4

Which minerals (iron, coal, copper, etc.) are needed in the same country to make it sustainable (medieval age)?

For example: A country is made in the middle of a gigantic island (like a little continent). It's in the medieval age. Which minerals are needed for this country to survive?

Edit:
Exactly, my question is: What minerals are needed for a country to completely support medieval technology?
Age is around 1.000 whitout gunpowder-
Country = Kingdom, empire... The country doesn't need any trade to be sustainable.

Ender Look
  • 8,863
  • 2
  • 28
  • 60
  • Ender, I don't know that we have a good answer for this. Humans existed for a long time without metal implements. To clarify are you asking what minerals are needed to sustain a stereotypical medieval country? – James Jun 21 '17 at 21:02
  • A country can sustain on very little. For example by using bronze instead of iron. Is your question really "What minerals are needed for a country to completely support medieval technology"? – Alexander Jun 21 '17 at 21:04
  • @Alexander, yes my question is that. – Ender Look Jun 21 '17 at 21:04
  • Medieval refers to a period in European history from the fall of the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Renaissance. In Europe, metals were historically important enough that we refer to a bronze age and an iron age. They weren't irreplaceable though except perhaps in warfare. Maya and Aztec empires were interesting for being rather advanced with no reliance on metals at all. Metal just makes some things easier. E.g You can still have medieval architecture without metal stone cutting tools. – Stephen Lujan Jun 21 '17 at 21:11
  • @Ender Look - for clarity, can you focus on specific country (-ies) and specific time period? – Alexander Jun 21 '17 at 21:13
  • 1
    @EnderLook Medieval is...really broad for this. Can you narrow the time period a bit? The year 400 is very different from the year 1400. A lot happened. Like, a lot. Gunpowder started to happen by the end of it and was part of warfare. – Erin Thursby Jun 21 '17 at 21:18
  • @ErinThursby, sorry, I didn't know that medieval age was so big, I think that I am asking about age 1.000 and without gunpower. – Ender Look Jun 21 '17 at 21:24
  • Please note that there were no countries (as we know them today) in the middle ages. Sorry if this sounds pedantic to you, but you should know that if you want to use that period. You should specify what you mean by "country" - there are several different interpretation and many of them result in the answer: none. (sorry for delete and repost, but my time was up, I forgot to include the suggestion) – Raditz_35 Jun 21 '17 at 21:25
  • @Raditz_35 I know that there weren't countries (there were kingdoms and empires, right?) but I through that say countries would be better. – Ender Look Jun 21 '17 at 21:26
  • @EnderLook It really isn't. What you might call a country could be anything from a single city up to something like the byzantine empire. You would need other ressources to support France than Augsburg, especially given the trade that went through Augsburg. You could also mean a part of the Holy Roman Empire or the actual HRE. I don't think the question makes sense for either for example, so please specify. This becomes even more problematic the earlier it gets. What is a country in the year 500? – Raditz_35 Jun 21 '17 at 21:29
  • 1
    You'd be surprised what trade can do for an economy. Look at Venice. There's nothing of value there. – sphennings Jun 21 '17 at 21:36
  • @sphennings I want a country (kingdom/empire) with doesn't need trade to survive. – Ender Look Jun 21 '17 at 21:41
  • 1
    You don't need to write "Edit" in front of everything you edit. People can look at the revision history to see what changed with each revision. Every question should read like it was written that way from the start. Just incorporate your edits into the rest of your post as if you were posting the question anew each time you edit it. – Secespitus Jun 22 '17 at 06:08
  • @Secespitus I saw that people wrote edit in their questions so I though it was fine. – Ender Look Jun 22 '17 at 12:06
  • 1
    It's not a problem to write "Edit", but it's unnecessary and your question looks better if you keep it as one consistent question instead of writing little bits of extra information at the end. – Secespitus Jun 22 '17 at 14:44

1 Answers1

8

Very broadly speaking, to sustain a typical European typically medieval (think William the Conqueror) economy a country would need:

  • Lots and lots of wood. Mineral coal was not used much if at all; by "coal" most people in the Middle Ages understood charcoal. Wood was used both as a fuel and as the most common construction material.

  • Land suitable for agriculture and for animal husbandry.

  • Clay suitable for making ceramics (and of course bricks).

  • Stone suitable for use as a construction material.

  • Lime, with a multitude of uses.

Everything else can be obtained by trade; for example, Italy had a thriving economy by medieval standars although it is has essentially no iron, copper, tin, or silver. To reduce the dependence of trade a country would be fortunate to have:

  • Iron, copper, and tin ores.

  • Antimony and lead ores would be very nice to have.

  • Silver. Some gold would also be quite nice, but it's far from being essential.

  • Some natron (to make glass). Not essential because it was widely available in trade.

  • Salt (unless the country is situated on the sea shore in a warm climate).

Other minerals such as sal ammoniac, saltpeter, various pigments etc. were used in much smaller quantities and were usually obtained by trade.

To have a country not depend on trade at all it needs to be very large and posses a wide variety of minerals and climates; the Roman and the Chinese Empires come to mind, and even those did some cross-border trade. For example, the Romans imported silk and cotton from faraway China and India...

AlexP
  • 88,883
  • 16
  • 191
  • 325
  • Antimony? What you can made with that in medieval age? – Ender Look Jun 21 '17 at 21:56
  • 1
    @EnderLook: Pewter. Quite popular. It is in the "nice to have" list. – AlexP Jun 21 '17 at 22:02
  • Interesting, great. (You have already my upvote). I don't give you the accept yet because accept should be used after 24 - 48 hs. – Ender Look Jun 21 '17 at 22:12
  • This could go on and on because of "completely support". People liked to poison themselves with mercury, furthermore sulfur and even phosphorus minerals could be included. Petroleum was also pretty common, I wouldn't call it a mineral though, but it might fit your approach – Raditz_35 Jun 21 '17 at 22:12
  • @Raditz_35: The question says "no gunpowder", which makes sulphur non-essential. Mercury is of course nice to have, for example for mining gold... Petroleum was not used unless it happened to be readily available (and in that case it was used to grease axles or other such uses, not as fuel). – AlexP Jun 21 '17 at 22:19
  • @AlexP Lamp oil made from petroleum was essential to some people. Greek fire for example was probably made with the help of some sulfur. While I agree that it is not "needed", as I stated - the problem with words such as "complete" is that they could mean complete. Btw, flint. I will stop now – Raditz_35 Jun 21 '17 at 22:27
  • @Raditz_35: Medieval lamps burned vegetable oil or animal fat. Petroleum-based lamp oil came much later. (Because it needs the technology to refine petroleum.) – AlexP Jun 21 '17 at 22:34
  • @AlexP If we stay in the "west" that is of course. I forgot about your "William the Conqueror" theme. – Raditz_35 Jun 21 '17 at 22:43