Bronze age weapons

Lockstep

I'm doing the Bronze age at the moment for my archaeology course and I just had a few questions about the weapons used in those days,

the bronze age involved the use of swords over stone axes and spears,

what exactly are the advantages a bronze sword has over bronze axes and spears?

I'm aware a spear has reach, easy to make and can be thrown,

but I'm curious as to why swords started being made.

boneless

I would start by exploring the concept of status associated with metal weapons!! Stone and flint weapons and tools were still used well into the early medieval period...

Fletch123

The advantages of a bronze sword over a bronze spear or axe? Well, you can stab with a sword in a far easier manner than with a spear or axe! Swords may have been used for defensive or aggresive reasons, are you perhaps thinking of them as hunting and survival tools?

Fursey

A sword is a killer weapon very much designed to be used in warfare and not just for hunting or the odd brawl.

boneless

Fursey wrote: »

A sword is a killer weapon very much designed to be used in warfare and not just for hunting or the odd brawl.

That's true. Many of the swords discovered from this period have combat marks on them. But I still think there may have been a status thing going on... maybe a good analogy would be a samurai type or warrior class associated to royalty or power. I could be way off though...:p

Saabdub

No advantage:D Early Bronze weapons were rubbish. Very soft, easily broken and seriously expensive. That's why they were popular. My sword's more expensive than your javelin head and so on. Take a rapier for example, the riveting was so bad that if you actually struck someone with it the thing would come straight off the handle. Some of the shilds were so thin you could only use them for display and depositing in rivers and sanctuaries.

They were a bit like super cars. They look good and signal to the world how rich you are, but are actually useless to drive.

Saabdub

Riamfada

Agricultural society brought about a social heirarchy which necessitated desire for prestige goods and wealth. It also saw a time where arguably warfare became more widespread.

valen

A sword is a status-symbol thing. Kinda like a hand gun. It's nice, it's easy to carry, but it's not something you'd use as a primary weapon in a scrap. But very handy as a backup, if you are in a crush and your spear is trapped.

In Ireland, the short spear was much more common; it's light, cheap and very very effective in melee combat. You can also carry a shield in the other hand to protect yourself. Think of the kind of armour & weapons the northern Greek Hoplites used, only with smaller shields, as Irish would have been moving through more forested terrain. Occasionally, longer spears would have been used, though you don't have much missle protection.

I have a lovely bronze sword. It's a perfect weight, obviously meant for stabbing and slashing - so late bronze age. It was made by a friend who casts bronze swords, measured from museum finds. But against a spear, it's heavy, slow and clumsy. Later steel swords are much lighter and longer, and by the 1300s, swords had almost completely replaced short spears. That said, the Irish sagas often detail people with a spear and sword, just a spear, and most often two spears (sometimes even two spears and a sword). Personal taste certainly comes into it. I'd always prefer to use two short spears over a sword in early periods....much more range and speed.

We know of very little known about military uses of axes in Bronze Age Ireland; it seems they were mainly agricultural implements, though there are bronze 'halberds' that were terrifying looking things on long poles, and would have served similar purposes to the later long-hafted axes that became popular in the wake of the Vikings.

valen

Saabdub wrote: »

No advantage:D Early Bronze weapons were rubbish. Very soft, easily broken and seriously expensive

Hammered bronze is actually reasonably tough. Certainly enough to make a nasty mess of leather armour & skin. It's also tougher than many of the earlier iron swords.

Take a rapier for example, the riveting was so bad that if you actually struck someone with it the thing would come straight off the handle. Some of the shilds were so thin you could only use them for display and depositing in rivers and sanctuaries.

Viking shields were often only 5mm at the edge, and were designed to deflect heavy axes. And don't knock a light shield - a wicker shield is very effective at trapping spears and sword thrusts. You don't need stopping power....just deflection.

If you are swiping someone with a rapier, you are doing it wrong. It's good for a short stab. Possibly not melee weapons - but very nice in a judicial duel. By the late bronze age, the swords were very sturdy.

John

CDfm

Swords would have been more for close combat and portability and they can be carried on the body keeping hands free to do other things.

dr gonzo

Well if you look a culture that prioritises the spear as the weapon of choice, say bronze age Greece.
The spear is excellent for thrusting and range and although not ideally can also be thrown however it is wooden with just a bronze tip so if it breaks or it you throw it and miss where does that leave you. The sword might therefore been seen as a secondary weapon for close combat, excellent for slashing by contrast.

valen

Any spearman worth his salt would have spare spears too; greeks often had three, carried by a horseboy/helot etc.

In Ireland, you often hear in sagas of the 'second spear' being handed to a charioteer, or even infantry man - usually a slightly smaller spear as a spear. This would be in addition to lighter javelins for throwing.

BTW, turns out it's pretty hard to hew a head off a spear. Usually it just bounces away. That said, I wire-wrap the top foot of my spears with wire, to make it a little harder to damage them, just as some of the vikings at Brunanburgh in the late 800s.