[harrywagner]

Originally Posted by kronckew

early iron weapons had little advantage over bronze ones, except being easier and cheaper to make. we tend to think of iron and steel in modern terms. early iron weapons, usually made from a low carbon iron did indeed bend. in some respects this is better than the breaking of a harder weapon. you can fix a bend on the battle field (assuming you survive long enough), you can't do the same with a broken one. hardened iron weapons were produced later, and steel became better when they discovered tempering after the hardening.

a simplistic dissertation is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age_sword

modern tests of bronze and iron weapons made with the ancient methods have been conducted, with expectations that the iron weapon may cut thru and destroy the bronze one. this did not turn out to be the case.

the dha/daarb of south east asia have long grip with the blade inserted, with quite surprisingly short tangs many 3 inches or so. they were held together with cutlers cement, ie a resin mix. there is little if any record of them failing in battle, one trick being the end of the tang was made slightly bulbous (unlike a number of more modern tourista models) and thus resisted the blade pulling out thru the resin. the full length tangs some with pins, or peened ends came much later, possibly after the sword was relegated to a side arm, or even ceremonial.

Hi kronckew,
Here is a Burmese Dha I have that may illustrate your point. Thanks for sharing this info. It helps!

Harry