There’s a famous scene in the movie The Egyptian where a frail doctor, holding a sword made of iron, tells a big Egyptian general to try and strike him down with his prize bronze sword. The general smugly tries to do so, but the doctor’s iron sword not only stops him, but shatters the bronze blade.
Now I’ve been reading up that bronze was just as tough a metal for combat. Was this scene just a falsehood used to explain why iron really replaced bronze as the preferred metal for weaponry?
Bronze weapons are quite impressive, bronze is tough and can be very sharp, and it does not rust, in fact bronze weapons from thousands of years ago have been better preserved than steel swords a few hundred years old. but the main disadvantage of bronze that is very stiff, it t tends to chip. That stiffness in longer weapons means that the weapon experiences much stress from impact, often shattering as a result. Iron on the other hand is more flexible, when faced with stress of impact it tends to bend thus absorbing part of the impact, also it is less prone to chipping and breaking.
Bronze is very good with short bladed weapons where stiffness is key, but with longer bladed weapons it lacks dependability, and would often shatter.