![]() |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
|
I think you are right Rick, besides it takes a lot of charcoal to make a ton of iron – and they made many hundreds of tons of iron – over the years thousands of tons.
See what the author writes in a footnote: In sixteenth century England there was a flourishing village melting industry. But in 1558 and Act forbade the felling of timber for charcoal and the opening of new works anywhere save in Surry, Kent and Sussex. In 1585 these counties were also included. Foreign iron began to be imported, and from 1665-1740 the number of native furnaces fell from 300 to 59. In the middle of the eighteenth century, the iron works were moved from the woods to the coalfields, and the modern iron industry began. I think we can conclude, that the lack of iron production in India, was not due to lack of iron ore, as often mentioned before – the reason was quite different. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,376
|
Also Jens , during that time England needed all the wood it could get its hands on for the Royal Navy , England's Wooden Walls .
Before the American Revolution and after there was a brisk business in New England supplying timber for shipbuilding . Mast stock was a specialty of New England's timber industry . God help the Yankee colonial who cut down an Eastern White Pine marked with the King's broad arrow .
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|