Wrought-iron manufacture in Shropshire is studied over three centuries, encompassing changes in technology arising from the use of vegetable and subsequently mineral fuel. It describes the charcoal-using forges of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, discussing their rural locations on tributaries of the River Severn, and their principal market in the Midland manufacturing district. Comparison with other ironworking districts establishes that the industry had a regional rather than a national base. Early processes using coal and coke are discussed, in particular the patent awarded to Thomas and George Cranage, two Shropshire workmen, in 1766, before the adoption of the puddling process in the late eighteenth century. The industry in the nineteenth century is discussed with reference to the market and workplace structure, examining their influence on the technology of iron production. In the light of this, it is argued that in the nineteenth century ironmaking retained a strong regional character, structured by particular historic and geographic circumstances, and that national trends offer a limited understanding of the industry in that period. The thesis also challenges conventional interpretations of technological change, whereby new technology replaces old, arguing for increasing technological diversity until the decline of ironmaking in the late nineteenth century.

In the late 20th century, historical research on the 1632 Battle of Lützen, a major engagement of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), came to a dead end after 150 years of mostly unfruitful discussions. This thesis examines the battle’s military material culture, including historical accounts and physical evidence in the form of archaeological finds from the battlefield to provide new insight into the battle’s events, but also to develop a methodology which allows a comparison between two very different sources: the eyewitness account and the ‘lead bullet.’ To achieve this aim, the development of 17th century firearms is highlighted through an assessment of historical sources and existing weapons and by an evaluation of various collections of ‘lead bullets’ from Lützen and other archaeological sites, thus providing a working baseline for interpreting bullet distribution patterns on the battlefield. The validity of bullet distribution patterns is also dependant on the deposit process during the battle and metal detector survey methodologies, which also provides vital information for battlefield surveys in general. In an overarching methodology, statements from battle eyewitnesses are evaluated and compared to bullet distribution patterns, in conjunction with the historic landscape, equipment and tactics. Together, these ultimately lead to a better understanding of the battle and its historic narrative, by asking why reported events actually did not happen at Lützen. This last element is also important for understand the reliability of early modern battle accounts in general. Overall, a more general aim of this case study has been to provide a better insight into the wider potentials of early modern battle research in Europe.