> Bronze is less brittle than iron or pattern-welded steel (which I
> guess is what you mean with primitive steel), but it holds an edge
> less well and it bends more easily. Stories from bronze age Greece
> has warriors straightening out their swords after battle by banging
> the flat side against trees or rocks. Iron weapons will break rather
> than bend in battle. If you have only one number, I would give bronze
> the same durability as iron or pattern-welded steel. The main reason
> iron took over from bronze was price, not quality. You can find iron
> everywhere, but copper and especially tin are much rarer. Bronze
> weapons were cast in forms rather than being banged together on an
> anvil. This made it possible to make a large number of weapons
> quickly, but the cost of raw materials was prohibitive.
>

Bronze is not as durable as iron. Bronze swords were almost always short
thrusting swords, bronze is incapable of supporting the weight of a longsword
and can't take the sheering stress of a chopping action well. And iron sword
will bend, not break. Romans reported iron-age Celts straightening their bent
iron swords in battle.

Pattern-welded swords should have a higher durability than iron. People
wouldn't go through the trouble of pattern-welding if it didn't offer a
significant benefit over plain iron.


Tim Dutcher