(yes, I know there will be *something* in TFOB, but I want rules for today...)

Are these assumptions completely off base?

1) Bronze armor -- "softer" than Steel, so roughly one less AV across the board. Same weight, though...

1a) I hesitate to ask, but was there ever Bronze chain mail?

2) Bronze weapons --- "softer" so they couldn't achieve quite the same edge. Damage reduced by one on piercing and slashing damage, but the same on blunt damage.

3) I've read on this forum that it's not considered relevant, but one of the other factors of Bronze was that both weapons and armor broke down more quickly than steel. Will TFOB add anything along these lines, or am I relegated to only my "increased maintenance" and other non-combat role-playing aspects.

Thanks much for opinions all; I'm starting up a new TROS campaign in the next few weeks. Wahoo!

--Thom

Bronze was also much more expensive that iron. If you are running a bronze age campaign, then weapons and armor would be quite expensive.

A bronze sword can be just as sharp as a steel sword, but it's softer and heavier. Thus it would take more maintenance/break or dull easier, and the weight and strength of bronze is why they were kept small. Good call on the AV. If you kept the same AV the armour would have to weigh more and be far less manageable to wear.
I don't personally know about bronze mail, but I know it was used for decorative purposes on regular mail sparingly.

I don't recall the source, but I remember reading that bronze was actually harder than iron weapons (and perhaps crude steel) but that it was heavier and more brittle, as well as being more expensive. (Copper, tin, and zinc are all rarer than iron.)

-

Mail was invented by the Celts in the 5th century BC, and it was always of iron. Bronze armor would be scale or more likely shaped plates (breastplates, greaves, helms).

You asked about armor, but I'd like to repeat Caz's point that the expense and softness of bronze meant that swords were usually (but not always) shorter than iron swords -- I own a Luristan bronze sword in good condition, and it's about the size of a Bowie knife. Beautifully balanced, though, even after all these years. So arming and short swords, yes, maces yes (fancy ones signified royal status), longswords no (you wouldn't want one anyway -- with the lesser armor you want a large shield).

Thanks for the replies, all. I could go with a given set of Bronze armor being more bulky (lose CP) or provide less protection (lose AV) --- I'll probably use the latter, but the former might be interesting in a villain or mook opponent.

No real consensus on the weapons, though. I want to model weapons that are more easily dulled, chipped, or broken, and any combat effects of that. Right now it looks like I can only do that at "non-combat" time, through maintenance and the like.

I am also wondering if these assumptions more-or-less match TFOB...

thomcat wrote: I am also wondering if these assumptions more-or-less match TFOB...

There are and were some bronze alloys that have similar strength to iron, but not steel. It also weighed substantially more (I think 20% more sounds about right). As for bronze mail, I think I remember seeing this used by very wealthy Roman Officers in some source, but it was used with iron links to make designs and I can't remember where I read it.

Actually all these alloys have similar densities. For one Kilogram of each of the following metals you get:

Brass = 116CC
Bronze = 120 CC
Copper = 112 CC
Iron = 143 CC
Steel = 127 CC

So the difference in sword materials between Bronze, the densest, and Iron the least dense, is less than a 20% difference. And note that Iron is less dense than steel. Surprising? Think of Iron as heavy? Well, that's because cast iron is relatively brittle. So you need a lot more to have a sword of the same strength as a steel one of the same length. Same with Bronze. Basically, they have to be thicker to be able to withstand hitting anything. The magic of steel is that it's so flexible that a relatively small amount of the stuff will not break.

Brittleness detracts from strength. All of these metals are of similar "hardnesses" when forged, it's just that for some of them this works against them as the crystaline nature of these metals make hardness a problem.

So, in order to make a Bronze weapon that's not ridiculously heavy, you have to make it shorter. Iron is less problematic because it's slighly less dense, but not enough so to make a weapon the size of a comparable steel one (despite steel's greater density). So what I'd think you'd see with these metals is weapons of the same weight as others, but shorter in length. I think that the edges could be just as sharp, they just tended to chip with use (if the weapon didn't break entirely).

So, a bronze sword with the same weight and sharpness, and therefore damage dealing capacity, would probably have the same damage rating as a longer weapon - it would just have the shorter reach, and lower ATN that smaller weapons tend to have, I think.

If you made the weapon the same length as a longsword - huge kopeshes or falchions for instance, these would do damage more like a greatsword, I'd think, but they'd have terrible ATN and DTN at a guess. These make great weapons for guards who are meant to be menacing, I'd think, but not much good for actual combat - their smaller counterparts would be more telling.

As for armor, the reduction in AV means that Bronze armor isn't much better than leather considering the weight comparison - and indeed hard leather armors were often worn in favor of metal in the period. Still, metal was worn, indicating that it was probably just as effective as later metal armor. Meaning that likely it was thicker. Hence why you only see it as breastplates and greaves at most. What I'd do is have the metal armor have the same AV, but cover less areas for the same END cost.

Similar to how I'd let a character in a steel breastplate have the same AV in that location, but very little CP penalty or END cost (actually, heat is a separate issue).

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:

As for armor, the reduction in AV means that Bronze armor isn't much better than leather considering the weight comparison - and indeed hard leather armors were often worn in favor of metal in the period. Mike

This is all good stuff. That would explain then why Bronze age Celts used the short leaf blade swords and later Celts had Longswords. Also explains why The early Bronze Greek swords are practiclally the same size and shape as their Celtic counterparts.