An interesting corollary to this is how the divergent evolution of iron in the post-Bronze world impacted the history of the East vs. West.
In classical Europe, iron was predominantly wrought iron, the kind a blacksmith painstakingly beats into shape over an anvil.
Meanwhile in China, high-temp blast furnaces emerged that would produce cast iron two millennia before it appeared in Europe.
Wrought iron has more tensile strength (e.g., Damascus steel, chainmail), but requires more specialized labor to produce. Meanwhile, cast iron furnaces require more upfront capex, but once built can produce weapons cheaply enough to arm, say, a large peasant army.
This likely had an impact on the composition of militaries (peasants vs. noblemen) and whether the arena of warfare favored decentralized feudalism or centralized empire.
The transition from bronze to iron does not appear to have led to the same decentralization of power in China as it did in Europe and the Near East. In fact, it would seem quite the opposite. Pre-Qin China, in its political organization, looked more like medieval Europe (weak nominal dynasty with actual power in the hands of regional feudal lords). Post-Qin China saw two millennia of predominantly "all under heaven" imperial rule.
(Disclaimer: obviously, human history is not monocausal and there were a lot of other forces at play, but it's fun to extrapolate.)
And for those looking for an AI angle (because of course), it's an interesting question whether models as a technology analogize more to the decentralized landscape of wrought iron smitheries or the centralized production system of blast furnaces. So far, it's the mega models with huge capex that have captured the majority of spend and investment. But the open model landscape is not far behind and the ability to post-train with specific datasets is likely differentiating in at least some industries and domains. Ironically, the roles of the East (China) and West (USA) are switched here, in terms of which picture the big economic players are pushing for.
Which way, Western and Eastern man?
I had not realised before that the Bronze Age Collapse was literally *caused* by iron.
Bronze age powers like the Egyptians, Hittites and Babylonians used bronze weapons, made by combining copper and tin. Tin was so scarce that only the richest and most powerful groups could access it and the bronze weapons it allowed. (Tin was so rare that it was being transported from Cornwall to the Middle East more than 1000 years BC.) The scarcity of tin gave these empires a near-monopoly on violence.
Iron weapons are not actually any better than bronze ones – they're not stronger or easier to work with, as I'd assumed. They're just much, much easier to mass produce once you have bloomeries, which are the first furnaces that were hot enough to melt iron in a way that made them useable for weapons.
Bloomeries meant that iron ore, which was widespread, could be used to make weapons anywhere. That led to warlords, bandits and city-states rising in a massive decentralization of military power, which the Bronze Age empires were unable to resist.
After the invention of the bloomery, skeletons show a measurable increase in weapon-inflicted injuries. 'Destruction layers' with bones and signs of burning have been found from this time at archaeological sites including Troy. Ancient writers – including Herodotus, Ovid, and the writers of the Old Testament – believed the invention of iron had unleashed a new age of violence.
New at Works in Progress, WEAPONS OF MASS DECENTRALIZATION: how iron itself brought about the Bronze Age Collapse. And what technologies could do the same today?
worksinprogress.co/issue/wea…