Seminar in World History

Well it has been awhile since I posted here. A short explanation is in order. Shortly after finishing my last graduate class, Carol and I found out that her parents wanted to live permanently in Tennessee, and stop commuting to Texas to live here half the time. In other words the dream home that Carol and I built 6 years ago with 3,800 square feet designed for 6 people and 2 cats would now only be inhabited by 2 people and 1 cat. We would have to put the house on the market. This we have done and now we are waiting for the right buyer to come along and buy our unique property (most people are not into ballrooms).
While we wait, I have decided to start work on my next history class which is a Graduate Seminar in World History. I figure that if I can get far enough ahead on my reading and assignments (my professor has kindly sent me the syllabus in advance) before the end of spring break, then I can sign up for the class and keep up until the summer when I can become a full time student for two months. This class should be double the reading and double the writing of my previous course.
Most of my experience with World History concerns Western Civ and neglects the rest of the world until the West shows up and colonizes them. One of my reasons for pursuing a Masters degree is to rectify this oversight in my education. The first book on my extensive reading list is the Rise of the West, by William McNeill. This 800+ page book is a little dated (it was originally published in 1964), but is my professors favorite overview of World History. We will be contrasting it with a newer, but less favored, view from a different author later in the course.
I am finding some astonishing gaps in my basic knowledge of early World History, stuff that I thought I should have already know. For example, take the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. From all of the basic history textbooks that I have read earlier, I have always assumed that iron weapons were better than bronze weapons because iron was harder than bronze. After all bronze is harder than copper and harder weapons in battle give a decisive advantage. But alas this is incorrect. In reality iron and bronze weapons have about the same degree of hardness and bronze weapons in fact are superior in the fact that they don’t rust. However, bronze is a composite metal and the raw metals are relatively difficult to find in large quantities, whereas iron is relatively abundant in nature. This meant that warfare in Bronze Age civilizations was essentially an aristocratic affair because only the wealthy could equip themselves with bronze weapons. Iron Age civilizations on the other hand could outfit a much larger army with iron weapons due to the better availability of iron ores. The reason why the Iron Age did not happen earlier was because bronze is relatively easy to work, it can be cast while an ironsmith has to work the iron into a primitive steel for it to be useful as a weapon.
The myth that iron is harder and better than bronze perpetuated in role playing games. In RuneQuest for example iron weapons are much better than bronze weapons and are the weapons of the elite fighters, while the common masses have to make due with bronze. In reality Iron Age civilizations were superior to Bronze Age civilizations not only due to the fact that they could equip a larger army, but also that the common person could have access to a hard metal. Farming outside of the rich alluvial plains took off with iron plows which could cut through the harder soils. Therefore, Iron Age civilizations could increase their food supply by putting turning formerly unproductive land into food producing farmland.