Mod: Brazen Benevolence (Bronze Armors)

[whiplashomega]

I know cast iron is incredibly heavy, even compared to other irons, does cast bronze have a similar comparative increase in weight?

[analytic_kernel]

Chris, I'm guessing that metallicity is probably just flagged by a bit. I guess we could request a new modding command to twiddle that bit, if someone hasn't already done so.

Greg, interesting about the recycling aspect. Probably the oxides formed on the surface of the bronze add impurities. But, I'm no metallurgist.... I do remember reading that recasting was sometimes needed to repair bronze in cases where an iron implement could simply be brought back to a forge and hammered out.

Whiplash, I don't how much greater the density of cast iron is over wrought iron. I suppose the crystalline structure could be different due to the different process (and small amounts of other elements), but that's speculation. However, my understanding is that cast iron is inferior to wrought iron when it comes to armoring. So, we are probably comparing bronze to wrought iron. The densities for those are about 8.5 to 8.7 g/cc and 7.9 g/cc, respectively.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Encyclopedia Brittanica

As the weathered copper ores in given localities were worked out, the harder sulfide ores beneath were mined and smelted. The minerals involved, such as chalcopyrite, a copper-iron sulfide, needed an oxidizing roast to remove sulfur as sulfur dioxide and yield copper oxide. This not only required greater metallurgical skill but also oxidized the intimately associated iron, which, combined with the use of iron oxide fluxes and the stronger reducing conditions produced by improved smelting furnaces, led to higher iron contents in the bronze.

It seems that there was a convergence between the declining availability and quality of copper/bronze, and the gradually increasing knowledge of iron working, that led to the change. It is just conjecture, but from what I'm finding, it sounds like bronze would not have been supplanted by iron until later in history, had supplies of higher quality ore been stable - this is highlighted by the fact that Egypt continued to use bronze almost exclusively for centuries after iron became more prevalent in other regions of the world.

I think with a little effort, some hard numbers could be found as far as the relative mass/volume between late bronze and early iron, as well as tensile strength etc between the commonly found alloys.

[analytic_kernel]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

It seems that there was a convergence between the declining availability and quality of copper/bronze, and the gradually increasing knowledge of iron working, that led to the change. It is just conjecture, but from what I'm finding, it sounds like bronze would not have been supplanted by iron until later in history, had supplies of higher quality ore been stable - this is highlighted by the fact that Egypt continued to use bronze almost exclusively for centuries after iron became more prevalent in other regions of the world.

This is consistent with the mineral availability argument. The gradual change is interesting, though not entirely surprising. However, in some cases, cataclysmic events may have precipitated the change by disrupting trade. Both the fall of the Hittite Empire and the dark period before the emergence of Doric Greece are roughly contemporaneous with the beginning of the Iron Age.

As far as good numbers go, Jim, I think the bronze density is pretty accurate - it reflects a composition of about 12% tin. The number I gave for iron is for pure iron, I think, and not cast iron or meteoritic iron. I don't how many impurities from ores may have been left in the iron from the smelting processes of the Early Iron Age, but if we are willing to assume relatively few, then the density for pure iron may also be quite reasonable.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by analytic_kernel

As far as good numbers go, Jim, I think the bronze density is pretty accurate - it reflects a composition of about 12% tin. The number I gave for iron is for pure iron, I think, and not cast iron or meteoritic iron. I don't how many impurities from ores may have been left in the iron from the smelting processes of the Early Iron Age, but if we are willing to assume relatively few, then the density for pure iron may also be quite reasonable.

Well that's the thing, from what research I did, it is believed that the quality and composition of both bronze as well as iron was very unreliable early in their use. At the onset of the iron age, however, even though knowledge of bronze had reached a point that very high quality metal could be reliably smelted, the lesser quality ores required smelting temperatures nearing what was needed for iron to begin with. However, the actual justification for the transition is slim at this point, because understanding of the iron ore was very low, and smelting iron was wholly unreliable. Levels of adulteration in the metal varied wildly, and there were no effective methods of dealing with poor ore - it would be smelted, and cast, and then beat with a hammer - if it shattered, you just started over again from scratch. This says to me that yes, only once the ease of procurement shifted dramatically in favor of iron, did it become favorable to focus primarily on its forging.

That is to say, as much as decent quality early iron age iron was better than decent quality early iron age bronze, it was not enough of a difference to justify the change - it required further economic pressure, and supply chain problems.

So what I wondered at this point, was how the bronze of the time, measured up to the typical iron of the time, in application. Also, it makes me wonder if perhaps as far as cost goes, in the game, that it would make sense for bronze to have a slightly higher gold cost (to illustrate the importation of raw materials) while iron would have a slightly higher resource cost (to simulate the fact that not all iron is even usable once smelted). Beyond that, I'd guess that in game it would be fair to give iron +10% prot over bronze, generally speaking, while really I doubt actual encumbrance would shift until maybe steel would get a reduction of 1 (ironically, "steel" could not be created in large quantities for mass production until the 19th century.....).

[chrispedersen]

I don't know what you mean by 'mass production of steel couldn't be done till the 19th centuries'

But damascene blades, as well as japanese ones were famous as far back as the 1300's as I recall. And they were certainly made in large enough quantitites to support military action.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I don't know what you mean by 'mass production of steel couldn't be done till the 19th centuries'

But damascene blades, as well as japanese ones were famous as far back as the 1300's as I recall. And they were certainly made in large enough quantitites to support military action.

The making of steel was known long before then, yes, and well made steel was highly sought after for weaponry. However, it could not economically be made in large (or 'mass') quantities at that time - certainly not enough to outfit entire armies in high quality steel armor. When steel was employed for armor for the rank and file, it would be of an inferior quality (though some nobles, and elite knights, who tended to be nobles, could afford it).

For example, steel was still in such low supply at the advent of the railroad, that the inferior metals used in the rails would wear out every 3-6 weeks in the busiest junctions.

[analytic_kernel]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Well that's the thing, from what research I did, it is believed that the quality and composition of both bronze as well as iron was very unreliable early in their use.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

That is to say, as much as decent quality early iron age iron was better than decent quality early iron age bronze, it was not enough of a difference to justify the change - it required further economic pressure, and supply chain problems.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

So what I wondered at this point, was how the bronze of the time, measured up to the typical iron of the time, in application.

Sorry, Jim, I'm reading two different things from you. Are you claiming that we should be comparing early bronze to early iron (first quote), or that we should be comparing late bronze to early iron (second and third quotes)? I have been working under the assumption that we are doing the latter and not the former. but Dom 3 has enough anachronism that I could be making a wrong assumption.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Also, it makes me wonder if perhaps as far as cost goes, in the game, that it would make sense for bronze to have a slightly higher gold cost (to illustrate the importation of raw materials) while iron would have a slightly higher resource cost (to simulate the fact that not all iron is even usable once smelted).

Well, I would love to be able to tweak the gold cost of armor, but the modding manual gives no indication that we can. One would have to pass on the cost directly to the units equipping it - extra bookkeeping - yuck.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Beyond that, I'd guess that in game it would be fair to give iron +10% prot over bronze, generally speaking, while really I doubt actual encumbrance would shift until maybe steel would get a reduction of 1 (ironically, "steel" could not be created in large quantities for mass production until the 19th century.....).

I'm having trouble agreeing with this. Unless I'm misreading the source you provided earlier, the smelting process to use poorer ores was more involved, but I don't see any direct indication that the quality of the resulting bronze decreased significantly. Yes, the iron content may have been higher, but which way does that affect the bronze hardness and by how much?

[lch]

Originally Posted by analytic_kernel

Well, I would love to be able to tweak the gold cost of armor, but the modding manual gives no indication that we can.

Armors can have gold costs attributed to it? I thought it only raises resource costs.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by analytic_kernel

Sorry, Jim, I'm reading two different things from you. Are you claiming that we should be comparing early bronze to early iron (first quote), or that we should be comparing late bronze to early iron (second and third quotes)? I have been working under the assumption that we are doing the latter and not the former. but Dom 3 has enough anachronism that I could be making a wrong assumption.

Unfortunately, it seems that at a certain point, it really becomes age specific. As a general rule, EA should be early-mid bronze age, MA should be late bronze - early iron, and LA would be late iron age. Of course this opens up all kinds of cans of worms relating to the perpetuity of many units between 2 or even 3 ages, but is the degree of detail that would be required to show the range of difference in actual perfomance from early bronze, to late iron - with a high degree of similarity in armor value where the 2 overlap in the middle.

Originally Posted by analytic_kernel

Well, I would love to be able to tweak the gold cost of armor, but the modding manual gives no indication that we can. One would have to pass on the cost directly to the units equipping it - extra bookkeeping - yuck.

For some reason I assumed that it was so, but if it isn't, then yes, providing that level of realism would require tweaking of the recruitment costs of massive numbers of units.

Originally Posted by analytic_kernel

I'm having trouble agreeing with this. Unless I'm misreading the source you provided earlier, the smelting process to use poorer ores was more involved, but I don't see any direct indication that the quality of the resulting bronze decreased significantly. Yes, the iron content may have been higher, but which way does that affect the bronze hardness and by how much?

Well perhaps not significantly. But it seems to me that the reliability of acquiring good bronze, when it was available, likely declined somewhat, which made sponge iron, and other somewhat poorly performing forms of iron worth using.

I guess it's just that from what I'm finding, good early iron age materials were better than bronze, but that most early iron was not "good", and likely actually inferior to the best bronze available. So whatever the reason, "good" bronze became scarce enough, that people were often willing to settle for "poor" iron, even before "good" iron was commonly available.