Mark Knowles 1 second ago James, how feasible would it be for Bronze Age warriors to maintain the effectiveness of their weapons in the absence of a fully equipped 'mobile workshop', as it were? I'm thinking in particular of the men of Argo (irrespective of whether the voyage took place or not). I guess they might have access to a whetstone but, as you mentioned, there must come a point where a weapon is simply too damaged or cannot be trusted to maintain its integrity in combat...
A degree of hammering and heating is involved, but certainly not beyond the capacity of a travelling metalworker or veteran soldier who might be part of the crew. Clearly a master crafts person would do a much better job but they wouldn’t be two-a-penny! Worth remembering that poorer quality swords would also become severely damaged quicker than carefully work-hardened examples from a master smith. The damage caused by a damaged, notched blade would probably still be deadly however, essentially it would be more like a saw blade which would cause grievous wounds. I think fighting would have relied heavily on spear fighting (with or without shields).
@@ancientcraftUK Thanks James. That makes a lot of sense. Beginning to see the Bronze Age sword a little more as a high status side-arm than a readily-available, go-to weapon... Appreciate your insight!
@@markknowles8498 - another aspect to bear in mind is that the sword and other weapons like it are meant and designed to cut flesh and not actually bronze or leather. By that I mean that in an ideal world you would attack the undefended and under-armoured areas of your opponent. That will by itself preserve your blade. Many, many warriors of the period (and much ,much later too) had a spear and little else in the way of armour so they were exposed. Only in the direst of moments would you use your blade to deflect or stop another blade - ideally that would be your shields task. And the chance of binding and impaling your own weapon into a shield is high, so that too is not without it's problems. Much warfare was conducted by spearing someone first, then hacking them to death with the sword when they had next to no defence.
@@crow1066 Exactly. I think it's sometimes easy to be drawn into imagining ancient fights as dashing Errol Flynn type duels. I think they'd be much briefer affairs!
About bronze weapons: Of course bronze swords could chip, crack, bend or break, during combat - which is normal when you are trying to hit someone with your weapon and he block with shield made of metal or wood. But it can happen to steel weapons as well, because steel isn't indestructible =) Also, bronze mace-heads were used in medieval Europe, so bronze isn't bad at all! P.S. I'm just rewatching some old videos while waiting for new to come out! Cheers!
Would Neolithic farmers have felled the trees or simply ring barked them and waited for them to die? Once a tree is dead it would be a far less labour intensive to simply burn down the tree and burn out the stump.
that experiment in Denmark you talk about...you should tell the whole story and why we should never do that again....and it was not even archaeologist that made the experiment and they didnt do it right and destroyed some of the last ancient forest in Denmark.
Love these talks, James. More please! :-)
Mark Knowles
1 second ago
James, how feasible would it be for Bronze Age warriors to maintain the effectiveness of their weapons in the absence of a fully equipped 'mobile workshop', as it were? I'm thinking in particular of the men of Argo (irrespective of whether the voyage took place or not). I guess they might have access to a whetstone but, as you mentioned, there must come a point where a weapon is simply too damaged or cannot be trusted to maintain its integrity in combat...
A degree of hammering and heating is involved, but certainly not beyond the capacity of a travelling metalworker or veteran soldier who might be part of the crew. Clearly a master crafts person would do a much better job but they wouldn’t be two-a-penny! Worth remembering that poorer quality swords would also become severely damaged quicker than carefully work-hardened examples from a master smith. The damage caused by a damaged, notched blade would probably still be deadly however, essentially it would be more like a saw blade which would cause grievous wounds. I think fighting would have relied heavily on spear fighting (with or without shields).
@@ancientcraftUK Thanks James. That makes a lot of sense. Beginning to see the Bronze Age sword a little more as a high status side-arm than a readily-available, go-to weapon... Appreciate your insight!
@@markknowles8498 - another aspect to bear in mind is that the sword and other weapons like it are meant and designed to cut flesh and not actually bronze or leather.
By that I mean that in an ideal world you would attack the undefended and under-armoured areas of your opponent. That will by itself preserve your blade.
Many, many warriors of the period (and much ,much later too) had a spear and little else in the way of armour so they were exposed. Only in the direst of moments would you use your blade to deflect or stop another blade - ideally that would be your shields task. And the chance of binding and impaling your own weapon into a shield is high, so that too is not without it's problems.
Much warfare was conducted by spearing someone first, then hacking them to death with the sword when they had next to no defence.
@@crow1066 Exactly. I think it's sometimes easy to be drawn into imagining ancient fights as dashing Errol Flynn type duels. I think they'd be much briefer affairs!
Excellent fare for lockdown, in particular! Really interesting: thanks James.
Great video! It's very obvious with bow drills and bow & arrows that one idea was transferred to the other. Which came first?
About bronze weapons:
Of course bronze swords could chip, crack, bend or break, during combat - which is normal when you are trying to hit someone with your weapon and he block with shield made of metal or wood. But it can happen to steel weapons as well, because steel isn't indestructible =)
Also, bronze mace-heads were used in medieval Europe, so bronze isn't bad at all!
P.S. I'm just rewatching some old videos while waiting for new to come out! Cheers!
Very interesting!
Grover Kranz? Nice content!
Would Neolithic farmers have felled the trees or simply ring barked them and waited for them to die? Once a tree is dead it would be a far less labour intensive to simply burn down the tree and burn out the stump.
Almost certainly both, but the many thousands of axes from the early Neolithic suggest a need to clear land quickly
that experiment in Denmark you talk about...you should tell the whole story and why we should never do that again....and it was not even archaeologist that made the experiment and they didnt do it right and destroyed some of the last ancient forest in Denmark.
Interesting