
Iron: From Mythical to Mundane - otikik
https://rootsofprogress.org/iron-from-mythical-to-mundane
======
fallous
I'm unconvinced that metal smiths of the iron/steel age did not "understand
how it worked." That certain smiths and geographic regions produced
consistently high grades of steel suggests they did have an understanding,
albeit it an understanding grounded in a world model that differs
substantially from our own modern framework. If, for example, an alchemical
world view sufficed to describe and predict the results of forging a
particular metal or alloy then it was sufficient for understanding within the
constraints of what was needed. Plenty of modern bladesmiths have no deeper
understanding of metallurgy than "this is good for X, this other is not
according to experts or experience."

Aristotelian physics was sufficient in the time and geographic area in which
he operated (friction as primary) but was insufficient in a larger domain
compared to Newtonian physics (force has primacy). Both served to bring us to
and through the industrial age, but then the domain expanded and quantum
physics was needed.

Don't discount the genius of our ancestors regardless of archeological age. We
may feel smugly superior playing with our tools of the silicon age but get
magically transported to the stone age naked and with no access to external
knowledge and try and achieve in the basics of food, clothing, and shelter...
let alone tools such as hand axes, skinning knives, arrow and spear points,
etc.

~~~
taneq
> If, for example, an alchemical world view sufficed to describe and predict
> the results of forging a particular metal or alloy then it was sufficient
> for understanding within the constraints of what was needed.

I strongly doubt alchemy predicted any significant aspects of steelmaking. All
alchemical reasoning that I've seen has either been post-hoc trying to explain
an observation, or has been quaintly incorrect (see the typical description of
how to produce a basilisk, for example).

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
There are all these stories like Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King
Arthur's Court where someone goes back in time.

If someone went back in time with sword and armor made using modern
metallurgy, would they be considered magical? The armor would likely be
lighter and more maneuverable while still providing protection. The sword
would likely be lighter, sharper, and more durable.

Just an interesting thought experiment.

~~~
c3534l
I doubt it. If an alien species came to Earth and gave us a plastic that was
100 times as strong as standard plastic, we'd just go “wow, that's some strong
plastic."

~~~
praxulus
Well, we live in age where rapid technological progress is considered normal,
or even mundane.

I don't want to imply that there was no new technology developed in the middle
ages, but I don't think your average medieval lord expected to see notable
technological advancements from generation to generation, let alone year to
year.

~~~
Retric
I suspect that’s our biases talking. For a recent example, tend to think of
vacuum tubes as a single thing, but they had vast investments in R&D and got
much better over time. And that’s for something invented in 1904.

Similarly, I suspect a huge range of technical innovation that occurred
throughout medieval time gets compressed into a few simple ideas like swords
or plows. However, if you’re actually using these things day in and say out,
what seems to us as a minor change could have been thought of as revolutionary
at the time.

~~~
Gravityloss
And there's vacuun tube innovation today still! For guitar amplifiers.

------
swayvil
It's funny.

The ancient iron-smiths. They devised dozens of techniques for making iron
harder and tougher. But they didn't know "how it works".

But now we know how it works. That is to say, we have a nice body of thought
that describes what we observe going on there. Good thoughts. Useful thoughts.

But how does that work, with thoughts describing observations? I dunno.

Maybe we're like the ancient iron-smiths, except with thoughts.

Thought smiths.

~~~
standardUser
Reminds me of Damascus steel, which we still can't recreate with complete
accuracy.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel)

------
Sniffnoy
> It can also be coated with other materials: a thin sheet of steel coated
> with an even thinner layer of tin makes the light, sturdy, and non-corrosive
> tin cans that now hold much of our food.

Are tin cans still used? I was under the impression they'd been replaced by
aluminum...

~~~
mrob
Here in the UK, most food cans are steel. I checked several with a magnet, and
the only ones that didn't stick were sardine cans. All the cylindrical food
cans stuck. But canned drinks are usually aluminum.

------
sunstone
So, the battery age is about where the iron age was 200 years ago.

