5 ms·

The article is somewhat sensationalistic. Finding an octagonal type bronze sword ("Achtkantschwert" in German) from that period is rare, but we have quite a cou

The article is somewhat sensationalistic. Finding an octagonal type bronze sword ("Achtkantschwert" in German) from that period is rare, but we have quite a couple of them. Since bronze does not rust, the conditions of such swords are often quite good (and typically far better than that of medieval iron swords, for instance). Here is a map of the distribution of octagonal-hilted swords in Europe: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-showing-the-distribution-of-all-octagonal-hilted-swords-in-Europe-as-well-as-the_fig6_334508848 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-showing-the-distribu... As you can easily see, there are two clearly separated areas where these swords were found. The following article (PDF, in German, including an English abstract and some nice photos) explores the possible (dis-)connection between the two areas: https://goedoc.uni-goettingen.de/bitstream/handle/1/8646/pz.2011.012%20(1)_Bunnefeld.pdf https://goedoc.uni-goettingen.de/bitstream/handle/1/8646/pz....

zulban 3y ago
>somewhat sensationalistic What a cynical comment. The title doesn't even say rare, and there's only a few dozen found in "all of Europe", ever. What could possibly be seen as sensationalist here? Thanks for your excellent sources, however. I know it's trendy to say sensationalist, and it's often true. Just seems like a lazy thing to write in this case.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  "Somewhat sensationalistic" ranks somewhere around "slightly uncomfortable" or "a little misleading" on the cynicism scale. I know it's trendy to write entire comments responding to a single, passing word usage in someone else's comment, but...
  - mtrower 3y ago
    I wouldn't say it's used in passing. I'd say it's the entire point of their comment. Whether the usage was reasonable I don't feel qualified to comment on.
- Archelaos 3y ago
  > What could possibly be seen as sensationalist here? I wrote "somewhat" on purpose, meaning something in the middle between "really sensationalistic" and "quite interesting". The sensationalist aspect of the article is that it gives the uninformed reader the impression that it is something like the find of the year, which it really isn't. Yes, it is a nice find and well-preserved, but in the end, everything is rare if one only narrows down the area enough. Instead, the author should have informed the reader that bronze swords are often quite well-preserved and why this is the case, and that "rare" does not mean "one or two others", but "about 200 others of this specific type and thousands of others considering all types".
TSiege 3y ago
The "exceptional" part is literally a quote from the top expert of preservation for the region. > The sword and the burial still need to be examined, said Conservator General Mathias Pfeil, head of the Bavarian State Office for the Preservation of Monuments. “But we can already say: the state of preservation is exceptional!” This article has more photos and compared to the sources mentioned here does seem much better preserved. The entire sword doesn't even look corroded https://www.welt.de/geschichte/article245860994/Archaeologie-Aussergewoehnlicher-Schwertfund-in-Noerdlingen.html https://www.welt.de/geschichte/article245860994/Archaeologie...
hzay 3y ago
My knowledge of bronze vs iron comes purely from playing dwarf fortress. Are they fairly comparable in the damage they can cause?
- QuercusMax 3y ago
  I've just started listening to the Fall of Civilizations podcast (https://fallofcivilizationspodcast.com/ https://fallofcivilizationspodcast.com/), and their second episode is on the Late Bronze Age collapse. The theory they put forward as to one of the reasons the big successful Bronze age civilizations got out-competed is that bronze is very expensive / hard to acquire, primarily because of the need for tin. (Copper is very common but unsuitable for weaponry without turning it into bronze.) Iron is extremely common and cheap, but requires much much higher temperatures to work with than bronze. Once the furnace technology was out there to make smelting iron and creation of steel feasible, poorer / less complicated civilizations were able to make iron weaponry and go up against their richer neighbors.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Any real difference in damage would be weight based, as swords were more used for beating than cutting. It's likely that one metal could hold a better edge, and one (perhaps the same) would be more resilient to breaking. It's not quite like the D&D "this metal is higher ranking and does more damage".
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    platinum underpants > steel underpants > bronze underpants > cloth underpants
- GravitasFailure 3y ago
  Bronze is superior to iron, but not to steel. Both bronze and steel can take very sharp edges while only steel can be tempered to be springy and tough and therefore can make much lighter weapons. Iron is soft, weak, prone to rusting, can't easily take or hold an edge, and requires a lot of fuel to process from ore, but you can get it anywhere in large quantities if you have the fuel, while bronze needs the much harder to find tin.

zulban 3y ago

>somewhat sensationalistic What a cynical comment. The title doesn't even say rare, and there's only a few dozen found in "all of Europe", ever. What could possibly be seen as sensationalist here? Thanks for your excellent sources, however. I know it's trendy to say sensationalist, and it's often true. Just seems like a lazy thing to write in this case.

pessimizer 3y ago
"Somewhat sensationalistic" ranks somewhere around "slightly uncomfortable" or "a little misleading" on the cynicism scale. I know it's trendy to write entire comments responding to a single, passing word usage in someone else's comment, but...
- mtrower 3y ago
  I wouldn't say it's used in passing. I'd say it's the entire point of their comment. Whether the usage was reasonable I don't feel qualified to comment on.
Archelaos 3y ago
> What could possibly be seen as sensationalist here? I wrote "somewhat" on purpose, meaning something in the middle between "really sensationalistic" and "quite interesting". The sensationalist aspect of the article is that it gives the uninformed reader the impression that it is something like the find of the year, which it really isn't. Yes, it is a nice find and well-preserved, but in the end, everything is rare if one only narrows down the area enough. Instead, the author should have informed the reader that bronze swords are often quite well-preserved and why this is the case, and that "rare" does not mean "one or two others", but "about 200 others of this specific type and thousands of others considering all types".

TSiege 3y ago

The "exceptional" part is literally a quote from the top expert of preservation for the region. > The sword and the burial still need to be examined, said Conservator General Mathias Pfeil, head of the Bavarian State Office for the Preservation of Monuments. “But we can already say: the state of preservation is exceptional!” This article has more photos and compared to the sources mentioned here does seem much better preserved. The entire sword doesn't even look corroded https://www.welt.de/geschichte/article245860994/Archaeologie-Aussergewoehnlicher-Schwertfund-in-Noerdlingen.html https://www.welt.de/geschichte/article245860994/Archaeologie...

hzay 3y ago

My knowledge of bronze vs iron comes purely from playing dwarf fortress. Are they fairly comparable in the damage they can cause?

QuercusMax 3y ago
I've just started listening to the Fall of Civilizations podcast (https://fallofcivilizationspodcast.com/ https://fallofcivilizationspodcast.com/), and their second episode is on the Late Bronze Age collapse. The theory they put forward as to one of the reasons the big successful Bronze age civilizations got out-competed is that bronze is very expensive / hard to acquire, primarily because of the need for tin. (Copper is very common but unsuitable for weaponry without turning it into bronze.) Iron is extremely common and cheap, but requires much much higher temperatures to work with than bronze. Once the furnace technology was out there to make smelting iron and creation of steel feasible, poorer / less complicated civilizations were able to make iron weaponry and go up against their richer neighbors.
bombcar 3y ago
Any real difference in damage would be weight based, as swords were more used for beating than cutting. It's likely that one metal could hold a better edge, and one (perhaps the same) would be more resilient to breaking. It's not quite like the D&D "this metal is higher ranking and does more damage".
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  platinum underpants > steel underpants > bronze underpants > cloth underpants
GravitasFailure 3y ago
Bronze is superior to iron, but not to steel. Both bronze and steel can take very sharp edges while only steel can be tempered to be springy and tough and therefore can make much lighter weapons. Iron is soft, weak, prone to rusting, can't easily take or hold an edge, and requires a lot of fuel to process from ore, but you can get it anywhere in large quantities if you have the fuel, while bronze needs the much harder to find tin.