Fun article. I think that there is a lot of interesting information here that would help explain what we saw with the Bronze Age Collapse, though I would submit that this is just another of the multiple factors that led to the collapse. Maybe a drought occurs, folks turn to iron weapons, and then take over another town or village for their resources, and so on.

This could lead to supply chain collapses and such. Maybe just general destabilization and raids and such sort of collapsed the larger empires. But at the same time, those larger empires would also have had access to iron, so why couldn't they by matter of numerical superiority, access to greater resources, tactics and military organization, and more simply, overwhelm smaller armies or bands utilizing the same technology and restore order or at least defend themselves?

I just started reading Conrad Black's historical series and in the Egyptian chapter and also the Assyria/Babylonia chapter he references the historical accounts where time and time again Egyptian forces led by the pharaoh would march into the broader Middle East to restore order. Why couldn't they continue to do that?

▲

rawgabbit 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It could be the Bronze Age empires were based on violence and coercion. When the small polities had the means to defend themselves, the empires fell apart.

▲

ericmay 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Well all of civilization and society is based on violence and coercion to some extent. I'm not sure that small tribes polities were any less violent than larger empires, and I'd generally have a bias that larger empires were more peaceful per-capita because if you are the king war is tiresome and threatening. Better to be at peace.

I'm also not sure about your suggestion. Yes small polities had the means to defend themselves, but the pharaoh's army is much larger and you're definitely going to die if he shows up and you fight back. So why wouldn't the pharaoh have shown up to put down a rebellion? Time and time again in the history of the region a king, pharaoh, or other despot would make examples of rebels, put down rebels, and march armies up and down the region to ensure fealty and assign minor lords to protect a region. They could have found the smelters and destroyed them or seized them, those working on it could have been killed.

I'm just not sure that this democratization of violence is the answer. Though it may be a key contributor. Curious about your thoughts or others. Incredibly fascinating topic.

▲

bryanlarsen 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Have you read about the Assyrians? Those early empires were nasty.

And yes, the common people might have been better off under larger empires than under smaller ones, but who has ever cared about the common people? The upper class were probably more "I'd rather be the king of a small kingdom than bend my knee to an emperor."

Bronze age empires were large -- if the pharaoh couldn't trust his subordinates he could only be in one place at a time.

	▲	ericmay 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Have you read about the Assyrians? Those early empires were nasty. Barely. My knowledge of ancient empires and peoples before the Greeks is rudimentary at best, and that may be a charitable description. The more I've learned and read the more I've forgotten and the more I've learned I don't know. But I do read about these kinds of dynasties, civilizations, empires, and peoples and it is endlessly fascinating. As I have become a little bit older and well traveled I keep coming back to the Normans. What they built and the effect they have had on civilization development in Europe and beyond is amazing! I've seen it in France, but the Bayeux Tapestry is, in my mind, one of the premier cultural artifacts of all of civilization (I'm not doing to disagree with anyone who suggests otherwise, feel free to :) ) and it would have been great to see it while it temporarily resides at the British Museum but alas work and life here in the United States takes precedence.

▲

cucumber3732842 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Time and time again in the history of the region a king, pharaoh, or other despot would make examples of rebels, put down rebels, and march armies up and down the region to ensure fealty and assign minor lords to protect a region. They could have found the smelters and destroyed them or seized them, those working on it could have been killed.

And when all those rebellions cost the Pharaoh 3x what they used to to put down you're forced to be a lot more diplomatic. Less extraction under threat of violence means smaller army means worse negotiating position for the next one. It's a cycle.

And for every full scale armies meeting in the field type rebellion there's a lot of "sir a second village has lynched the tax men" which compel you to dispense policing forces, etc, etc.

Just because you "can" do something in moderation doesn't mean it's a sustainable way to run your empire at scale.

You can't "just regulate the smiths" like some 21st century despot because those smiths also make the iron tools those people need to farm to pay your taxes. And you can't just "supervise" them with your loyal people because this is pre-industrial and there do not exist sufficient surpluses to feed those nonproductive mouths.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

noncoml 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because pure iron, with no carbonization, is useless as a material for tools or weapons.

Carbonization was invented/discovered after the Bronze Age collapse, slowly over hundreds of years, exactly because they didn’t have access to bronze anymore.

▲

bryanlarsen 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Despite being "useless", almost all early iron age weapons were iron, not steel nor bronze. They generally knew about steel, but could not control the carbonization well enough to outfit the whole army with it. Steel did not become widespread until the Roman era.

	▲	noncoml 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Nope. It wasn’t pure iron. It was lightly carbonized iron. Also you are talking about Iron Age. Which came after and as a consequence of the Bronze Age. Pure iron is utterly useless as a weapon. Look it up.

▲

ericmay 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you suggesting that you disagree with the author's thesis and that iron wasn't a contributing factor or the major one?

	▲	jeltz 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yeah, the timeline just does not make sense. It makes more sense the other way round that the collapse made iron more appealing.
	▲	noncoml 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes. Iron wasn’t a contributing factor. Iron was already known to civilization during Bronze Age, but they didn’t know how to make it hard. Hence Bronze was preferred. After, and because, of the Bronze Age collapse they started funding out how to make iron useful. Think about it, why did the humans in Americas never went through Iron Age? Because they never had a Bronze Age collapse.