"Bronze vs Iron" Topic

Are there any recorded conflicts between opposing warriors equipped with Iron and Bronze weapons ?

I'm interested in what difference the different metals made to the conflict.

TIA

Not as much difference as they show in the film "Egyptian". Iron keeps sharp edge for longer but will not cut through bronze like hot knife through butter.

Bronze is the combination of tin and copper. It was easy to manufacture but harder to obtain materials. Iron was more common and civilization that had manufacturing knowledge had advantages.

In my opinion, iron vs. bronze would not make any difference on the battlefield. Strategy, tactics and individual skill of the warrior made difference.

I looked at this a long time ago, and I think it was the received wisdom then that bronze would have been a bit softer and possibly more brittle(?). On the battlefield, perhaps not so much difference – unless it means that you can equip troops more effectively for less cost.

Bronze weapons are just as hard as iron, depending somewhat on the technique and composition used to forge the metals. However, a damaged bronze weapon needs to be recast whereas an iron one can be hammered back into shape. As a previous poster noted, iron is much more abundant than copper or tin, so it's much more economical to exploit one source of abundant iron versus one source of rare copper and one source of rare tin.

Iron working quickly leads to steel alloys which are harder and all-around better than bronze.

In Early China bronze scarcity kept armies smallish. The availability of iron in quantity allowed mass armies to be equipped.

In Greece bronze swords and spear blades quickly switched to iron. Body armor and helmets took a lot longer to shift, and never really became all that commonplace in the Hellenistic world even thought they had the means. Generals and officers and growing number of soldiers gained iron armor during and after Alexander the Great's reign. The composite corselet in the Vergina tomb is iron plates.

So for about two hundred years Greeks mostly wore bronze or composite armor, but used iron swords and spear points. (note the lizard sticker butt spike at the end of the spear was bronze.. this may be because it doesn't rust… so spears had bronze and iron in them for specific reasons.)

I don't know of any period complaint where somebody was killed because their bronze corslet could not stop iron or steel blades. I do know of some anecdotes where supposedly "penetration proof" heavy iron pectoral were used in the Successor era. One such story is about Demetrius at Rhodes where his companion was killed while wearing a supposed 'bullet proof' iron mail corselet.

"For his use in this war there were brought to Demetrius from Cyprus two iron coats of mail, each of which weighed only forty pounds. Wishing to show their strength and power of resistance, Zoilus their maker gave orders that a catapult's missile should be shot at one of them from a distance of twenty paces, and in the place where it struck the iron remained intact, although it did get a faint scratch, such as might be made by a graver. 4 This coat of mail Demetrius wore himself; the other was worn by Alcimus the Epeirot, the sturdiest and most warlike of all the men under him, and the only one whose suit of armour weighed a hundred pounds (the rest used suits of fifty pounds weight); he fell in battle at Rhodes near the theatre."

link

It is the hardness of iron that gives it the advantage in keeping an edge. This actually makes it more brittle than bronze. Think glass and wood if you need a parallel.
Steel is another matter.

The largest source in tin, in the ancient world, was Britain. It is not at all out of the question that trade between Britain and other nations may well have taken place, providing those nations with a proven and reliable source of tin.

We know that there was trade between areas of Spain and southern Britain, due to objects excavated at Stonehenge. It's possible that that trade was far more extensive in both quantity and distance than we currently imagine.

Back to the question to hand, in a single battle, there would be little, if any, difference between iron and bronze weapons. For the duration of the contest, both blades would remain sharp enough, and any resharpening would take place afterward. Same with arrow heads and spear points.

V/R

Bronze requires copper and tin, both of which are much more rare when compared with Iron.

Bronze is not as easy to work with as well.

However bronze does not really corrode in the same way iron does either, and is much lower maintenance.

Iron was, once discovered, much easier to produce in large amounts. So more armor, more weapons etc. However it also requires constant maintenance as it rusts very quickly.