Hacker News Reader

Comment by pfdietz | Hacker News Reader

These swords were central to Robert Drews' theory in his 1993 book "The End of the Bronze Age". Unlike the "systems collapse" theory popularized by Eric Cline in "1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed", Drews explains the late Bronze Age collapse as due to changes in military organization and technology, with larger numbers of foot soldiers armed with relatively inexpensive bronze swords becoming dominant over armies based on smaller numbers of relatively more expensive chariots (with missile weapons). These changes undermined the ability of the elites of most of the societies of the region to defend against attack, and (so the theory goes) once it was widely realized the large stockpiles of wealth were vulnerable, it was game over. Those that survived (Egypt, Assyrians) moved to the new technology and organization.

View on HN

Access to cheap iron definitely is widely accepted an aspect of the bronze to iron age shift (well, obviously, but rather rejecting the idea that iron is "superior" to bronze in any way other than cheap access to iron even when the economic implications are so clearly visible in the archaeological record), but it's important to remember that virtually all aspects of life changed for people in the mediterranean around this time. It's very difficult to summarize the shifts as even potentially attributable to a single cause (like much of materialist history!).

Cause and effect are very difficult to differentiate, and combined with the fact that this a) produced a profound cultural change in the region (e.g. the rise of Judaism, the writing of the Iliad, the language shifts that occurred over the ensuing centuries) and b) distinguishing migrations from invasions from cultural trends in the archaeological record is nearly impossible, I highly recommend against such reductive narratives. Other possibly confounding variables include the spread of horse technology, trade technology (i.e. writing), climate and agricultural pressures, etc.

I think it's quite arguable that the causation is the other way around: by disrupting long distance trade in tin, the collapse caused the use of iron, even if in many ways at the time it was inferior to bronze.

Definitely an argument worth making! It's hard to imagine that discovery of cheap iron production and the trade of tin aren't related (though, of course, it was in high demand all the way through until the modern age for other uses than weaponry).

The simplest suggestion/explanation for the collapse I've seen is that it happened simply because iron became a thing. Unlike bronze, iron could be worked nearly everywhere by nearly everyone, and because of that the whole protectionist bronze weapons industry collapsed and widespread change in economics happened.

This idea doesn't work, I think; the timing isn't right.

As I recall, both Drews and Cline go into this theory in more detail and dismiss it.

It seems to just barely be in time: Again, from wikipedia: "In Anatolia and the Caucasus, or Southeast Europe, the Iron Age began during the late 2nd millennium BC (c. 1300 BC).[3] In the Ancient Near East, this transition occurred simultaneously with the Late Bronze Age collapse, during the 12th century BC (1200–1100 BC)."

There could be additional contributing causes of course.

The thing is that early iron was expensive, wasn't of high quality and didn't fare much better than bronze swords/armor, and there's essentially no evidence that the sea people had iron weapons.

Bronze, though, was also not just expensive, it was also in practice tightly controlled because it depends on tin and copper which had to come from elsewhere - in particular tin, which seems to be mainly sourced from Cornwall and Devon (or in any case definitely not available locally and would have to be transported by, probably, something guild-like). Whereas iron, as soon as means of production had reached "good enough" levels, made it possible to bypass all of that. It didn't even have to be particularly good quality. When burger joints pop up everywhere then the single family-owned restaurant suffers, or bankrupts.

Missing evidence of iron weapons among the sea people is more of a concern. But we still don't know why people became "sea people", but as I understand it a common theory is that it was due to an economic collapse which had already happened. So, the hypothesis is that the economic collapse could be (at least partly) related to the emergence of iron and its impact on the bronze cartels. Whatever the cause, the bronze age collapse as well as the origin of the sea people is very interesting.

Tin was also sourced from what is now Afghanistan.

My intuition on the "Sea People" issue is that there was both push and pull. A people change their way of life when the old way becomes less attractive (the push) and a new way becomes more attractive (the pull). The first effect could be due to environmental conditions and failure of trade, the second could be due to exposed vulnerability of the existing order of things to exploitation (the Drews theory). Positive feedback could occur on both.

At the time and in the relevant area (eastern Mediterranean), arsenical bronze was still popular which, while dangerous to create, was easy to create and didn't require tin.

"Simultaneously" meaning +/- a few centuries. As much time passed between 1300 BC and 1100 BC as between the first steam locomotive and the founding of facebook.

That’s interesting—IIRC it is one of the main “pop history” theories. Of course what that means, I have no idea, we (non-academics) usually misunderstand history.

Reminds me of "Bronze orientation day" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyu4u3VZYaQ

Beat you to it. ;0)

Iron was a thing before the iron age, too. We just didn't have a cheap or scalable way to produce viable ore.

Just out of curiosity, because I don't know and don't know how I would look it up.

what prevents bronze from being "worked nearly everywhere by nearly everyone" or to put it another way what make iron easier to work?

If you had asked me I would have said the opposite. bronze is nice and easy to work while iron requires much hotter fires and harder implements.

The issue with bronze is the scarcity of tin (or the toxicity of arsenic, if one is making arsenical bronze).

But yeah, one can just cast bronze much more easily than one can cast iron. The melting point of bronze is about 200 to 300 C lower (and 500 C lower than cast steel.)

I read somewhere that the popularity of chariots in ancient times was mainly because horses were a lot smaller then. As horses were bred to be bigger and stronger (and agriculture better able to feed them?) the chariot gave way to armoured men on large horses.

This change can be seen in the famous mosaic showing Alexander the great on horseback and the Persian king in a chariot. The added flexibility and mobility gave Alexander's army a significant advantage.

A chariot probably works fine on an open plain. But it isn't very efficient use of men and horse if you have 2 horses, 2 people and a chariot to give just one archer with extra mobility.

It may have also been a class/cultural thing. A man on horseback is actively riding the horse, a man in a 2+ person chariot is having someone else do the hard work.

You get an archer with extra mobility AND the ability to focus on hitting his target while someone else does the steering AND armor AND a bigger carrying capacity (more quivers of arrows, ...)

yes, I know the stories of the amazing accuracy of horseback archers (mongol, native american, ...). Just saying that the 2-man thing may be more efficient than you give it credit for.

Personally, I think I would rather face N Persian chariots, than 2N Mongols on horseback. I wonder if anyone has done a comparative test?

I think they are separated by around 1500 years, so I’m sure the Mongolian army would be scarier. But the Alexander-era Persians wouldn’t have that choice, right? For example stirrups and advances in composite bows (they’ve existed for a long time, but were high tech things, so I’m sure every culture iterated on the idea and 1500 years of iterations add up) probably made Mongolian horse archers a lot better than the options they had.

Refusing the give fight to a chariot oriented army versus a non-chariot based army would seem to also be a big factor.

If you don't have chariots and they do, just fight where the chariots can't.

You probably look very kingly fighting from a chariot. Raised up platform, but also standing.

With artwork it's hard to tell if that's how it went down or if that's simple an artistic representation designed to imply something based on knowledge shared with the viewers and if the latter then that opens up more questions. Is the artist doing it that way because "chariots -> foreigners -> bad" or it could be "chariots -> old ways -> inferior" or it could be "chariots -> obvious favorites -> underdog won anyway"

Kind of like how George Lucas made the empire look like the Nazis so you know who's good and who's bad in the first minute before you even know what else is going on or how in most artwork about the American revolution it's obvious which side is and isn't a professional army.

>most artwork about the American revolution it's obvious which side is and isn't a professional army

True. But wasn't the reality complicated (as usual)? There were French regulars on the American side and various militias fighting on the British side. And Indians fighting on both sides.

> But wasn't the reality complicated (as usual)

Yes.

Which further underlies the point that you shouldn't take the artistic depiction too literally.

There is also this massive military campaign in China, just for the sake of capturing horses from a Greek colony in Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Heavenly_Horses

The king of kings’ chariot was a status symbol. Persian cavalry fought from horseback.

Mitchell and Webb, Bronze orientation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyu4u3VZYaQ

Another argument why 1177BC happened is the rise of Assyria. After the Hittites fought with Egypt at Kadesh they quickly made peace as they now feared Assyria more. The Hittite vassals also rebelled and are believed to be the core group of “Sea Peoples” who would terrorize the Mediterranean. The Sea Peoples were not unlike the barbarians who would later threaten Rome. They brought their wives and children with them presumably to settle in new lands after the collapse of the Hittite New Kingdom.

https://luwianstudies.org/the-initial-sea-peoples-raids/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites#New_Kingdom

Assyria was knocked back on its heels by the collapse, shrinking down to a core. It only became dominant later on, in the form of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. By that time the Hittite Empire was long gone, although the Neo-Hittites were around.

When did Assyria collapse? Tiglath Pileser ruled over Middle Assyria at its zenith until his death at 1076BC.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglath-Pileser_I

wikipedia says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria

> Tukulti-Ninurta I's assassination c. 1207 BC was followed by inter-dynastic conflict and a significant drop in Assyrian power.[62] Tukulti-Ninurta I's successors were unable to maintain Assyrian power and Assyria became increasingly restricted to just the Assyrian heartland,[62] a period of decline broadly coinciding with the Late Bronze Age collapse.[62] Though some kings in this period of decline, such as Ashur-dan I (r. c. 1178–1133 BC), Ashur-resh-ishi I (r. 1132–1115 BC) and Tiglath-Pileser I (r. 1114–1076 BC) worked to reverse the decline and made significant conquests,[63] their conquests were ephemeral and shaky, quickly lost again.[64] From the time of Eriba-Adad II (r. 1056–1054 BC) onward, Assyrian decline intensified.[65]

Middle Assyria was largely unaffected by the Sea Peoples or whatever led to the Bronze Age collapse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Assyrian_Empire

>Though Assyria was left largely unscathed by the direct effects of the Late Bronze Age collapse of the 12th century BC, the Middle Assyrian Empire began to experience a significant period of decline roughly at the same time. The assassination of Tukulti-Ninurta I c. 1207 BC led to inter-dynastic conflict and a significant drop in Assyrian power. Even during its period of decline, Middle Assyrian kings continued to be assertive geopolitically; both Ashur-dan I (r. c. 1178–1133 BC) and Ashur-resh-ishi I (r. 1132–1115 BC) campaigned against Babylonia. Under Ashur-resh-ishi I's son and successor Tiglath-Pileser I (r. 1114–1076 BC), the Middle Assyrian Empire experienced a period of resurgence, owing to wide-ranging campaigns and conquests.

Why wouldn't they field spears? They are easy to make and my understanding is that they are more useful in most battlefield combat.

I agree. My understanding is that swords were largely ceremonial or reserved for elite soldiers who were well trained. I have a hard time believing cheap bronze swords were available to the rank and file. Most soldiers fielded spears and shields and provided the anvil while cavalry with short spears or swords were the hammer.

Presumably swords were more effective from horseback than spears/lances until the invention of stirrups.

Swords were used by "runners", infantry that accompanied chariots. A sword and small shield was better for an isolated soldier; spears were useful for soldiers in close formation.

They probably did, but spear shafts get reused and the heads get melted down. A sword is much more labor-intensive and expensive to produce (not to mention harder to use effectively), so less likely to be recycled for it's constituents and more likely to be found in the archaeological record.

One would think a shift to larger, less expensive armies would favor established, reasonably centralized states that could muster large, local populations over small forces of foreigners.

Or it would encourage suppressed populations to arm themselves to exploit the now relatively weakened condition of the elites.

But we don't see armed rebellions of native populations against the local elites, we see foreign forces attacking with the native population (generally unsuccessfully) resisting the invaders. While undoubtedly there were internal power struggles that contributed to the larger collapse, the sea peoples are not explained by a military shift to larger armies.

I don't think the evidence is enough to conclude foreign forces were involved, at least in most cases (for Egypt, sure). And the exceptions could just be that once the local mobs finished off the local elites, they coalesced and moved to other targets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com