a hard failure, not a mechanic.
Stability sucks. Instability sucks even more when you are in the middle of it, but it is transient. Stability is forever, until it suddenly isn't.
The impression that I get from this comment is the idea that society and culture moves "forward," whatever that means, and therefore stability is holding back society. Sure, there's short-term pain in collapse, but what rises from the ashes will be better than before.
This is absolutely not the case. It's more than likely that whatever rises out of the *hellscape* of a societal collapse will be worse than what was there before.
The collapse of Rome did not lead to a better Rome. It was hundreds of years of suffering and death. In fact, the stability of Rome is what allowed for it to reach its peak over hundreds of years - something that was undeniably good for its citizens.
As opposed to slow burn suffering caused by living under a poor exploitative system? Say nothing of the opportunity cost...
It's not like bronze age societies had invented peaceful power transitions between fundamentally opposed factions. Whatever state they were stuck in they were there until a regime change, if you're lucky that'll only kill a few people at the top. But most societies aren't that lucky.
>- On longer scales, stability wins. Collapse should be treated as a hard failure, not a mechanic.
Japan was stable for a hell of a long time. Not hard to imagine had they been located somewhere slightly different in the world they'd have wound up slaves to some random European power. Stability works until you get into a local maximum you can't get out of A lot of those local maximums you are not getting out of except over the dead bodies of whoever benefits from them (see also: US civil war), if you're lucky. If you're unlucky you get subjugated by someone else.
It's a nice idea, but couldn't it also be explained easily by the invaders enslaving or killing most of the population? Existing structural decline and instability makes this a lot easier to do for an invading force.
Historia Civilis had video that military of all states were organized around "superweapon" chariots. Battles were basically sports events, where elites measured their xyz.
Sea People had completely different style od fighting, they were runners who harrased and eventually outflank chariots.
Cline has argued for systems collapse. i.e. It wasn't any one thing that caused the collapse, but several things in conjunction. Others argue differently. e.g. James Lacey, who comes at things from a perspective of military strategy and economics, has argued that the systems collapse model really underestimates how much war can accomplish all on its own. He's of the opinion that, whoever the sea peoples were, they caused the collapse.
This article doesn't really wade into that dispute, but instead focuses on why new empires didn't rise once old ones collapsed. Iron smelting originated before the collapse, but didn't really spread at first. Bronze age iron was probably really awful stuff, and soldiers tended to be conservative when it came to technology. They wanted weapons they could trust, and that was copper or bronze. As long as the great empires persisted and the trade of tin and copper continued, nobody was forced to use Iron, so nobody was motivated to get good at producing quality iron weapons.
Then whatever caused the collapse happened, and the ingredients for making bronze became difficult or impossible to get. It was iron or back to copper and stone. So, peopled adopted Iron and that gave smiths the chance to improve iron smelting techniques. During the bronze age, a would-be empire just had to get their hands on a decent amount of bronze and they could steamroll everybody they came across because they all had copper or stone weapons. After iron technology spread, it was iron vs iron. Would be empires got hung up fighting their well-armed neighbours and the snowball couldn't get rolling. The few empires that were left, such as Egypt, contracted. They no longer had a technological advantage once those they formerly ruled adopted iron.
Primitive iron was inferior to bronze and harder to produce. It was weak, malleable, and rapidly rusted. It only became practical once people learned to make a primitive steel by adding charcoal. This is why it took a long time for iron to replace bronze.
That stuff is choke-full of carbon and silica, and is brittle as hell. To get it malleable (which is actually desirable in a weapon, so it wouldn't just snap in use), there is a separate process to decrease carbon content:
No, it's not backwards. The modern steelmaking process starts with iron that has too much carbon content that has to be removed; the premodern process was the other way round. See A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry's excellent series explaining premodern iron and steel production: <a href="https://acoup.blog/2020/09/18/collections-iron-how-did-they-make-it-part-i-mining/" rel="nofollow">https://acoup.blog/2020/09/18/collections-iron-how-did-they-...
>Isn't that backwards? Surely "primitive iron" was closer to what we call pig iron nowadays.
You're under the illusion that the west used kilns to melt iron into a liquid that they poured into a crucible during the Bronze Age. That's actually an ancient Chinese technique that was adopted long after the western Bronze Age ended and it does indeed create pig iron. But the west only adopted pig iron as an intermediate process for making steel starting in the middle ages.
Back then you just put the crushed (via hammer) iron ore and coal into a clay kiln (a bloomery). Because these furnaces couldn't reach the melting point of pure iron, the metal never liquefied. Then at the end you basically had mostly slag with some small iron pearls inside (a bloom). You had to hammer the slag off the iron under heat. Hence primitive wrought iron came first and because it had low carbon it was highly malleable.
The technique that was used to make primitive steel was very simple. In fact, it is basically the same process as was used to get the iron out of the ore. You make a steel tool with malleable wrought iron, pack it with powdered charcoal and seal them both inside of clay. You then heat up a kiln and the carbon diffuses into the outer surface of the iron. This process is known as case hardening.
Also you just linked an article that just told you everything I just wrote from memory:
>While the bloomery process produced wrought iron directly from ore, cast iron or pig iron were the starting materials used in the finery forge and puddling furnace. Pig iron and cast iron have higher carbon content than wrought iron, but have a lower melting point than iron or steel. Cast and especially pig iron have excess slag which must be at least partially removed to produce quality wrought iron. At foundries it was common to blend scrap wrought iron with cast iron to improve the physical properties of castings.
Yeah, so bloomeries produce wrought iron directly hence wrought iron came first.
Chattel slavery and the Russian serf system were very different. Notably, the plantation owners weren't themselves bound into feudal service to an emperor, they got to have a "modern" relationship with a state.
Er, no. 19th century USA was a pretty advanced (technologically and culturally) civilization and yet with an extremely backward system of feudalism even by bronze age standards.
Seems political progress is not so important after all.
The Sea Peoples seemed more like slow erosion on top of all the other issues. Egypt was able to resist the Sea Peoples but other empires were to weak to handle the constant issues. It feels a bit like the fall of the Western Roman Empire which was erosion of stability, what it meant to be roman and military might until it collapsed.
Egypt might have had significant geographical advantage. Nile is just a single corridor to defend and fend off with significant depth. Invasions are simpler to handle when your entire land is in essence single continuous chokepoint.
cobbzilla · · focus · HN ↗
One can imagine that a series of bad seasons, natural disasters, invasions & other stressors would open a window for revolt.
Yes tin was a factor, yes the “Sea Peoples” were a factor. But you don’t get the wholesale overthrow of so many empires without the common people being at least somewhat welcoming of the invaders (when not happily assisting them!) in throwing off centuries of elite oppression.
glouwbug · · focus · HN ↗
The mythological idea of them just appearing out of nowhere is nice too. Makes it feel aligned with something like the pyramids having no explanation
cobbzilla · · focus · HN ↗
kombookcha · · focus · HN ↗
Similarly to the end of the bronze age, it was also a period in which shifts in climate stressed social structures. A runaway dynamic of lots of desperate people on the move is not great for stability, and if everyone is already experiencing some scarcity, then that's all the more vulnerable.
AnimalMuppet · · focus · HN ↗
masklinn · · focus · HN ↗
Them essentially being refugees / displaced and looking for a new place, not them being spawned on the map like a cheap rts scenario.
lh712 · · focus · HN ↗
Sea people as refugees displaced by drought, famine, war or just a general societal collapse.
In any case, the temporal coincidence of the bronze age collapse and the wide-spread adoption of iron working, which was inferior to bronze at first but more readily accessible, is fascinating*. I am not sure if we have a full picture of the role of that change yet. (Was it just a consequence of the collapse of trade and tin imports, or did it cause the destruction of the bronze age empires in the first place, or just prevent their return, or was it more complicated?)
(*) I do not mean the superficial tautology of "iron age" following the "bronze age" but the fact that the bronze age, in this region, ended in a societal collapse.
Mainan_Tagonist · · focus · HN ↗
According to it, the sea peoples could instead be vast numbers of western europeans fleeing the outcome of a massive volcanic eruption in Iceland, which would have triggered crop failures and mass starvation in western and northern europe.
A significant portion of the survivors would have fled en masse to the richer eastern Mediterranean empires, thereby causing their downfall.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B965f8AcNbw" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B965f8AcNbw
pluc · · focus · HN ↗
db48x · · focus · HN ↗
pluc · · focus · HN ↗
"The archeological evidence is quite clear: at some point between the year 1200 and the year 1100 BC, right at the end of the period we call the Bronze Age, a wave of destruction washed across the entire region. It wiped whole civilizations off the map and left nothing in its wake."
db48x · · focus · HN ↗
In “Destruction and Its Impact on Ancient Societies at the End of the Bronze Age” <<a href="https://www.lockwoodpress.com/product-page/the-fall-of-the-bronze-age-destruction-and-its-impact-on-ancient-societies" rel="nofollow">https://www.lockwoodpress.com/product-page/the-fall-of-the-b...> Jesse Millek examines 153 sites claimed to have been destroyed and found that 61% never happened, happened during a different time period, or had a different cause.
Even without buying the whole book you can download the appendix where he summarizes the results. A few notable entries:
Shiqmona: The possibly destroyed public building dates to the fourteenth century BCE. No end of the Late Branze Age destruction was uncovered.
Tell Irbid: C14 dates derived from short-lived samples places the destruction event between 1395–1260 BCE.
Krisa: There is only a statement that the site was destroyed with no published evidence of destruction in any structure.
Iria: Some burnt material in a pit was assumed to be a destruction. There was no damage visible to the buildings.
Athens: The Houses on the North slope were not houses at all. It was refuse that was dumped on the stairs.
Ayios Stephanos: Burning was uncovered in one room from Trench Beta 11. No other damage was recorded.
Amman Airport Structure: Evidence of burning in Room VII can be attributed to the hearth in that room.
Pefkakia: Adrimi-Sismani repeatedly cited a destruction, even though the excavators clearly stated the site was abandoned.
Tell el-‘Ajjul: Bell simply placed it on a map as destroyed with no citations. There was no settlement ca. 1200 BCE.
smcg · · focus · HN ↗
db48x · · focus · HN ↗
IAmBroom · · focus · HN ↗
Waves of invaders can take many generations to wear down the native forces. They don't need to be allied in any formal sense, either. See for example: Saxons turning Britain Anglo-Saxon.
db48x · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49923712">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49923712
smcg · · focus · HN ↗
db48x · · focus · HN ↗
Furthermore, just because these inscriptions didn’t give the raiders a specific name doesn’t mean that they were from an unknown civilization.
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49923712">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49923712
cobbzilla · · focus · HN ↗
I believe the Bronze Age collapse was a good and necessary thing for humanity. It was required to get out of the local stable point that post-Neolithic society had evolved and settled into.
By the 12 century BCE the noble kings that Marduk and Maat would have smiled upon had long been replaced by the same flavor of sociopaths that lurk the halls of our major governments today.
But these Bronze Age despots had a LOCK on the economy that today’s crony capitalists could only dream of. And they had a lock on the culture too, mostly via the state religion.
BUT: years of bad harvests, disasters and bad omens become increasingly hard to explain. Higher taxes and worse service from the state. No protection from invaders.
Do you revolt? Join the invaders?
No living soul, not even your oldest relatives, can remember time before the empire. No one knows what comes next, so you don’t do this high risk thing unless life really sucks. But people did, because life really sucked.
Proposition: The Bronze Age collapse is to be celebrated as a triumph of the people over the most unequal societies that have ever existed.
d0mine · · focus · HN ↗
throwawayk7h · · focus · HN ↗
cobbzilla · · focus · HN ↗
If Mr T could literally order anyone murdered at will with absolute impunity, you might have a case. As of today, he’s having legal difficulties flying people out of the country. A Ramses II does not exist, and thankfully cannot exist, in today’s world.
Just like the Cambrian explosion only happened once, and could only happen once, so did this transition.
It was an awakening of the people that is difficult to imagine today: everything you’ve been told, everything your parents and grandparents have told you, might be flat-out wrong. You’ve never known any other system. You owe your life to the state, so you’re told, to bring glory to the gods. But life sucks a lot lately, and you’re not buying the party line any more. Your neighbors are grumbling too.
It was the first world-scale transition of state order, and it happened because the elites had amassed so much absolute power they’d been corrupted absolutely.
Not even totalitarian dictators of the modern era have had the kind of power these royals had.
mschuster91 · · focus · HN ↗
And make no mistake, Trump and Erdogan want this power for themselves.
otabdeveloper4 · · focus · HN ↗
Even (gasp!) Putler's Russia has laws and police, I've heard.
literalAardvark · · focus · HN ↗
"protect power" is always in there, but in modern democratic style states there are some extra details that greatly limit the abuse of said power.
jychang · · focus · HN ↗
zenithirl · · focus · HN ↗
NamlchakKhandro · · focus · HN ↗
The Architect had to tell Neo, that we'd been through this Seven times already.
Think yourself Neo?
nobodywillobsrv · · focus · HN ↗
You already have elites siding against their own people and tyrannically collecting taxes and giving it to their Mercenary base.
It isn't hard to imagine a benevolent Sea People offering to free the locals from their despotic elite.
The Bronze Age would not have had the same migration structures obviously but one might imagine it happening locally.
What is funny is that a lot of these explanations of what happened seem to fly in the face of what people find is possible to ascribe to situations now.
dcminter · · focus · HN ↗
That is a very Thought Bubble perspective. It's not a mainstream view of any kind in the UK. The Man on the Clapham Omnibus is not in favour of a Russian invasion, nor is he expecting one. Nor is his mate in the pub.
smcg · · focus · HN ↗
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
.. what?
(is this some reference to the extremely confusing base incident that may or may not have just been diesel thieves?)
Bayart · · focus · HN ↗
The following ones are ethical and philosophical. My own standing is that :
- Individuals can't be treated as fungible or dispensable, even when thinking in macro states. That opens the door for extreme suffering and simplistic thinking.
- On longer scales, stability wins. Collapse should be treated as a hard failure, not a mechanic.
tliltocatl · · focus · HN ↗
Stability sucks. Instability sucks even more when you are in the middle of it, but it is transient. Stability is forever, until it suddenly isn't.
Shiggy_ · · focus · HN ↗
This is absolutely not the case. It's more than likely that whatever rises out of the *hellscape* of a societal collapse will be worse than what was there before.
The collapse of Rome did not lead to a better Rome. It was hundreds of years of suffering and death. In fact, the stability of Rome is what allowed for it to reach its peak over hundreds of years - something that was undeniably good for its citizens.
cobbzilla · · focus · HN ↗
Rome was unstable far longer than it was stable.
> undeniably good for its citizens.
Maybe for some very small percentage of citizens, especially when citizenship was extended to everyone in the empire.
monknomo · · focus · HN ↗
When you look at data around economics what you find instead is that good times create good times.
you want stability, but not stasis. you hella do not want punctuated equilibriums
AnimalMuppet · · focus · HN ↗
cucumber3732842 · · focus · HN ↗
As opposed to slow burn suffering caused by living under a poor exploitative system? Say nothing of the opportunity cost...
It's not like bronze age societies had invented peaceful power transitions between fundamentally opposed factions. Whatever state they were stuck in they were there until a regime change, if you're lucky that'll only kill a few people at the top. But most societies aren't that lucky.
>- On longer scales, stability wins. Collapse should be treated as a hard failure, not a mechanic.
Japan was stable for a hell of a long time. Not hard to imagine had they been located somewhere slightly different in the world they'd have wound up slaves to some random European power. Stability works until you get into a local maximum you can't get out of A lot of those local maximums you are not getting out of except over the dead bodies of whoever benefits from them (see also: US civil war), if you're lucky. If you're unlucky you get subjugated by someone else.
JohnMakin · · focus · HN ↗
throw839303084 · · focus · HN ↗
Sea People had completely different style od fighting, they were runners who harrased and eventually outflank chariots.
beloch · · focus · HN ↗
This article doesn't really wade into that dispute, but instead focuses on why new empires didn't rise once old ones collapsed. Iron smelting originated before the collapse, but didn't really spread at first. Bronze age iron was probably really awful stuff, and soldiers tended to be conservative when it came to technology. They wanted weapons they could trust, and that was copper or bronze. As long as the great empires persisted and the trade of tin and copper continued, nobody was forced to use Iron, so nobody was motivated to get good at producing quality iron weapons.
Then whatever caused the collapse happened, and the ingredients for making bronze became difficult or impossible to get. It was iron or back to copper and stone. So, peopled adopted Iron and that gave smiths the chance to improve iron smelting techniques. During the bronze age, a would-be empire just had to get their hands on a decent amount of bronze and they could steamroll everybody they came across because they all had copper or stone weapons. After iron technology spread, it was iron vs iron. Would be empires got hung up fighting their well-armed neighbours and the snowball couldn't get rolling. The few empires that were left, such as Egypt, contracted. They no longer had a technological advantage once those they formerly ruled adopted iron.
bugake · · focus · HN ↗
kees99 · · focus · HN ↗
> primitive steel [made] by adding charcoal.
Isn't that backwards? Surely "primitive iron" was closer to what we call pig iron nowadays.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_iron" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_iron
That stuff is choke-full of carbon and silica, and is brittle as hell. To get it malleable (which is actually desirable in a weapon, so it wouldn't just snap in use), there is a separate process to decrease carbon content:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrought_iron#Terminology" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrought_iron#Terminology
monadgonad · · focus · HN ↗
imtringued · · focus · HN ↗
You're under the illusion that the west used kilns to melt iron into a liquid that they poured into a crucible during the Bronze Age. That's actually an ancient Chinese technique that was adopted long after the western Bronze Age ended and it does indeed create pig iron. But the west only adopted pig iron as an intermediate process for making steel starting in the middle ages.
Back then you just put the crushed (via hammer) iron ore and coal into a clay kiln (a bloomery). Because these furnaces couldn't reach the melting point of pure iron, the metal never liquefied. Then at the end you basically had mostly slag with some small iron pearls inside (a bloom). You had to hammer the slag off the iron under heat. Hence primitive wrought iron came first and because it had low carbon it was highly malleable.
The technique that was used to make primitive steel was very simple. In fact, it is basically the same process as was used to get the iron out of the ore. You make a steel tool with malleable wrought iron, pack it with powdered charcoal and seal them both inside of clay. You then heat up a kiln and the carbon diffuses into the outer surface of the iron. This process is known as case hardening.
Also you just linked an article that just told you everything I just wrote from memory:
>While the bloomery process produced wrought iron directly from ore, cast iron or pig iron were the starting materials used in the finery forge and puddling furnace. Pig iron and cast iron have higher carbon content than wrought iron, but have a lower melting point than iron or steel. Cast and especially pig iron have excess slag which must be at least partially removed to produce quality wrought iron. At foundries it was common to blend scrap wrought iron with cast iron to improve the physical properties of castings.
Yeah, so bloomeries produce wrought iron directly hence wrought iron came first.
netcan · · focus · HN ↗
Alexander had an iron sword. Julius had an iron sword.
The problem with iron is that it is very hard to make. Requires lots of fuel, labour and technology.
brnt · · focus · HN ↗
Russia was like this till 1861! And arguably practically for much longer so, perhaps still.
otabdeveloper4 · · focus · HN ↗
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
brnt · · focus · HN ↗
otabdeveloper4 · · focus · HN ↗
Er, no. 19th century USA was a pretty advanced (technologically and culturally) civilization and yet with an extremely backward system of feudalism even by bronze age standards.
Seems political progress is not so important after all.
brnt · · focus · HN ↗
christkv · · focus · HN ↗
Ekaros · · focus · HN ↗
IAmBroom · · focus · HN ↗