True Combat Value of Wootz

[S.Al-Anizi]

Hi everyone,

As of late, ive been wondering into the characteristics of wootz steel. Is it purely eye candy? Or is it truely a superior steel, worth the fame and value it has gained over the years.

After I had completely read and understood prof.Verhoeven's, A.H.Pendray's, and W.E.Dauksch's article, "The Key Role of Impurities in Ancient Damascus Steel Blades", and based on my short knowledge of metallurgy, I saw that no blade exceeded 37RC in hardness. That would be a very soft blade for use.

Was this due to bad heat treatment techniques, and that wootz blades can be heat treated properly today to reach acceptable hardness, i.e. 50RC? Or is it due to the steel itself it cannot be made any harder, and thus, all wootz blades are simply fancy looking pieces of soft metal, easily nicked, easily bent? Yet still, these blades' reputation as excellent performers over the years (most passing on from generation to generation in the past), seems to be well implemented in the minds of those who used them, according to historical accounts from the 19th century.

Regards,

Al-Anizi.

[Rivkin]

I can give my personal "take" on this - long time ago I have spoke with a iaito practicioner, who was known for his tameshigiri work. He told me that the best blade he had was some really old Kamakura tachi of a good maker (which is what usually considered sort of height of traditional japanese swordmaking). The second best was a mass-made gunto :).

When I look at the tests that were done in XIXth century to compare Solingen and wootz blades, like russian cavalry test, ending up with the one done with Moser swords... All of them have shown that there is a tiny percentage of wootz blades that is capable to exceed Solingen (by memory they compared hardness and some bending-related properties ?).

I would think that by the end of XVII-XVIIIth century wootz becomes probably overrated, what can be indicated by the growing popularity of western blades. At the same time there is really little one can objectively say on the issue - for example I have encountered that experienced soldiers who spent more than 5 years with a certain weapon tend to like it, while inexperienced soldiers tend to complain about its lack or precision, or maintance problems... Plus I would guess that wootz makers were to some kind elite among persian and indian swordsmiths.

[joshualayne]

Is it possible that the tests did not fully capture the field value of a wootz blade? I see pattern welded blades as being very similar to wootz (at least the highly folded examples, like nihonto) in the matrixed nature of the metal - I guess that question is whether that coarse physical matrix has any properties that are not embodied by a highly precise modern alloy (which is a molecular matrix, but would seem to have very different properties).

my meandering thoughts on wootz, other than the sheer beauty of the weapons made with it.

josh

[ariel]

My understanding is that the differential tempering of Japanese blades made them resistant to acute stress, such as blow by another sword. This was not the case with Persian/Indian wootz. Their system of swordplay emphasized a single drawcut (cavalry use) and minimal contact with other blades or hard objects. They were not designed to be "elastic" but hard and keen-edged. The European swordplay required multiple parrying and, thus, very resilient blades.
Modern steels were, of course, far better mechanically than wootz, but it would be unfair to compare them just like one cannot compare HK submachine guns with handmade Turkish guns. But.... which one was more beautiful and surrounded by legends?
Just for comparison, here are some of the official requirements for the Polish mass-produced cavalry saber pattern 1934:
1. When released from the height of 2 meters, the blade had to penetrate a 2 mm thick sheet of steel.
2. Cut steel bar 5 mm in diameter 5 consecutive times without being nicked.
3. No damage to the handle when the sword was hit flat against hard object
4. No deformation of the blade after repeat bending it 15 cm off the axis in both directions
5. No deformation of the scabbard supported at both ends after applying a 120 kg load in the middle.
As we can see, all of them are very practical and imitating real battlefield conditions.
Could it cut a silk handkerchief like famous Persian swords? Who knows and who cares? Few hussars were ever attacked by handkerchiefs.....

[Jeff Pringle]

Another 2 cents -
Wootz is made & heat treated to take advantage of the superior hardness & potential sharpness of the iron carbide particles, which are distributed in regular, plain old steel. Rockwell testers cannot measure the carbides (too small), only the matrix, which was left soft, as it is only there to carry the carbides to the target and didn't need to be hard in and of itself. That's why those swords measured so low.
Wootz was better than most the steels of that era, if not all, but was supplanted by steels that may have been almost as good, but were definitely much cheaper to produce.

[Andrew]

I'd like to hear Ann's take on this fascinating topic... :)

[ALEX]

Just for comparison, here are some of the official requirements for the Polish mass-produced cavalry saber pattern 1934:
1. When released from the height of 2 meters, the blade had to penetrate a 2 mm thick sheet of steel.
..... Could it cut a silk handkerchief like famous Persian swords? Who knows and who cares? Few hussars were ever attacked by handkerchiefs.....

Al-Anizi,

The same thought was on my mind for long time...until I actually dropped one (and then another) wootz blade, both by accident, and not even close to 2 meters height, at most a mere half a meter. The first Indian wootz 19 C talwar blade snapped at the tip, the second - Persian 17 C blade broke right in the middle. I've been dropping many other, non-wootz blades, by accident, of course:-), and none were damaged. It tells the tale.
As Ariel cleverly mentioned, "who cares if it can cut a handkerchief". Well said, Ariel. My opinion - wootz is just a steel, it's magic is its beauty.

Please, do not drop wootz blades:-)

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

I was a bit reluctant to express an opinion, because, despite being a metallurgist, I never had the opportunity to test or work with wootz steel.

All the same, Jeff Pringle is right on the ball. Based on photographs of the microstructure of wootz swords, I think it is not very useful to talk about Rockwell hardness (tests too small an area). One could obtain a better indication with a Brinell hardness test, using a Tungsten carbide indenter ball. This so as to test a greater area, which would yield a better averaged hardness value.


I should mention that hardness test results, on their own do not mean all that much, and must be interpreted in a given context. With conventional steels it is used as a very useful indicator of various mechanical attributes. However, in the case of such an odd-ball material as wootz, I am not quite sure as to what useful information could be derived from hardness readings; These would not correlate with the swords behaviour in the same way as conventional steels would. In the end, to correctly appraise wootz metal swords, the tests would have to be designed to reflect the actual application, much as Arilel described for those military swords.

I am inclined to think that wootz swords were probably better than the rest in the old days, before modern molten steel making processes were developed - Old fashioned hammer refined steels were pretty variable in their quality due to the impurities that could not be removed - Wootz was melted in the process and thus inherently cleaner, as the said impurities would float to the surface. This said, I imagine that there were ample opportunities to re-contaminate the wootz steel during the forging process.

We should remember that in the old days, swordsmiths knew precious little about metallurgy and everything was done by trial and error, with the later being much less the exception than what we are inclined to think. I feel that a really good sword or piece of steel was more a stroke of luck, rather than the rule.


Here is a good article on wootz:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9809/Verhoeven-9809.html





Cheers
Chris

[S.Al-Anizi]

Thanks all for the informative responses. Many interesting points shared.

Rivkin- is it possible for you to describe those tests? :) I agree with you on the point that wootz might have been overrated and made mythical in the minds of some over the years, yet a well tempered european military saber blade might have been alot better.

Joshua, Jeff, and Chris- Ive been hearing a fair number of people say what you say, that the rockwell test isnt really well applied on wootz blades, and as a matrix they are actually much harder than 37HRC. What I am wondering is, how would a wootz blade, compare to lets say a french 1822 LC blade? Of the same curve and equal width and thickness? In parrying, edge retention, and cutting.

Alex- please do not drop anymore wootz blades :D

Andrew- Ive been waiting for Dr.Ann's reply eagerly too ;)

Ariel- My view of japanese blades, is that they're esily bent, all they're good for, is keeping an edge, that would easily be chipped. If wootz blades were designed to be hard, then they wouldnt bend that easily am I right? According to Alex's experience, those are some very hard blades. I would be interested to see how a wootz blade would stand up against parrying a well made european blade. As to those testing conditions, those must have been some tough blades! I agree with you, whats the use of cutting silk handkerchiefs, who ever was attacked by a handkerchief!?

[Gt Obach]

wootz was a very good steel for its time... .... but as all steels... its only as good as the smith thats forging it and more imprortantly " heat treating "

if it wasn't a good sword steel..... why use it?
also... cutting a silk, would show the type of edge on the blade.... nothing more...

and i would think you tailor your edge to the style of swordsmanship you practiced... ... ... if you wanted to klank away on the other opponents sword... then you'd need a thicker edge ..... but if your goal is to cut the torso of the enemy.... i'd go for the wicked edge...

as for heat treat....... i've handled wootz that was airhardened... , oil quenched and... edge quenched... they all have different properties...

its not so simple as to lump all of them together...

i've seen Indian blades with just an edge quench at the cop... and the tip left soft
some persian blades completely oil quenched
some with only an quench at the cop

(onto 2nd coffee)

now... the mentioned article was a good one... but too many people use it as a blanket statement for wootz... which is odd !
-- the Rc statements for wootz maybe true for those swords in the study....but not true for all wootz... ... i know this from experience

as for flex.... well..... i'd say a good wootz would compare to 1084 ... which would be a good sword steel...

so from my bias perspective........ the combat value of wootz is very good
--
- also... a decent patternwelded blade from the same time should be very good aswell......


Greg

[ariel]

[QUOTE=S.Al-Anizi]Ariel- My view of japanese blades, is that they're esily bent, all they're good for, is keeping an edge...QUOTE]


That was the genius of Japanese swordmakers! Their blades could withstand the blow but could also keep the edge. The construction of Japanese blades was not a mere accident, but a consistently applied and very clever way to combine the seemingly incompatible qualities: resilience of the body and keenness of the edge. Wootz blades were beautiful, especially the ladder/rose patterns, but were mechanically "singleminded" and I wonder whether these embellishments requiring chiselling the blade perpendicular to the axis actually weakened the blade even further. BTW, Caucasian swordmakers used "Japanese" differential tempering on their best blades and got beautiful hamons as a result ( of course, boys, you will learn about it first hand when Astvatsaturyan's book is finally translated ;) I am getting a bit repetitious about it, but .... what a book!)

Well, enough of royalty bashing... Swords are mechanical implements first and foremost; they have to stand to brutal conditions of the battlefield. Those that cannot do it are just pretty toys.

[S.Al-Anizi]

[QUOTE=S.Al-Anizi]Ariel- My view of japanese blades, is that they're esily bent, all they're good for, is keeping an edge...QUOTE]


That was the genius of Japanese swordmakers! Their blades could withstand the blow but could also keep the edge. The construction of Japanese blades was not a mere accident, but a consistently applied and very clever way to combine the seemingly incompatible qualities: resilience of the body and keenness of the edge. Wootz blades were beautiful, especially the ladder/rose patterns, but were mechanically "singleminded" and I wonder whether these embellishments requiring chiselling the blade perpendicular to the axis actually weakened the blade even further. BTW, Caucasian swordmakers used "Japanese" differential tempering on their best blades and got beautiful hamons as a result ( of course, boys, you will learn about it first hand when Astvatsaturyan's book is finally translated ;) I am getting a bit repetitious about it, but .... what a book!)

Well, enough of royalty bashing... Swords are mechanical implements first and foremost; they have to stand to brutal conditions of the battlefield. Those that cannot do it are just pretty toys.

Some say that the japanese werent bright enough to know how to harden, then temper their blades, thus differential heat treatment was their way to go. Anyway, I wouldnt want a sword thats easily bent in battle. I remember once Rick showed us a persian wootz blade, with japanese style heat treatment, quite a find!

As to Abby, that reminds me of a legend I read in Arab arms and armour, where this old warrior Abu Zaid, placed 2 camels ontop of each other, and cut them into four halves! :D

Gt- Could wootz blades be hardened then tempered like other conventional steels? or would high temperatures burn out the blade?

[Ann Feuerbach]

HI all,
Will write more when I get back from class...but just a thought...part of crucible steel appeal was that the pattern in Near East islamic cultures is that it represented the "waters of paradise", immortality, afterlife martyrdom etc. What better blade to kill or be killed by? At later times (particularly when firearms were available) the appearance of the blade may have been more important, or just as important as the blades function.
As for performance, one can not give a general statement that they were "good" or "bad" there are SO many variables...composition, phases, how good the blacksmith was etc. :)

[Gt Obach]

Hi

yes.. wootz is a funny creature.... if you leave it to air harden.. then you have a potential for pearlite ... and you'd let the carbides do the cutting.. (pending on the type of carbides......as there are many kinds with various hardnesses..... eg fe carbide, V, Cr, Tungsten ??? )

or you can oil quench it.... and get martensite .....which will be much like our modern blades...... and you can temper this down for a more springy tough steel ..... or leave it hard, chippy, and not very tough at all..... or somewheres inbetween which is where you'd have some edge retention and toughness...

aswell ... you don't need to clay coat the back to get differential hardening...
here is a little bowie i did.... that had no clay .... and a canolla oil full quench...
-- as you can see..... only the edge was hardened... as the steel i used was W1 (a shallow hardening steel much like the old carbon steels )

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e396/dimenickel/total1.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e396/dimenickel/downoverall.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e396/dimenickel/tipup1.jpg


fun stuff
Greg
--

[Ann Feuerbach]

I'm back... If my grant goes through it should answer some of these questions. Here is an excerpt from my PhD, but we know a bit more now than then.. Particularly note Ebner and Maurer (1982) study, I think ductility might be the key, particulary when on horseback.

'' The quality of different swords was first noted by al-Kindi. He used the terms, translated as “antique” for good, “modern” for not good, and “not antique but not modern” for medium quality. Al-Kindi said that the terms did not reflect age but quality. There is no consensus of opinion on the quality of crucible steel or Damascus steel either in antiquity or by modern researchers, “Some say the blades were flexible and tough; others conceded that they were stiff and even brittle but extraordinarily sharp...”(Bronson, 1986, 13). The appearance and behaviour of a metal is the result of the microstructure. Before modern times, when elaborate scientific equipment became available, the quality of a blade was judged on external factors rather than microstructure. However, steels made by different methods, with different microstructures, could have similar behaviour properties or hidden defects.

Anosov wrote that Damascus swords were assessed by four “tests”:
1) “Ring: – the clearer the tone, the better is the quality of steel,
2) Sharpness of the cutting edge: - while testing the edge, damask steel must cut a fine silk handkerchief in one stroke,
3) Strength of the blade: - on cutting an iron bar, damask steel should not acquire notches,
4) Elasticity: - on bending, damask steel should not break and should not become permanently deformed” (Bogachev, 1952, 40).

Al-Beruni also refers to these same characteristics. He refers to qala` swords which have clangour, whereas non-qala’ swords “possess an irritating sound” (Said, 1986, 213). Whichever type of swords these were, the passage does suggest that sound was an important feature considered when assessing the quality of the sword. More recently Massalski stated that a sabre should possess a good sound (Allan and Gilmour, 2000, 539). Indeed, the composition of the sword would affect its sound. According to Rostoker and Bronson (1990, 151) iron and steel are used to made musical wire because they have better properties than other metals, such as capacity for tension and good resistance to fatigue fracture. No specific studies have addressed the sounds different types of blades make. Factors that would affect the sound include the shape of the blade and any faults. For example, an internal crack or atomic-scale changes will have a dampening effect (Gordon, pers. com.). Thus, a clear long ring would suggest a quality blade.

The relationship between the sharpness of the blades and the pattern was noted by a number of scholars. Sharpness is primarily due to the presence of cementite in steel, which is hard yet brittle, thus it will cut well but will shatter if struck. Contrarily, iron areas composed of soft ferrite will not hold a sharp edge. Already, al-Beruni stated that the sharpness of farand (the pattern) comes from its hardness, but that it is brittle (Said, 1989, 217). Too many “threads” (i.e. aligned cementite in hypereutectoid blades) would produce a sharp yet brittle edge. Above it was discussed that prominent threads would be formed in slowly cooled ingots, which were extensively forged at low temperatures producing the coarser and clearer pattern.

The ductility of Damascus blades was one feature that distinguished it from other types of steels. Damascus steel blades typically contain spheroidal/globular cementite in a ferrite/pearlite matrix. Metallurgical experiments conducted by Ebner and Maurer (1982) on steel concluded that toughness and ductility coincide with a spheroidization of carbides. They also noted that additional tempering decreases the strength whereas toughness and ductility vary only slightly (Ebner and Maurer, 1982). Thus, the microstructure of hypereutectoid Damascus steel is optimum for ductility.

Given the variety of crucible steel, some with a high cementite content and others with a high ferrite content, in addition to the variety of forging methods, the range of microstructures, and the presence of phosphorous and other minor or trace elements, it is not surprising that there is no consensus of opinion. The presence of small amounts of phosphorus would have affected the forging and performance of the blade, particularly the elasticity. The effects of less than 1% P in the steel would have greatly influenced the performance of the blade. It appears that there were different types of crucible steel available, such as those that were made of hypoeutectic or hypereutectic steel, with or without a pattern and that each possessed different qualities because of their microstructure, the presence of minor and trace elements, and their subsequent heat treatments.

Not only would phosphorus have made the ingot “hot short” (see above), it would have made the finished product “cold short” (brittle when cold) and this property was noticed in the past. In fourteenth century Moorish Spain, Aly ben ’Abderrahman Ibn Hodeil observed that “… the Hindy sabre often breaks when the weather is cold and shows itself better when the weather is warm” (Bronson, 1986 from Mercier, 1924, 231). This is probably due to the presence of phosphorus in the steel. Hindi sabres derived from Sri Lanka (see above), and indeed Wayman and Juleff (1999, 36) identified steadite, the iron-phosphorous compound, in a crucible ingot from there, suggesting that blades produced in Sri Lanka contained phosphorus. Blades that contain phosphorus in percentages over c. 0.3% can be “cold short” and those that work well and be malleable in the summer can shatter during a cold spell (Rostoker and Bronson, 1990, 22; Percy, 1864, 64).

In addition to being decorative, the Damascus pattern was a hallmark of a potentially very high quality blade. Crucible steel blades that did not have a pattern could have been just as good quality as those with a pattern, yet, those with a pattern may not have been as good as some without. However, it may not have been possible to distinguish crucible steel blades without a pattern to blades made from non-crucible steel. While blades made of other types of steel could have been equally as sharp and strong, they would not have remained as ductile because they did not have the microstructure of spheroidal cementite in a ferrite/pearlite matrix. Ductility would have been a highly important feature, particularly in combat, because a bent or shattered blade could cost the user his life. A man would purchase the best quality blade available, for himself or possibly his son who had come of age, because not only was the blade a symbol of masculinity and prestige, but it would be his defence in a confrontation, hence his reputation, status, and life depended on the chosen blade. By using the above-mentioned tests and by observing the type of pattern, a blade would be chosen. The name of a particular type of decorative pattern was often associated with a specific location, workshop or smith, who would have had a reputation for making blades of a specific quality."
I think that just gives more fuel to the argument rather than an answer.

:confused:

[Andrew]

lol, Ann. :D You know I was hoping for a simple "Yes" or "No". Answer. ;)

Just kidding, of course. Many thanks to you, Jeff, Chris and Greg for the professional input!

[S.Al-Anizi]

Many, Many thanks Ann :) A very informative reply with lots of interesting quotations and notes, and in line with Jeff's, Chris', and Greg's points. ;)

[tsubame1]

Not only would phosphorus have made the ingot “hot short” (see above), it would have made the finished product “cold short” (brittle when cold) and this property was noticed in the past. In fourteenth century Moorish Spain, Aly ben ’Abderrahman Ibn Hodeil observed that “… the Hindy sabre often breaks when the weather is cold and shows itself better when the weather is warm” (Bronson, 1986 from Mercier, 1924, 231). This is probably due to the presence of phosphorus in the steel. Hindi sabres derived from Sri Lanka (see above), and indeed Wayman and Juleff (1999, 36) identified steadite, the iron-phosphorous compound, in a crucible ingot from there, suggesting that blades produced in Sri Lanka contained phosphorus. Blades that contain phosphorus in percentages over c. 0.3% can be “cold short” and those that work well and be malleable in the summer can shatter during a cold spell (Rostoker and Bronson, 1990, 22; Percy, 1864, 64).

Hi Ann.

I would like to confirm this quote. Japaneses found the same problems in Manchuria and Siberia. Lesser blades (many officers used family ones, but not the best anyway, and most were made with too much impurities i.e.
phosphorus that's likely the most dangerous of all) went broken so easy to made a concern to Japanese Imperial Army.

The problem was resolved by Seijuro Masahide Aoyama and Mitsutaro Honda from Tohoku University,helped by Toyo-Hamono Co.,Ltd of Sendai
They made a blade in Marugitae, water-quenched. Such blades were called Kikento.The steel was called Tahado-tetsu (nickel-crhome-manganese) from Toyo Hamono Co., Ltd. This is only in the '30s, so I wonder if before it wasn't such an issue the cold or simply there was not the technology to build -40° C resistant blades.

Sources : Ohmura.

[ariel]

[QUOTE=
As to Abby, that reminds me of a legend I read in Arab arms and armour, where this old warrior Abu Zaid, placed 2 camels ontop of each other, and cut them into four halves! :D

[/QUOTE]
Yes, I remember this story at Elgood's. Apparently, having wasted 2 camels, Abu Zaid gave the owner of the sword the remaining 6 beasts (officially belonging to his unkle...) in exchange and went home happily.
Elgood's comment was very dry:" The reaction of Abu Zaid's unkle was not recorded".
:rolleyes: :D :D :D

[tsubame1]

Some say that the japanese werent bright enough to know how to harden, then temper their blades, thus differential heat treatment was their way to go.I wouldnt want a sword thats easily bent in battle.

If harden = to make an hard cutting edge and temper = relief the stresses with a subsequent (softer) heating, well japaneses where well aware and able to make both, even in older times. It's a matter of Schools. Somes applied tempering, some not. TOGETHER with differential hardening.

I wouldnt want a sword thats easily bent in battle.

Samurai too. I wonder why the heck they used the same type of technology
for almost 1000 years being such blades so prone to bending...

[S.Al-Anizi]

If harden = to make an hard cutting edge and temper = relief the stresses with a subsequent (softer) heating, well japaneses where well aware and able to make both, even in older times. It's a matter of Schools. Somes applied tempering, some not. TOGETHER with differential hardening.



Samurai too. I wonder why the heck they used the same type of technology
for almost 1000 years being such blades so prone to bending...

Well thats what most people who practice JSA (i dont) say, that even a botched cut might cause a bent blade.

[katana]

An excellent informative thread.........keep up the good work :)

As has been already mentioned, it is the 'artist's' forging technique and heat treatment that ultimately determines the quality and characteristics of a blade......obviously the quality of the raw material is extremely important. But the best quality steel or wootz badly forged/heat treated would be still be a poor blade.

[ariel]

Originally posted by tsubame 1
Samurai too. I wonder why the heck they used the same type of technology
for almost 1000 years being such blades so prone to bending...

Don't get it. Are you being facetious?

[Lew]

Originally posted by tsubame 1
Samurai too. I wonder why the heck they used the same type of technology
for almost 1000 years being such blades so prone to bending...

Don't get it. Are you being facetious?

Well gentlemen

In battle a bent blade is better than a broken one and if you survived and the blade only had a slight bend it could be straightened back out by the smith. Said blade was than retired but was held in great reverence.

Lew

[tsubame1]

Originally posted by tsubame 1
Samurai too. I wonder why the heck they used the same type of technology
for almost 1000 years being such blades so prone to bending...

Don't get it. Are you being facetious?

Sorry, forgot to put a smiley there. yes I was facetious.
Obviously Samurai didn't find NihonTo so prone to bending.
But yes, some modern JSA quotes that a bad cut can bend a bad sword.
Bend doesn't mean to have a L shped blade, simply have a slightly out of shape blade, still recoverable and effecive in battlefield.

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

Ann, many thanks for that very informative essay on wootz swords and Gt Obach your observations on the subject are most instructive.

Ariel: I also wondered about those chisel cuts. If any rubbish got into them, or the weld was incomplete, then am sure that they would have not helped.

Re swords breaking in cold weather: Steels exhibit, what is known in the trade as the "brittle transition temperature"; This is a temperature range below which it ceases being ductile. Apart from impurities such as Phosphorus, a number of other factors also determine this temperature. To make things more complicated, whether a sword, or implement, breaks or not is again determined by a number of other factors that are dealt with in the discipline of "fracture mechanics" - In short, the presence of micro cracks, however acquired, and their ability to propagate through the steel are of paramount significance. Brittle fracture is primarily determined by the interaction of the said cracks, ductility/brittleness of the steel and the geometry of the implement as well as other mitigating factors such as the presence of crack arrestors (say, slag in wrought iron). Structures of quite ductile steel can and do fail in a brittle manner if the right factors are present. So it is not just about embrittlement, though it is certainly one very important factor. This probably explains why some Japanese swordsmen are said to be able to break the swords of their opponents with a cut, a feat often mistakenly attributed to the superiority of their swords. Another observation in this respect is that based on anecdotal reports, a good many of those Japanese swords that broke during winter, in fact failed under extremely cold told temperatures, conditions under which other steel implements also failed.

Reading through this threads confirms, at least to me, that there is much more to swords than what mere metallurgical considerations would suggest; It also reinforces my long held belief that they were rather poor weapons of war, except in very select applications, such as cavalry cutting down fleeing infantry. This on account of their vulnerability to the inevitable abuses encountered on the battlefield, not to mention tactical disadvantages, when compared to other weapons.

I also would like to make the following observations:

a) The amount of blade to blade clashing that a sword is expected to undergo is indicated by the comprehensiveness of its handguard. Eastern swords, with the exception of the Indian gauntlet sword, offer minimalist hand protection and thus it is a safe bet that they were not used much for parrying, if at all (except as acts of desperation) - Japanese swords, for one, are incredibly fragile if clashed against another similar blade, and most swords are very quickly reduced to saw/junk status if abused in such a manner, even rapiers. I still obstinately hold to the view that parrying with a sword blade is a post small-sword development and whilst it can be done to some extent with heavier swords, in practice it was infrequently resorted to.

b) Cutting through iron rods with a sword may not be such a big deal as when fully annealed, the rod can be made incredibly soft.

c) Any edged sword can be bent or terminally damaged by a badly executed cut - Not just Japanese. Cutting requires considerable proficiency.

d) Japanese blades are quite thick at the shoulder, with little taper along their length and have a greater sweet spot around their COP, thus minimizing the tendency to bend under a badly executed cut. In fact this thickness has often been cited as a deficiency of Japanese blades, as it inhibits penetration - The Japanese highly polished their blades to mitigate this drawback and to enable them to slide through the medium being cut into. Also, it is reported that when European sabres were introduced into the Japanese cavalry, those officers skilled in traditional swordsmanship fund them much harder to cut with because of their springy blades and thinner foibles.

Cheers
Chris

[Ann Feuerbach]

Thanks all for such an informative discussion, I am learning quite alot about Japanese swords. I just wanted to add a few cents on fractures and cracks. Of course, cracks follow grain boundaries (back to microstructures again). That said, one of the benefits of crucible steel is the spheroidal cementite. On a microstructual scale a crack would hit the roundish cementite and the stress would dissapate (sorry can't spell, just woke up and still on first cup of coffee), thus stoping the cracking. This all shows how much more work really needs to be done. I too have wondered about the "benefits" of hardness testing to answer archeological/anthropological questions. I think we need some "battles" with high quality authentically replicated swords, but it would be indeed a pity to work such masterpieces until they break! :eek:

[Gt Obach]

Hi

there are some good articles out there on brittle fracture..
http://www.key-to-steel.com/default.aspx?ID=CheckArticle&NM=136

and some of the elements that affect it

just my opinion... but i think that swords were rather effective close combat sidearms.... ( spear being no. 1 ) ....
- there has to be some value to it..... or why would so many cultures value such a costly item... ( you can make many spears out of one sword ) ... besides, iron production back then was very small scale compared to today... so your limited interms of materials to which you can use for war..
-- even the northlands valued the sword.. as is evidenced by the viking blades... and the complex patternwelds
- are there any Rc tests done on viking blades...
- from the few museum curators that i emailed ... (Longtime ago) they mentioned that the northern swords had a lower Rc ....somewhere round 40
- but i've never seen those stat's anywhere


steel is such a complicated thing.... uggh
Greg



;)

[ariel]

Ann,
Even after a single cup of coffee you are still better than all of us together !
What coffee do you drink? I want the same brand.

[ariel]

I agree with Greg: of course, spear is very effective, but swords utilise an additional element of motion, ie, circular arm movement as opposed to the linear one of the spear. An example is Chaka's transformation of the throwing/stabbing Zulu spear with a smallish head into a massive sword-like weapon.

This thread is astonishing: in one fell swoop we started to demolish the mythology of the 2 greatest blademaking traditions: Japanese and Persian.
It appears that good mass-produced European blades were at the very least as good and perhaps even better than legendary "Masamunes and Assadollahs". And for less effort and money, too! Overall, the effort:result ratio was orders of magnitude in favor of Europe. Unquestionably, it was the result of scientific revolutions in Europe to which Japanese or Middle-Easterns were very late-comers or just passive consumers. No individual tradition, no matter how refined, can compete with a massive and systematic onslaught of Scientific Technology. Un-romantic, but true.....
Ironically, of course, the great European blades became widely available when they were no longer needed..... But then, the same technology gave Europe another edge:

"Whatever happens
we have got,
the Gatling gun
and they have not."
- Hillaire Belloc

[Gt Obach]

i believe its more a matter of economy.... .... for myself.. i can't really tell much of a difference between my modern type wootz steel and 1084, W1, or 1095 steel.... but.... I can buy a 3/4 round of W1 for 7 bucks but my wootz cost me at least 70 bucks to make the 3lbs ingot.... and even with forge experience, the success rate to produce a sword length is low... (lots of things can go wrong) ..... but that is just a modern scenario....

in the past... i believe economy and quantity would be reason..

even bloom steel like the vikings made or the bloom steel the Japanese made would be a slow process...

look at this post Jesus made on replication of tatara
http://forums.dfoggknives.com/index.php?showtopic=6220&hl=

viking blades would be similar but patterns would be formed with different bloom steels
here a tutorial jake did
http://www.powning.com/jake/commish/progress1.shtml

also here's a video Dan just did on his patternwelding..
http://www.ferrum.cc/en/online/videos.html


Long process forsure...... but it's important to note that the processes still survive today and are still sought after.... wootz, tamahagane, among a sea of very affordable mass produced blades.


Greg

ps.. warnings... i do have a bias towards wootz ;) ;)

[Tim Simmons]

Ariel, have you practised any armed martial "arts" ? how many spears have you handled? The spear is the primary weapon. It can be used in a circular motion. I would agree that in a melee of a broken line the sword would have some advantages but you are still in danger of getting stuck by a spear. I think it is the combination of weapons that works best. Rather you than me, I would prefer to be one of the rabble rousers :o

[S.Al-Anizi]

I agree with Greg: of course, spear is very effective, but swords utilise an additional element of motion, ie, circular arm movement as opposed to the linear one of the spear. An example is Chaka's transformation of the throwing/stabbing Zulu spear with a smallish head into a massive sword-like weapon.

This thread is astonishing: in one fell swoop we started to demolish the mythology of the 2 greatest blademaking traditions: Japanese and Persian.
It appears that good mass-produced European blades were at the very least as good and perhaps even better than legendary "Masamunes and Assadollahs". And for less effort and money, too! Overall, the effort:result ratio was orders of magnitude in favor of Europe. Unquestionably, it was the result of scientific revolutions in Europe to which Japanese or Middle-Easterns were very late-comers or just passive consumers. No individual tradition, no matter how refined, can compete with a massive and systematic onslaught of Scientific Technology. Un-romantic, but true.....
Ironically, of course, the great European blades became widely available when they were no longer needed..... But then, the same technology gave Europe another edge:

"Whatever happens
we have got,
the Gatling gun
and they have not."
- Hillaire Belloc


I totally agree.

[Tim Simmons]

If this spear was not African I am sure it would be considered a noble weapon equal even superior to many swords and worth a lot more as a collectors thing :confused:.

[ariel]

If this spear was not African I am sure it would be considered a noble weapon equal even superior to many swords and worth a lot more as a collectors thing :confused:.
I'll take the Beduin sword, please.... :)

[tsubame1]

This thread is astonishing: in one fell swoop we started to demolish the mythology of the 2 greatest blademaking traditions: Japanese and Persian.

Here I totally disagree. You can't judge a weapon out of context, either historical and cultural. When japaneses were reached by portugueses they copied guns and armor NOT the swords. Simply european swords weren't made to fit japanese style of swordfighting. The same when westerner knew about the japanese blades. They were looked at as extremely well made weapons but NOONE copied them in Europe or imported them for our cavalry. Again they didn't fit the combat style and battlefield needs.


It appears that good mass-produced European blades were at the very least as good and perhaps even better than legendary "Masamunes and Assadollahs". And for less effort and money, too! Overall, the effort:result ratio was orders of magnitude in favor of Europe. Unquestionably, it was the result of scientific revolutions in Europe to which Japanese or Middle-Easterns were very late-comers or just passive consumers. No individual tradition, no matter how refined, can compete with a massive and systematic onslaught of Scientific Technology. Un-romantic, but true.....
Ironically, of course, the great European blades became widely available when they were no longer needed..... But then, the same technology gave Europe another edge:

"Whatever happens
we have got,
the Gatling gun
and they have not."
- Hillaire B .

Here I totally agree. You should read "Guns Germs ans Steel. The Fates of human Societies", W.W. Norton and Co. New York -London 1997 by
Jared Diamond, a Pulitzer-awarded writer. An astonishingly well made explanation about how and because the "white/european" people reached the technological domain, that perrfectly matches with your quote.
Well, you'll have to deal with the fact that all started in present day Iraq, but I'm confident you can live with this... ;)

[ariel]

Ariel, have you practised any armed martial "arts" ? how many spears have you handled? The spear is the primary weapon. It can be used in a circular motion. I would agree that in a melee of a broken line the sword would have some advantages but you are still in danger of getting stuck by a spear. I think it is the combination of weapons that works best. Rather you than me, I would prefer to be one of the rabble rousers :o
I see your point: even as recently as 18-19th century, the Brits maintained the superiority of bayoneted rifle over a sword. They had ample empiric evidence from their many Indian wars.
As part of my (long, long ago.....) fencing training, we had rather extensive bayonet practice; that is the extent of my knowledge. Since there were no official bayo competitions, we did not like it very much and preferred real fencing. Spear and bayo have a lot of advantages over a sword: distance, force, stocks with solid buttplates are handy etc... On the other hand, what is gained in distance, is lost in speed. But, Tim, to each his own and, since neither spear nor sword is a practical weapon these days, we can have this argument to our heart's delight over a beer or two, rather than on the battlefield.
And, buddy, if you want to be a real rabble rouser, get yourself a pitchfork! :D

[ariel]

Originally posted by tsubame 1

"Well, you'll have to deal with the fact that all started in present day Iraq, but I'm confident you can live with this... "

Once again, I am at a loss: what do you mean? That technology started in Hammurabi's Babylon? That wootz was developed by Saddam Hussain? What is the connection with the "present day Iraq"? What am I supposed to "live with"?
Please explain.

[tsubame1]

Originally posted by tsubame 1

"Well, you'll have to deal with the fact that all started in present day Iraq, but I'm confident you can live with this... "

Once again, I am at a loss: what do you mean? That technology started in Hammurabi's Babylon? That wootz was developed by Saddam Hussain? What is the connection with the "present day Iraq"? What am I supposed to "live with"?
Please explain.

Oh, c'mon Ariel, don't get so defensive just for any quote about middle east.

I meant that the book explain the way the western civilizations gained so much technological advantages over the others and all started with the availability of cultivable variety of vegetables, that occurred in the ancient Iraq.
Then availability of domesticable animals, over all the horse. More, the matter to be urbanized that enabled us to increase our immunitary system against bacteria and viruses that were later exported to other continents.
Really a good book explaining the way we begun what we are, placing the basis of the wester civilization that later lead to colonialism.

The way to reach the gatling gun we had and they not. I'm supporting your position, don't see you ? :)

[Rivkin]

Gentlemen,

Please, let us stay on track here.
Now to the weapons:
I think that our understanding of swords and "martial arts" is rather different from 500 years ago.
If you read mamluk manuals they are far more concerned with selecting and "maintaining" one's horse rather than some elaborate fighting moves.
Bow was the weapon of the steppe. Lance was the second choice (btw I doubt that one can use a cavalry lance in a "swinging motion"). A short spear I think was a relatively rare weapon (I hope to be corrected) - not used in falanga-like formations, not used by cavalry, too cumbersome to be used in tight infantry formations...

The lance had however two big disadvantages that swords did not - it did not work in high winds and maneurability was extremely low, often making it useless. Sword is a very good weapon because it can be used almost everywhere, but roman swords and legions did not save them from the onslaught of steppe cavalry.

And last, but not least, there is a chechen saying that loosely translates as "one can win with a sword of wood, but not without a heart of steel".

[ariel]

Oh, c'mon Ariel, don't get so defensive just for any quote about middle east.

I meant that the book explain the way the western civilizations gained so much technological advantages over the others and all started with the availability of cultivable variety of vegetables, that occurred in the ancient Iraq.
Then availability of domesticable animals, over all the horse. More, the matter to be urbanized that enabled us to increase our immunitary system against bacteria and viruses that were later exported to other continents.
Really a good book explaining the way we begun what we are, placing the basis of the wester civilization that later lead to colonialism.

The way to reach the gatling gun we had and they not. I'm supporting your position, don't see you ? :)
I am not being defensive, and the Middle East has nothing to do with it: I just do not get your comments very often. Perhaps, it's my lack of the sense of humor or your telegraphic style.
As to urbanization as a cause of strenghtened immunity, tell the author to consider The Great Plague, typhoid, syphilis, cholera or even influenza etc. Cities were devastated but the sparsely populated countryside survived because there was very little likelihood of contact between the carrier and the rest of the poplation. Remember "Decameron"? The only hope to survive was to leave the city (and, perhaps, have a bit of fun in the process :rolleyes: )

[Chris Evans]

1. Ariel,

This thread is astonishing: in one fell swoop we started to demolish the mythology of the 2 greatest blademaking traditions: Japanese and Persian.
It appears that good mass-produced European blades were at the very least as good and perhaps even better than legendary "Masamunes and Assadollahs". And for less effort and money, too! Overall, the effort:result ratio was orders of magnitude in favor of Europe. Unquestionably, it was the result of scientific revolutions in Europe to which Japanese or Middle-Easterns were very late-comers or just passive consumers. No individual tradition, no matter how refined, can compete with a massive and systematic onslaught of Scientific Technology. Un-romantic, but true.....


I think that you are spot on, but as collectors we tend to gravitate towards the exceptional or magnificent and not necessarily the practical - And then we fantacize about them, at times a little too freely. To my mind, very few Euro swords can match the sheer beauty, not to mention the unbelievable craftsmanship, of a top wootz or Japanese blade - Practical weapons with which to equip an army? Not really. Magnificent examples of metal working? Unquestionably so. Collectables? A most resounding yes!


2. GT Obach,

Thanks for that link on brittle failure - Made for good reading. Here is another one:

http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/97ClassProj/exper/ballard/www/ballard.html

3. There are many other relevant topics that are a bit difficult to adequately cover in a setting like this. For example: The origination of micro cracking, crack propagation and arresting, residual stresses and their role in assisting or inhibiting crack propagation, notch sensitivity of steels and so on.


4. As to the perennial and recurring question as whether these swords were better or inferior to their Western European counterparts, that entirely depends on how they were deployed and the theatre of war. For one, the Mongol hordes did not use very high quality weapons, yet they were remarkably successful.

5. As an aside, for those interested in Japanese swords and their style of fencing, as assessed from the European perspective, there is wonderful little book written by F.J Norman and titled The Fighting Man of Japan. Norman was a Brit cavalry man who taught the Japanese in the 1870s and was probably the first Englishman to seriously study their style of swordsmanship. He made a number of very interesting and astute observations re the merits of the two styles. He opined that whilst a top class Euro duelist could perhaps beat a Japanese in a one to one contest on favourable ground, on the battlefield he felt that the Euro sword of his times was too cumbersome for unmounted use. He also observed that notwithstanding its shorter blade, the Japanese sword did not lack reach because of its longer handle. He was sufficiently level headed to acknowledge that whilst he considered the Japanese sword and its wielding very good, nevertheless both could have been improved.

Cheers
Chris

[tsubame1]

I As to urbanization as a cause of strenghtened immunity, tell the author to consider The Great Plague, typhoid, syphilis, cholera or even influenza etc. Cities were devastated but the sparsely populated countryside survived because there was very little likelihood of contact between the carrier and the rest of the poplation. Remember "Decameron"? The only hope to survive was to leave the city (and, perhaps, have a bit of fun in the process :rolleyes: )

The people that gave him the Pulitzer for that book likely don't share your point of view.
The Author was referring to minor deseases. You're quoting the "black death", the greatest of all. being you a brain surgeon you should have studied what south american indios and austrlian aborignous suffered for deseases le ft ther from with people. That's what the author refers to, but without reading the book, you can't get the whole picture.

Anyway I'm disgressing and just to support your point.
I'll return on topic.

[frequent]

greetings...
This thread is astonishing: in one fell swoop we started to demolish the mythology of the 2 greatest blademaking traditions: Japanese and Persian.
well i dont see how this is provable what do you mean by demolish. don't you think you are assuming too much?
It appears that good mass-produced European blades were at the very least as good and perhaps even better than legendary "Masamunes and Assadollahs".
again how do you prove this? have you ever used a masamunes or assadollahs weapon or more common persian or japanese swords you say you fenced but sorry fencing is not real sword work. you have never used real sword in real practice yes or no, please answer.i dont understand why you assume inferiority. no One can talk about inferiority of blades if they dont use it.this is very wierd that you say these things. are you new to these weapons?

[Ian]

Guys:

Please keep discussion to the weapons and not get into personalities. There are no doubt some strongly held beliefs about the value of respective weapon traditions. Let's talk about those beliefs and their merits, but not get into who is making the comments and what they do or don't do.

I don't want to have to close this thread or hand out any suspensions.

Ian.

[Ann Feuerbach]

As many of you have pointed out, quality is relative. Presently I am looking into two related aspects: the sword as a symbol, and why the production declined. First of all, a sword was not always (and often not) the "best" method of defence/offence (arrows, firearms etc.) but it is symbolic, the so-called "phallic" aspect aside, the sword in many cultures was a symbol of war, peace, marrage (sword dances), fertility (amulets make in the shape of a sword), justice, status (age and wealth), etc. By the way, back to Iraq...the combination of war/marrage/justice goes back to the Sumarians and the goddess Ishtar/Enanna (around 2500 BC. southern Iraq).

FYI, I don't like Guns, Germs and Steel, it has some good points but is far too simplified. I thought it would be good for the "Rise of Civlization class", but it can be misleading so read with a "pinch of salt".

Back to topic, In fact in non-western societies swords seem primarily to represent peace rather than war. So its combat value was only one aspect. As for why the production declined...yes I know all about economics, used up all the ore, British not allowing production in India, etc, but these are only part of a much larger picture. Think about it..when did production in traditional societies end? late 1800's (lastest recording I think was 1902 in India or Sri Lanka). Russians were invading Bukhara and other areas of Central Asia, Ottoman empire was breaking up in the Near East. Societies, values, etc were changing in a fundamental way. The quality of the blade was only one aspect and that could be fullfilled by imported steel.

PS Ariel: 2 cups of coffee that melts the spoon, with lots of milk in it, first thing in the morning. Apparently coffee protects the liver, and I am all for protecting my liver :)

[ariel]

Chris,
I agree with you 100%: the so-called "Eastern" weapons are beautiful. That is why we collect them. I am not collecting any European swords because in my eyes they do not have the magic of Japanese, Persian or Turkish weapons.
Having said that, this thread is about practical value of wootz, not about its esthetic, collectable qualities.
I have a question: even at the height of wootz reputation European blades were very popular in India, Arabia, Caucasus etc. Marks of Styrian or British manufacturers were highly sought. Things went so far that the local swordsmiths started to counterfeight European markings far more often than Assadullah's, even though they could do either.
What does it tell us about the perceived value of the European blades in the "Eastern" societies? Does it mean that in the eyes of the native populations a sword marked Fringia or Genoa was more desirable and, by definition, better than Assadollah's?
One could say that making a wootz sword was much more time consuming and, thus, counterfeighting European blades made better economic sense. However, we see many rather low-to-mediocre quality non-wootz swords bearing (fake) signatures of Assadullah or Kalbeali. Superhigh quality was never on the mind of a faker.
Did the native warriors know something about the battle value of Persian/Indian blades vs. European ones that we do not?

[Andrew]

Interesting point, Ariel. I see a couple potential explanations for this phenomenon.

The exotic is often desireable, and "native" consumers might have been attracted to European blades.

European consumers might have wanted Euro bladed weapons (these two are not necessarily mutually exclusive things).

And, as you suggest, perhaps certain folks viewed Euro blades as superior.

[Jeff Pringle]

.... and even with forge experience, the success rate to produce a sword length is low... (lots of things can go wrong) ..... but that is just a modern scenario....

I don't know, some of those early descriptions of making and forging wootz cakes sound like there were a lot of rejects, at each step in the process. I think a low (copmpared to modern industrial standards) success rate is an antique scenario as well.

Think about it..when did production in traditional societies end? late 1800's
Hmm, much as I'd like to lay the blame at the feet of the industrial revolution and the peak of colonialism, perhaps it was more fundamentally the increase in travel and communication which made the homogenization of commodities on a world-wide basis possible.

When the Europeans were trying to figure out how to make steel in a more efficient way than the blister and shear methods (late 18th to 19th C.), they studied wootz but didn't really figure it out. In Smith's "History of Metallography" he says "Interest in duplication of the [wootz] blade declined as European steelmakers developed their own techniques and the introduction of the Bessemer and Siemens processes gave [a] homogenous steel more adaptable to large-scale production"
...so wootz was recognized as a superior material until the new technologies overtook it; this also coincided with the death of the sword as a functional object, since it was also overtaken by new technologies. I think that early scientific interest in the properties of wootz helped keep the legend alive into the modern era.
;)

[ariel]

As many of you have pointed out, quality is relative. Presently I am looking into two related aspects: the sword as a symbol, and why the production declined. First of all, a sword was not always (and often not) the "best" method of defence/offence (arrows, firearms etc.) but it is symbolic, the so-called "phallic" aspect aside, the sword in many cultures was a symbol of war, peace, marrage (sword dances), fertility (amulets make in the shape of a sword), justice, status (age and wealth), etc. By the way, back to Iraq...the combination of war/marrage/justice goes back to the Sumarians and the goddess Ishtar/Enanna (around 2500 BC. southern Iraq).

FYI, I don't like Guns, Germs and Steel, it has some good points but is far too simplified. I thought it would be good for the "Rise of Civlization class", but it can be misleading so read with a "pinch of salt".

Back to topic, In fact in non-western societies swords seem primarily to represent peace rather than war. So its combat value was only one aspect. As for why the production declined...yes I know all about economics, used up all the ore, British not allowing production in India, etc, but these are only part of a much larger picture. Think about it..when did production in traditional societies end? late 1800's (lastest recording I think was 1902 in India or Sri Lanka). Russians were invading Bukhara and other areas of Central Asia, Ottoman empire was breaking up in the Near East. Societies, values, etc were changing in a fundamental way. The quality of the blade was only one aspect and that could be fullfilled by imported steel.

PS Ariel: 2 cups of coffee that melts the spoon, with lots of milk in it, first thing in the morning. Apparently coffee protects the liver, and I am all for protecting my liver :)
Very clever point about sword as a symbol of peace. Only I think it was not a "symbol of peace" as such but rather ceremonial object. Because of its perceived greatness it assumed the central role in such cetremonies as marriage, birth, circumcision, special honor etc. All ( or most) ceremonies are "peaceful" by nature but it does not mean that an object participating in them has "peaceful" connotations. In all cultures and in all languages "sword" is a symbol of war; not spear, not arrow, but sword. Heroic acts on the battlefield were rewarded by a sword, not a shield. Think about it.
Yes, the Guns, germs... is not very good. Ian might be willing to express his epidemiological opinion, but just as a book it is quite shallow. Pulitzer is not a guarantee of greatness: JFK was given a Pulitzer for a book that was ghostwritten for him.
So, you think that only when swords became less important, the European imports acquired popularity? Well, the popularity of European blades was obvious even in the 16-17th centuries in India, and in the 18-19th centuries in the Caucasus, when the sword was the King of the Battlefield.
Swords were "out" when replaced by firearms. That does not explain the replacement of native blades by imports.
I got a coffee using your recipe. Not bad. The molten teaspoon was by Assadollah. Should have used Andrea Ferrara.

[Ann Feuerbach]

We should also remember that Europeans were living in these areas too, not in such great numbers (hundreds) but for trade, left over from crusades and other battles etc. Perhaps they liked the blades of their homeland. Much in the same way people tend to buy things they are familiar with today (Husband still wants British sausages, tea, and baked beans, as though America does not have any!). I think owning something exotic too is always wanted. Do we have any number on how many sword fights were actually occuring in battles? During the different periods, were the swords primarily for horseman or infantry?
Ann

[Ann Feuerbach]

FYI, alloy steels were the direct result of "wootz" replication. Thank Michael Faraday for that. Apparently he (and of course others around the same time) was working on finding out why "wootz" was apparently "better". He was playing with elements and came up with alloy steel. With the "invention" of alloy steel, research into wootz was no longer necessary.

An idea...we usually think that only Islam was practices in the Near East, Central Asia, India, but these areas also have a high number of other religions (and still do!). Perhaps the patterned blades were a symbol of Islam, whereas the other blades did not. Some of these cultures also had a "ban" on non-muslims having weapons (I do not remember the reference off hand). Perhaps the lifting of the ban has somthing to do with the increase imports? I do not know but I think it is worth looking into.
:)

[tsubame1]

So, you think that only when swords became less important, the European imports acquired popularity? Well, the popularity of European blades was obvious even in the 16-17th centuries in India, and in the 18-19th centuries in the Caucasus, when the sword was the King of the Battlefield.
Swords were "out" when replaced by firearms. That does not explain the replacement of native blades by imports.

What about fireguns barrels made out of wootz because of they allowed 30% more powerful gunpowder loads (and so higher accuracy, longer range, safer use) then the ones made with other steels ? This was in XVII c. ,and even earlier, India, so around the period you quote.

[ariel]

What about fireguns barrels made out of wootz because of they allowed 30% more powerful gunpowder loads (and so higher accuracy, longer range, safer use) then the ones made with other steels ? This was in XVII c. ,and even earlier, India, so around the period you quote.
I do not have enough knowledge of gun barrel techology and performance characteristics; I'll better keep quiet on the subject.

[S.Al-Anizi]

Chris,
I agree with you 100%: the so-called "Eastern" weapons are beautiful. That is why we collect them. I am not collecting any European swords because in my eyes they do not have the magic of Japanese, Persian or Turkish weapons.
Having said that, this thread is about practical value of wootz, not about its esthetic, collectable qualities.
I have a question: even at the height of wootz reputation European blades were very popular in India, Arabia, Caucasus etc. Marks of Styrian or British manufacturers were highly sought. Things went so far that the local swordsmiths started to counterfeight European markings far more often than Assadullah's, even though they could do either.
What does it tell us about the perceived value of the European blades in the "Eastern" societies? Does it mean that in the eyes of the native populations a sword marked Fringia or Genoa was more desirable and, by definition, better than Assadollah's?
One could say that making a wootz sword was much more time consuming and, thus, counterfeighting European blades made better economic sense. However, we see many rather low-to-mediocre quality non-wootz swords bearing (fake) signatures of Assadullah or Kalbeali. Superhigh quality was never on the mind of a faker.
Did the native warriors know something about the battle value of Persian/Indian blades vs. European ones that we do not?

Very good points Ariel, I can quote Musil, who has described the values of different kinds of sword blades that were available to the Rwala clan in northern arabia. The Khurasani Persian, presumably wootz, is the most expensive, at $135 a blade. Compared to a 'Shintiyan', some kind of european blade, cost from $2-10. Clearly, wootz blades were the most valuable, and this information comes from a society which relied on swords and lances for life.

Strangely though, it seems that they did not like curvy blades. Even with Persian wootz blades, bedouins always sought out for wide blades with a slight curve. European blades of the period, fit the bill perfectly.

[tsubame1]

Hi Ariel.
I wasn't challenging Rivkin on this, rather I was asking for feedbacks as I'm intrigued by the matter.
Resistance to phisical stress in a gun barrel doesn't mean the steel is a better one for swords, but till recently I wasn't aware of the use of wootz in guns.

[S.Al-Anizi]

We should also remember that Europeans were living in these areas too, not in such great numbers (hundreds) but for trade, left over from crusades and other battles etc. Perhaps they liked the blades of their homeland. Much in the same way people tend to buy things they are familiar with today (Husband still wants British sausages, tea, and baked beans, as though America does not have any!). I think owning something exotic too is always wanted. Do we have any number on how many sword fights were actually occuring in battles? During the different periods, were the swords primarily for horseman or infantry?
Ann

I can only talk on behalf the bedouin culture that Ive been studying closely. In most raids and battles, the lance was the primary weapon, but after the initial charge, whilst becoming a burden, a cavalier resorts to his sword. They werent to keen on firearms as those were mostly single shots, many of them being matchlocks too. The sword was the foremost weapon well into the 20th century. Thats why blades from all over the world, from india, persia, Britain, France, Germany, Hungary, Austria and perhaps many more lands, were pouring into the region, and it was a very profitable trade due to the never ending demand for blades.

Richard Burton, being an expert swordsman, seems to have noticed that none of the locals of arabia he'd witnessed were good swordsman, rather using the sword as some kind of stick, and evading cuts rather than parrying them. He also comments that none of them knows how to use the point. The exact same view is held by Wyman Bury.

[S.Al-Anizi]

An idea...we usually think that only Islam was practices in the Near East, Central Asia, India, but these areas also have a high number of other religions (and still do!). Perhaps the patterned blades were a symbol of Islam, whereas the other blades did not. Some of these cultures also had a "ban" on non-muslims having weapons (I do not remember the reference off hand). Perhaps the lifting of the ban has somthing to do with the increase imports? I do not know but I think it is worth looking into.
:)

Not necessarily Ann, in pre-islamic arabian poetry, swords and their 'firind' are always being described and emphasized upon. Wootz is a very older thing than many people think it is. The more I read, the more it seems that wootz blades were quite common since pre-islam in the near east. Either being imported from india, or even locally produced in Yemen or even Damascus, although its very hard to prove that.

[Lee]

Richard Burton, being an expert swordsman, seems to have noticed that none of the locals of Arabia he'd witnessed were good swordsman, rather using the sword as some kind of stick, and evading cuts rather than parrying them...

My own experience with the vast majority of Victorian-age literature on swords is that it does not stand up very well by today's standards, being pretty much anecdotal and very deeply colored by societal prejudices. Perhaps some of our martial artists will disagree (and they are likely to know much better than me), but I suspect Burton was judging based upon the perspective of European fencing standards; not an applicable yardstick.

[Tim Simmons]

I have to agree with Lee. Burton had his pet "Johnny foreigners" but unlike him an Englishman only next to god, they were never as good. His comments on Africans that latter were to charge machine guns with spears. Are as if they were a miserable sniveling shower of cowards. I suspect Burton suffered from hairy hands. It made you go blind in the 19th century. :D :D :D :D :D oops :o

[ariel]

I have to agree with Lee. Burton had his pet "Johnny foreigners" but unlike him an Englishman only next to god, they were never as good. His comments on Africans that latter were to charge machine guns with spears. Are as if they were a miserable sniveling shower of cowards. I suspect Burton suffered from hairy hands. It made you go blind in the 19th century. :D :D :D :D :D oops :o

Sir Richard was an extraordinary man, and few people ever experienced his range of adventures, interests, daring exploits and ... controversies.
Yes, he was almost a caricature of a Victorian Englishman, and his accounts of the "natives" were often unfair, subjective, biased and prejudicial. On the other hand, being a famous fencer, he was well qualified to express his opinion on swordwielding techniques of Africans and Arabian Beduins. I would not be surprised if he engaged in mock fencing bouts with them to test his theories of comparative value of European vs. "Oriental" fencing. After all, there were few of his pet theories he did not put to practical test.
Just name me another man who had traveled to so many forbidden places, translated so many forbidden books and had so many passionate adherents and enemies!

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ariel,

Chris,
I have a question: even at the height of wootz reputation European blades were very popular in India, Arabia, Caucasus etc. Marks of Styrian or British manufacturers were highly sought. Things went so far that the local swordsmiths started to counterfeight European markings far more often than Assadullah's, even though they could do either.
What does it tell us about the perceived value of the European blades in the "Eastern" societies? Does it mean that in the eyes of the native populations a sword marked Fringia or Genoa was more desirable and, by definition, better than Assadollah's?
One could say that making a wootz sword was much more time consuming and, thus, counterfeighting European blades made better economic sense. However, we see many rather low-to-mediocre quality non-wootz swords bearing (fake) signatures of Assadullah or Kalbeali. Superhigh quality was never on the mind of a faker.
Did the native warriors know something about the battle value of Persian/Indian blades vs. European ones that we do not?

You pose a very good question and one which I cannot answer, save for making an educated guess.

With Japanese blades we do know that the best were superb, but those produced in quantity for their feudal armies were nowhere as good . This in all probability explains why some swords acquired a legendary reputation. I imagine that perhaps the same applied to wootz swords; Those that were well made were unquestionably of excellent quality, but probably the run of the mill not anywhere as good - This because even if the raw steel used was top class, it could stilll be easily ruined by bad forging.

My intuition tells me that Euro military swords of the period were probably of a higher average quality. My guess is that once Euro sword blades were manufactured in factories, as opposed to village smithies, and in conformity with tried and tested procedures, the quality became much higher and more consistent.

However this may be, steel quality is one factor and sword shape and dimensions another. If a soldier thinks that the swords of his enemies are of a superior design, then he will covet them, even if the steel that they are made from is not all that outstanding. Wellington, Murat, San Martin and a quite a number of other famous cavalry generals preferred Eastern swords during the Napoleonic era, simply because they perceived that their hilts and curved blades were better suited for that kind of combat.

In this regard, it is worth remembering that on all accounts the Japanese sword made for a very poor mounted weapon (they never understood cavalry). Similarly, despite the above mentioned infatuation that the Europeans had for Far Eastern sabres in the early 1800s, by the middle of the 19th century they were completely superseded by better performing patterns. So maybe, at some point in time Easterners as well figured that Euro swords were of a better design.

Cheers
Chris

[Rivkin]

First of all I completely agree with Dr. Lee is his assesment of Victorian researchers. My opinion is however that since then we gone completely downhill. Victorians at least where honest and not afraid to call things as they see them, and this was typically done after being deeply involved with the subject. I would say what I think about modern experts (Rice, Said and wikipedia) but then you would have to ban me :).

Concerning any comparisons - how and what are we going to compare ? A 1000 frenchman would always defeat 1500 mamluks, but 1 mamluk would always defeat 1 frenchman, as the great Emperor once said. Do we compare western armies to japanese or a single european lowly private to a samurai ? Or a european expert in epee fencing to a samurai ? Do we compare swords as part of the military doctrine or as a one-on-one weapon ?

As was noted by David Ayalon, the real victory westerners achieved first and primaraly at sea - even with a short lived Ottoman attempt to revive their sea power, East could never outsail the West. So the most important weapon of the West was actually a ship. The combat between western and eastern cavalries was exceedingly rare and therefore sword and sword fight was largely a fantasy and "what if" scenario. Western swords were nevertheless deeply renowned for their quality since the time of gurda.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Rivkin,

First of all I completely agree with Dr. Lee is his assesment of Victorian researchers. My opinion is however that since then we gone completely downhill. Victorians at least where honest and not afraid to call things as they see them, and this was typically done after being deeply involved with the subject. I would say what I think about modern experts (Rice, Said and wikipedia) but then you would have to ban me :)..

I am not quite sure as to what you are getting at, but if what you mean is that the current crop of "experts" (on matters of swords, swordsmanship and olden weaponry) leave a lot to be desired, then I am totally with you.

Concerning any comparisons - how and what are we going to compare ? A 1000 frenchman would always defeat 1500 mamluks, but 1 mamluk would always defeat 1 frenchman, as the great Emperor once said. Do we compare western armies to japanese or a single european lowly private to a samurai ? Or a european expert in epee fencing to a samurai ? Do we compare swords as part of the military doctrine or as a one-on-one weapon ?.

Of course - A duelist, no matter how good, a soldier does not make. Such comparisons are futile exercises, but may I say fun? And possibly educational along the way as well, because it compels one to think about many other matters.

As was noted by David Ayalon, the real victory westerners achieved first and primaraly at sea - even with a short lived Ottoman attempt to revive their sea power, East could never outsail the West. So the most important weapon of the West was actually a ship. .

The ability to wage war successfully is reflection of the soundness of the whole of society. Its economy, laws social organization, wealth, culture, science, etc. Modern wars are not won or lost by the actions of skilled heroes armed with superb weapons, rather by team work using easily manufactured and replaceable, though serviceable weapons. To focus excessively on the weapons themselves is counterproductive. One sees the tress well, but fails to understand their role in the forest as a whole.This something that we, as collectors, are all too often guilty of.


The combat between western and eastern cavalries was exceedingly rare and therefore sword and sword fight was largely a fantasy and "what if" scenario.

Well, perhaps not as frequent as commonly imagined, but neither was it rare. Throughout the Victorian colonial wars, the Brits clashed a number of times with Easterners. The tragic Captain Nolan, associated with the charge of the Light Brigade, formulated his opinions re cavalry in India....


Western swords were nevertheless deeply renowned for their quality since the time of gurda.

I think that before the industrial revolution, their quality must have varied greatly. After that, they became much more uniform and on average better, though not exceptional. The military sabres that I still have in my collection, from the middle of the 19th century, are basic and unsophisticated but perfectly serviceably weapons. Ideal to equip an army with.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ann,

PS Ariel: 2 cups of coffee that melts the spoon, with lots of milk in it, first thing in the morning. Apparently coffee protects the liver, and I am all for protecting my liver :)

Where did you get the Wood's metal?


Cheers
Chris

[tsubame1]

With Japanese blades we do know that the best were superb, but those produced in quantity for their feudal armies were nowhere as good . ...OMISSIS...However this may be, steel quality is one factor and sword shape and dimensions another. ...OMISSIS...In this regard, it is worth remembering that on all accounts the Japanese sword made for a very poor mounted weapon (they never understood cavalry).

Hi Chris. You're right about mass-produced swords (Kazuuchimono) made in certain periods of japanese history, and I agree about the many different
variables that are into the equation to make a good sword, being the swordsmith, material, shape and dimensions the most known.

But what is really far by reality and by serious studies is the statement that japanese blades were poor mounted weapon. The reason of the curvature of NihonTo is exactly the use from horseback. Japanese switched from straight blades (Chokuto shape inherited from China) to curved swords during the fightning against Emishi in the very early of unifing the nation. These populations of central Japan (Kanto plains) weren't influenced by chinese culture and had developed an horseback fighting style with bow and curved
swords. Tactics and weapons proved to be so good that the chinese style of fighting in footsoldiers formation was replaced by the Emeshi's one following the military principle of counter-response and symmetry in order to achieve victory against these populations. Warabite-To (ancestral Tachi) and bow (that later begun the Yumi, disaxed japanese bow) were the heritage such populations left to early Samurai. see "Heavenly warriors - the evolution of japan's military a.D. 500-1300" by William Wayne Farris, Harvard Univeristy Press, ISBN 0 674 38704 X.
A compromise to maintain some stabbing function in a curved cavalry sword was made for centuries putting the curvature in the very first part of the blade, leaving the upper part almost straight.
Japanese way to use cavalry was different from alòmost any other outside Japan but sthis doesn't mean they never understood cavalry. This is a simplicistic statement that forget historical and geographical conditions in which japanese horsefighting evolved. Japanese understood cavalry according to their needs, that's a lot different then stating they didn't understed it at all.

[tsubame1]

I have a question: even at the height of wootz reputation European blades were very popular in India, Arabia, Caucasus etc. Marks of Styrian or British manufacturers were highly sought. Things went so far that the local swordsmiths started to counterfeight European markings far more often than Assadullah's, even though they could do either.
What does it tell us about the perceived value of the European blades in the "Eastern" societies? Does it mean that in the eyes of the native populations a sword marked Fringia or Genoa was more desirable and, by definition, better than Assadollah's?
One could say that making a wootz sword was much more time consuming and, thus, counterfeighting European blades made better economic sense. However, we see many rather low-to-mediocre quality non-wootz swords bearing (fake) signatures of Assadullah or Kalbeali. Superhigh quality was never on the mind of a faker.
Did the native warriors know something about the battle value of Persian/Indian blades vs. European ones that we do not?

In order to sustain Andrew's suggestion about "exotic fashination" I would reverse Ariel's thinking way. Europeans liked very much wootz blades, but didn't replicate them: The reverse for european blades was made in middle east.
Never thought that the solution might be : europeans weren't able to make wootz, middle eastern smiths were able to make european-like steel ?

[S.Al-Anizi]

... since the time of gurda.

Rivkin, may I ask, whats a gurda? Ive been hearing it from the mouths of too many saudis.

[Chris Evans]

Hi tsubame1,

The merits or otherwise of the Japanese sword, when used from horseback, is a digression from this thread, which is about the combat value of wootz. So perhaps we ought to pursue this by PM or start another thread.

1. With the above said, I would like to make the following observations:

a) A two handed sword is ill suited for mounted combat because it is preferable to leave one hand free to hold the reins with which to control the horse - Also the long handle gets in the way and its general shape is ill suited to the retention of the sword - It is significant that in the rest of Asia, the Middle East and Europe the single hand sword prevailed for mounted warfare;

b) Europeans were quick to adopt the curved sabre of the Middle East for light cavalry work, towards the end of the 18th century. By that time they were well acquainted with the Japanese sword, yet ignored it for military usage. Had it been a good weapon for mounted combat, am sure that it would not have been so overlooked - And by that time nobody understood cavalry, both heavy and light, better than the Europeans; And

c) when Japan modernized during the Meiji restoration European sabres and cavalry methods were adopted. Indeed, all Asian nations that modernized took similar steps. This was due to very compelling reasons.

2. Re understanding cavalry: I am sure that within the limited context of their own insular and feudal style of waging war, up to the Tokugawas, the Japanese understood the usefulness of cavalry to a degree- However, in a wider context, they lagged far behind other nations - There is far more to cavalry than being able to ride; For one, it has been observed that they lacked a true war horse and the terrain of Japan did not encourage mounted warfare, as say the vast expanses of Central Asia.

After the Tokugawas Japan ceased to be a nation of warriors and became a police state. Whilst the rest of the world was developing militarily, the Shogunate was terrified of any bellicose capability by the clans, lest the civil wars erupt again; The samurai were reduced to the role of policemen, never having to do anything more serious than put down the odd peasant uprising and control the plebes. Such a state of affairs was not conducive to the development of armaments and tactics, be it afoot, horseback or at sea.

Cheers
Chris

[Rivkin]

1. Modern vs. ancient history.
I like ancient chronicles. Take for example Safavid ones - we came, slaughtered all unbelievers, took their women, and btw their women are way more beautiful than local girls (actually stronger words are used in the original). Simple, honest, straightforward.
Today we have what Burton warned about - everyone's history starts with 100 pages of "do you that it was our people who really invented ..." and ends with 100 pages of "we are the biggest victims in the world". No, african-american Garret Morgan did not invent a gas mask, russian peasant Mihailo Lomonosov did not discovery special relativity, automobil is not an islamic invention of XIIIth century and the number pi is not coded in talmud (they simply used 3).

2. Russian cavalry test involved two tests - one was cutting (could not find any description of what was cut) another one was bending to the limit of elastic deformation (i.e. the sword does not return to the original shape).

Gurda - it is a mark in the form of two jaws. The origin most likely is Venitian swords, later jaws acquire meaning "eisenhower" - chews iron. In caucasus gurda is also associated with chechen "gorda" - sort of battle cry, translates as "see !".

3. Dr. Feuerbach - any islamic country subscribing to the pact of Umar or its variations must ban non-muslims from pocessions of any weapons. It is a rather important part of fikh and dhimmi/muslim relationship.

[tsubame1]

a) A two handed sword is ill suited for mounted combat because it is preferable to leave one hand free to hold the reins with which to control the horse - Also the long handle gets in the way and its general shape is ill suited to the retention of the sword - It is significant that in the rest of Asia, the Middle East and Europe the single hand sword prevailed for mounted warfare;

Tachi isn't a two-handed sword, Katana is. Find out the difference and you'll realize where you're wrong here.

b) Europeans were quick to adopt the curved sabre of the Middle East for light cavalry work, towards the end of the 18th century. By that time they were well acquainted with the Japanese sword, yet ignored it for military usage. Had it been a good weapon for mounted combat, am sure that it would not have been so overlooked - And by that time nobody understood cavalry, both heavy and light, better than the Europeans;

Because at that time the Katana had begun a dueling sword. Here we're in Edo time, no more wars to fight, rather duels. Hence the scarce fitting of the Katana to actual western needs.

c) when Japan modernized during the Meiji restoration European sabres and cavalry methods were adopted. Indeed, all Asian nations that modernized took similar steps. This was due to very compelling reasons.

The very compelling reasons were that a dueling Katana that reigned
for the 250 years of the Edojidai wasn't suited for modern battlefield cavalry
tactis. You're comparing a sword "freezed" for centuries to a modern army.
In this way is obvious that even armor and helmets were no more useful even if they were carried till a few decades before.
BTW you lack to quote that many swords in the so-called "Kyugunto" mounting (the western-style you refer to) had ancestral blade inside.
Is more a matter of mounting rather then blade shape.
It's easy to find asking any average collector out there or taking a look at
Fuller and Gregory's "Military swords of Japan 1868-1945" ISBN 0 85368 796 X

. Re understanding cavalry: I am sure that within the limited context of their own insular and feudal style of waging war, up to the Tokugawas, the Japanese understood the usefulness of cavalry to a degree- However, in a wider context, they lagged far behind other nations - There is far more to cavalry than being able to ride; For one, it has been observed that they lacked a true war horse and the terrain of Japan did not encourage mounted warfare, as say the vast expanses of Central Asia.

Rough terrain and lack of space for horsebreeding.
These are the reasons they didn't apply vast cavalry charges as we're used to think about. This is not lack of understanding, this is lack of needs.

I agree we're out of topic and warmly suggest you to open another thread on
the matter if you want to discuss further this very interesting matter.

[ariel]

If I understand correctly, we can summarize that:
1. Wootz is esthetically more attractive than the mass-produces European steel blades.
2. Only small proportion of "Eastern" blades were of exceedingly high quality and many, manufactured not by reknown masters, were of dubious quality.
3.European technology allowed mass production of high-quality steel. The overall performance characteristics of European blades were either close enough or similar to the best wootz blades. Advantages of wootz in some areas were compensated by the advantages of European steel in other areas. Overall, European technology allowed arming large groups of soldiers with reliable equipment of uniformly-proven quality, a task that was unattainable in less techological societies.
4. Local preferences, prestige issues, personal "quirks" etc were important in dictating the choice in some cases, and this occured both among the "Natives" as well as among the " Europeans".
Is it fair?

[tsubame1]

Not a bad conclusion Ariel, but we should consider timeframe.
Noone here has fixed a timeframe of reference.
IMHO some of your conclusions can be considered quiet fair talking about later times, say XVIII c. >, not as an overall rule.
Around the XVI/XVII c. Milan had a very good production of blades, many
being later labeled as "Toledo" ones, but I can't talk for the major cities of the middle east and India. If the mogul were able to equipe an entire army with guns in which the barrel was made of wootz, I assume that a sort of industrial capability was there too. We're thinking with present-day standards
in which materials are cheap and skilled labour expensive, whether in the centuries I quoted, and more in the timeframe before, it was the reverse.
I think that skilled labour for steelmaking wasn't an issue to the Mogul or the persians. As the real difference in the quality of a sword is the maker and not the steel, I'm not so sure that an industrial mass-production is really a point to fix superiority of western steel over wootz.
To be thruly honest, I don't think that there are steels superior to others.
Only smiths. Well, within certain limits fixed by common sense of course.

[Tim Simmons]

Well you cannot make a silk purse out of a pigs ear :o

[Chris Evans]

Tachi isn't a two-handed sword, Katana is. Find out the difference and you'll realize where you're wrong here..

In all the serious literature that I have seen, the distinction between the Tachi and the katana is about how they were worn/slung and not about hilt length. Tachi edge down, katana edge up. And I have never seen a tachi or katana with a one hand hilt nor any suggestion to this effect.

From Wikipedia:

The tachi (??) is a Japanese sword, often said to be more curved and slightly longer than the katana. However Gilbertson, Oscar Ratti, and Adele Westbrook state that a sword is called a tachi when hung from the obi with the edge down, and the same sword becomes a katana when hung edge up thrust through the girdle. The Tachi style was eventually discarded in favor of the Katana. The daito (long swords) that pre-date the katana average about 78cm in blade length, next to the katana average of around 70cm. As opposed to the traditional manner of wearing the katana, the tachi was worn hung from the belt with the cutting-edge down, and usually used by cavalry. Deviations from the average length of tachi have the prefixes ko- for "short" and o- for "great" attached. For instance, tachi that were shoto and closer in size to a wakizashi were called "kodachi". The longest tachi (considered a 15th century odachi) in existence is more than 3.7 meters in total length (2.2m blade) but believed to be ceremonial. During the year 1600, many old tachi were cut down into Katana. The majority of surviving tachi blades now are o-suriage, so it is rare to see an original signed ubu tachi.

Form The Connoisseurs Book Of Japanese Swords by Kokan Nagayama:

Tachi: This is a curved sword with a blade longer than 60cm. It was worn suspended from the belt with the blade edge facing the ground. Later some blades originally produced as tachi were converted into katana by shortening the tang (or the portion of the blade that extends below the hamachi) This process inevitably caused any signature to be lost. Blades longer than 90cm are known as o-dachi (long tachi) while those 60cm or shorter are known as ko-dachi (short tachi)......Katana: Have blades longer than 60cm and are worn through the belt with the cutting edge facing upwards

I could give a number of other citations from respected authorities, but for lack of space will refrain from doing so. However, I'll add that the only Japanese native long-sword that I am aware of that was used with one hand (according to some sources) was the uchigatana, which appeared late in the Muromachi period. It complemented the Tachi when fighting afoot and is considered the precursor of the katana, as was worn edge up.

That the double handed grip was a handicap was recognized by the legendary Musashi in 1645 when he wrote"...It is encumbering to hold a sword with both hands when you are on horseback..."(Book of Five Rings). Note that Musashi was trying to correct the then prevailing practices, perhaps being influenced by Europeans

."Kyugunto" mounting (the western-style you refer to) had ancestral blade inside. Is more a matter of mounting rather then blade shape.
It's easy to find asking any average collector out there or taking a look at
Fuller and Gregory's "Military swords of Japan 1868-1945" ISBN 0 85368 796 X ..

It will do us well to remember that the Tokugawas curtailed the maximum length of blades so as to prevent warfare and most long tachis were cut down to fit in with the peace time requirements. By the Meiji restoration most katanas were of the order of 70cm, considered to be the standard length. So if we examine the bulk of those strange swords, with a knuckle-bow attached to their longish hilts, we will find a rather short blade - Totally unsuited for mounted use.

Additionally, the tang of the Japanese blade follows the curvature of the blade and makes it impossible to fit a downward drooping hilt, as was generally considered desirable in a cavalry weapon by that era. The downward drooping hilt is essential when using the point as when the arm is extended the curved blade's point is aligned with the axis of the arm.

..Rough terrain and lack of space for horsebreeding.
These are the reasons they didn't apply vast cavalry charges as we're used to think about. This is not lack of understanding, this is lack of needs...

To my mind lack of needs equates with lack of application, which equates with lack of experience and thus of understanding.

agree we're out of topic and warmly suggest you to open another thread onthe matter if you want to discuss further this very interesting matter.

Happy to oblige by PM, unless other forumites want to join in, in which case we will open a fresh thread.

Cheers
Chris

[S.Al-Anizi]

Guys, please open up another thread for a japanese showdown, not here ;)

[tsubame1]

You're right Carter. Sorry for inconveniences caused.

Deleted to open another thread :

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?p=35127#post35127

[Ann Feuerbach]

From S. AL-Anizi: Not necessarily Ann, in pre-islamic arabian poetry, swords and their 'firind' are always being described and emphasized upon. Wootz is a very older thing than many people think it is. The more I read, the more it seems that wootz blades were quite common since pre-islam in the near east. Either being imported from india, or even locally produced in Yemen or even Damascus, although its very hard to prove that.

You are quite right. The earliest known crucible steel blade is from the 1st century AD (Taxila) and the 2nd and 3rd known earliest blades are from the Russian Caucausus, indicating that they were well in use before the coming of Islam. In my discussion, I was referring to the influx of swords during the 16th-17th centuries.


From Rivkin: any islamic country subscribing to the pact of Umar or its variations must ban non-muslims from pocessions of any weapons. It is a rather important part of fikh and dhimmi/muslim relationship.

Thank you I did not know what the correct term was. Yes, I am well aware of the ban of non-muslims having weapons during some periods of time (and place). However, sometimes (depending on the time and place) non-muslims were in the military (as mercinarys, slaves etc). I have forgotten the reference.

On another related note, apparently some blades were not used for battle so its performance was not a factor...such as one of the Prophets blades al-Qadib. It was made for companionship and defense only, but not for battle.

[S.Al-Anizi]

You're right Carter. Sorry for inconveniences caused.

Deleted to open another thread :

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?p=35127#post35127

No no not at all Carlos, I was getting quite interested in your conversation, you and Chris, ive always found Japanese swords quite controversial :) I just felt that deserved a sole thread for it, and I would gladly contribute to that thread if something pops up ;)

[S.Al-Anizi]

Thank you I did not know what the correct term was. Yes, I am well aware of the ban of non-muslims having weapons during some periods of time (and place). However, sometimes (depending on the time and place) non-muslims were in the military (as mercinarys, slaves etc). I have forgotten the reference.

As in the Ummayad emirate of al-andalus, the palace guard, the 'saqaliba' (slavs), were christians in the service of the emir, and *I think* were allowed to carry weapons.

[Chris Evans]

S.Al-Anizi,

I was muzing over your original question and in particular the replies given by Jeff Pringle and Gt Obach.

Of course one of the problems is that we we do not know, or at least we haven't defined, the lower limit of acceptable mechanical properties for a war sword. Nor have we established what significant advantages and in what context can be obtained by exceeding this lower limit. I suspect, that for a cavalry sword made from conventional martensitic steel, that is not likely to encounter heavy armour, a hardness of 45Rc is adequate, as long as it is not brittle.

Be that as it may, it will do us well to remember that pearlitic steels can be work hardened to a surprising degree, as exemplified by piano wire, which is usually made from hard drawn pearlitic 0.8% carbon steel. It is both very tough and hard. Now, going back to that paper by prof.Verhoeven's, A.H.Pendray's, and W.E.Dauksch's, I suspect that had they Brinell tested the blades they would have obtained a higher hardness reading, perhaps in the low to mid 40s and as well, I don't think that they tested top class swords. Additionally, the part of a sword where hardness counts the most is at the edge and that part cannot be tested by either the Rockwell or Brinell, but only by Vickers, which makes such a small indentation that with wootz it could be misleading,

I think that it would be a fair bet that the very best of the of the woots swords had much harder work hardened blades.

Just some thoughts
Chris

[Rivkin]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

1. Wootz and practicality: it is interesting that Mubarak-Shah in "Kitab adab al-harb va'shudzhaat" right after saying that indian wootz swords are the best, speaks about "abnach" - indian sword made from copper and silver and according to Mubarak being one of the prized indian swords and very beautiful.
So the beauty was important.
2. Non-mulsims in muslim armies - by memory there is a lot in hadith about Mohammed using jews in his raids until certain point (I remember how they come to him and ask whether his attack plan is from Allah or of his invention and if it the latter they don't care about the spoils they wan't go). Concerning ummoyads - they did not really apply the law, they even had statues. Indeed the presence of semi-muslim ex-christians in muslim armies was overwhelming (mamluks, yanissarians, ghulam etc.), but at the same time the presence of openly christians was limited to episodes like early Osman army (lots of armenians and some western knights) and later - military advisors (usually in "modernizing" islamic armies).
3. Fencing with shamshirs - actually they did so, despite the lack of protection for the hand. Napoleon selected mamluks for his guard based on how horrible they hands looked, so I assume experienced fencers had many,many scars.
4. Concerning western vs. eastern swords - after looking through the literature I think everyone had his own preferances. Hudud al'alem for example liked european swords - he says that they bend much better than local. Mubarak-Shah liked indian swords like nothing else, yet I have read in one of the mamluk manuals (sorry, had it on my hard drive somewhere) that such swords should be hanged around women who can't give birth to boys, while the best swords are made in yemen and have golden dots.
For example Kolchin in his work "Black Mettalurgy and ironwork in ancient Russia" believes based on Ibn-Hordadbech, al-Mukaddasi and Abu Hamid that early "oriental" swords were brittle and too hard tempered had no buyers in Europe but where sold only to savages in the north who liked pretty and hard tempered metal (??) (whih is sort of suggested by abu-Hamid), while western swords were well prized in the East.

And you to try to figure out in this mess who is right and who is wrong, and what exactly do they mean.

5. I am sorry for repeating myself, but after reading all these literature I think that everyone has his own biases; victorians had their own, but everyone else seem to be also guilty as well, some are more and some are less.

[Chris Evans]

Rivkin,

You are a marvelous source of information. Thanks for this interesting contribution.


Ladies and Gentlemen,

1. Wootz and practicality: it is interesting that Mubarak-Shah in "Kitab adab al-harb va'shudzhaat" right after saying that indian wootz swords are the best, speaks about "abnach" - indian sword made from copper and silver and according to Mubarak being one of the prized indian swords and very beautiful.
So the beauty was important..

I think that we should remember that until the appearance of national armies, late in the renaissance, only the nobility could afford expensive and comprehensive arms and armour - And for them beauty=status. The peasant foot soldiers were often armed with nothing else than slings and sticks (siege of Belgrade) . I imagine that for some of the orientals, this state of affairs lasted longer.

In fact, it has been observed that the remarkable success of the Turks and Mongols in Eastern Europe was in no small amount due to the inability of feudal societies to field large and consistently well equiped armies.

Do you know if and when and the Ottoman Turks introduced regulation pattern weapons?

3. Fencing with shamshirs - actually they did so, despite the lack of protection for the hand. Napoleon selected mamluks for his guard based on how horrible they hands looked, so I assume experienced fencers had many,many scars...

Well, their wounds couldn't have been too serious as in those days they couldn't repair severed tendons and wire together broken hand bones. Incidentally, I once saw a Middle Eastern mail gauntlet that weighed, at my estimation, around 1.75Kgm, so they must have understood the need for better hand protection.

Cheers
Chris

[tsubame1]

This thread really grows, more and more interesting.

[Rivkin]

Chis:

Thank you for your praise.

Concerning "oriental" armies there are two opinions that one can find in most of contemporary literature:
In the "orientalist" period easterners where often seen as people whose purpose was to prolong the 7th century lifestyle as much as possible. They would spend their life walking around, beating themselves with chains, screaming "la allahu ilh Allah". Their weapons were inept, their tactics was savage. Typically this is attributed to the racism of victorian englishman, but one can sometimes find much harsher words in the works of ataturkists.
Then in 80's everything was reverted - christian were now seen as dirty people who burned the jews and lived in huts, while muslims became great philosophers who fought for poetry, tolerance and preservation of classical studies. Each and every invention of the western world was seen as stealing of something eastern - american constitution was seen as an inept copy of Cyrus' cylinder, universities a flawed imitation of great medreses and so on.

I think that one should read as less as possible recent literature and direct his/her attention to the original sources. You will find that "orientals" and "westerners" actually respected each other and were quite able to find numerous flaws (perceived or real) both in their own society/military and that of their opponents.
Here is my personal opinion:
There were numerous differencies between east and west - east had a poweful export of spices, opium, sugar, silk, precious stones and so on, while west was in general more poor. In the east the money spending and power was more concentrated in the hands of the military elite (as Macciavelli points out among turks one just has to be liked by the military). As a result eastern military was much more expensive than their western counterparts. Mail, decorated with gold, beautiful swords, numerous horses was a typical pocession of a warrior in the east, but far more scarce in the west. Easterners praised bow and horse above all and had little infantry, while it was the opposite in the west. Even in XIXth century a frenchman who would kill a mamluk typically would gather 2000-10000 franks worth of gold and weapons from the body, an outstanding sum. Easterners also had far better intelligence - they were used to Steppe warfare where cities would move overnight and the victory was achieved by knowing where your enemy is, while in the west everyone knew where is the castle and where is the bridge.
However while in the west the military balanced between local militia, professional nobleman and foregin mercenaries (Macciavelli "History of Florence" tries to illustrate the whole fragility of such balance), eventually resulting in a formation of an army which to some extent incorporated all these elements, imbued with not nessesary the best, but common training and tactics, in the east the situation was radically different. The history of the east is that of power of usually nomadic "savages" over settled communities. Iranic hordes destroyed Assyria, arab nomads devastated now "culturized" Iran, Turks replaced "culturized", but per Ibn-Khaldan now "lazy and decadent" arabs and caucasian "savage" tribes de facto replacing or at least partially substituting turks.
As a result islamic army consisting mostly of two parts - kochari, tribal nomads who were paid per operation and given the spoils and mamluks/ghulams/yanissarians who were taken mostly as slaves from "martial nations", i.e. turks, caucasians, later - balkans, given more or less standard training and formed their own, usually somewhat elite units. There was time during early mamluk reign or among mongols where islamic armies would be highly disciplined, but this typically did not last for too long being replaced by "tribalism", for example among mercenary units of different origin or commander.

There is a very good book by Ibrahim Muteferrik, "Usul al-fikam fi nizam al-umam", loosely translated as "the basics of nations", which tells about the inability of Ottoman army to reform - it is a long book so I will not quote but it tells that in old time arabs, turks, franks (i.e. westerners), hindus all would just bring the whole bunch of people who essentially never trained with each other before (since being taken from different lords or, in the east, tribes) split them roughly in three, put some officers over them and march onto each other. Now westerners have an army, i.e. units which train together with the same tactics, with well defined "line" and so on, but in the east besides yanicheri (ochagi) units the rest of the army is still tribal, with no perception of cohesiveness. He says that firearms are not as important as that these tribals are unreliable and see their tribal interests above all, live by plundering the settled people (btw a lot of areas in the middle east became nearly completely unpopulated by the end of XVIIIth century since the "tribals" lived by spoils, i.e. would kill all the cattle, burn cities and sell locals into slavery). The "tribals" are brave and vicious, they despise danger and therefore always charge the enemy, even if it is a stupid thing to do. They can not coordinate their forces and have no idea during the battle what other units are doing (interestingly the ancient persian army seems to suffer from the same flaw - some of their units could break Alexander's line but spent their time plundering his camp, while the rest would be slaughtered on the battlefield). He also says that in the army one should not rely on quality of armour or weapons, since the most needed things are discipline and organization.The book is filled with curses towards christians, but yet praises them for their thought and knowledge. It ends up with a typical late ottoman phrase that Osman family instead of studying sceinces spends time fueling ignorance and religious fanaticism.

Concerning "pattern" swords - one can find some uniformity in the weapons of eastern armies since very old time, however patterns per se is a "modernization" phenomena and mostly occur as a blind imitation of western weapons (i.e. XIXth century).

All related here is my personal opinion.

[ariel]

From S. AL-Anizi: Not necessarily Ann, in pre-islamic arabian poetry, swords and their 'firind' are always being described and emphasized upon. Wootz is a very older thing than many people think it is. The more I read, the more it seems that wootz blades were quite common since pre-islam in the near east. Either being imported from india, or even locally produced in Yemen or even Damascus, although its very hard to prove that.

You are quite right. The earliest known crucible steel blade is from the 1st century AD (Taxila) and the 2nd and 3rd known earliest blades are from the Russian Caucausus, indicating that they were well in use before the coming of Islam. In my discussion, I was referring to the influx of swords during the 16th-17th centuries.


From Rivkin: any islamic country subscribing to the pact of Umar or its variations must ban non-muslims from pocessions of any weapons. It is a rather important part of fikh and dhimmi/muslim relationship.

Thank you I did not know what the correct term was. Yes, I am well aware of the ban of non-muslims having weapons during some periods of time (and place). However, sometimes (depending on the time and place) non-muslims were in the military (as mercinarys, slaves etc). I have forgotten the reference.

On another related note, apparently some blades were not used for battle so its performance was not a factor...such as one of the Prophets blades al-Qadib. It was made for companionship and defense only, but not for battle.
Ann,
I am intrigued:
In the recent book by Mr. Khorasani "Arms and Armor from Iran", you are cited on pp. 103-104 (your Ph.D. dissertation) as stating that the earliest crucible steel blade possibly comes from Luristan (Western Iran) and the next published object is a Sassanian sword of the 6-7th century.
Now, you are saying that the earliest came from Taxila ( Western India) and later ones from the Russian Caucasus ( what exact area?).
Am I missing something?
Have you changed your opinion based on recent info?
Were you misquoted in the book?
And, just for your info, here is the reference to the Pact of Umar that was mentioned by Rivkin:
http://www.domini.org/openbook/umar.htm

[Ann Feuerbach]

Well spotted. It is all correct, but needs clarification. The blade from Luristan has spheroidal cementite suggesting it is crucible steel, but the date is uncertain as they were looted and therefore lost all context and dating. The earliest excavated and well dated blade is from Taxila (1st century AD). The second and third earliest excavated are from the Russian Caucasus (3rd-4th century AD), the fourth earliest blade is from Sasanian period. The blades from Luristan and Sasanian Perisa are the two earliest known from IRAN, not the earliest in the world. :)

[Ann Feuerbach]

Oh, that you as well for the link to Umar. It is now properly placed in my database. Russian Caucausus...near Kislovodsk, I analyzed 35 blades, 4 were crucible steel, those two early ones are associated with the Alani culture, a 7th century one was found in association with a horse burial, and an 11th century one associated witht the Saultovo Mauaskaya culture (related to the Khazar Turks before the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols. There has also been crucible steel objects found in Kazakstan.

[Rivkin]

Interesting !
I thought Taxila findings are from a collection of burial places of some central asian tribes related to alans - is there a possible connection between them ?
If you are interested in Umar's pact, as far as I remember (and I hope there are people here who actually know fiqh, not pretend they do, like me), it is supposed to stem from a message of Mohammed to non-muslims of Yemen, non-muslims were not supposed to be left in Arabia, so it was the first place where the coexistance started. Understanding of Pact of Umar changed to some extent over time, especially nn the boundaries of umma, places like India or Spain (where Moghuls held rather unusual views and Spain is the place where Umayads and Almohads had diametrically opposite view on the issue). Shias have traditionally somewhat different view on the Pact since they are very careful concerning "impurity" laws.

[ariel]

Well spotted. It is all correct, but needs clarification. The blade from Luristan has spheroidal cementite suggesting it is crucible steel, but the date is uncertain as they were looted and therefore lost all context and dating. The earliest excavated and well dated blade is from Taxila (1st century AD). The second and third earliest excavated are from the Russian Caucasus (3rd-4th century AD), the fourth earliest blade is from Sasanian period. The blades from Luristan and Sasanian Perisa are the two earliest known from IRAN, not the earliest in the world. :)
That is not how it was reported in the book. I have an uneasy feeling about the misrepresentation of facts and mis-quoting of your data in the book: it was made to sound as if Iran was the cradle of crucible steel technology. Whoever has this book, please read the section I referred to and compare it to Ann's post here: am I the only one viewing it to be an intentional misquoting?

[Rick]

I thought you had a copy of this book Ariel ? :confused:

[ariel]

I thought you had a copy of this book Ariel ? :confused:
Yes, I do. That's where I got the information. I just want to have opinions of other readers.

[Jeff D]

"Feuerbach (2002b:229) believes that the earliest crucible steel blade possibly comes from Luristan. She cites Rehder and France-Lanord, saying that there are six blades attributed to Luristan that contain spheroidal cementite. She further (2002b:230) claims that the earliest crucible steel blade of a double-edged sword is dated to the first century A.D. The sword is composed of high carbon steel with spheroidial cementite. Additionally (2002b:230), the next published object made from crucible steel is a Sassanian sword, attributed to 6th or 7th century A.D. Iran, now exhibited in the British Museum. Feuerbach (2002b:230) explains is a double-edged blade with a pistol grip, an indentation in the hilt for an index finger, no guard, and a scabbard with a two-point suspension. She further states that under low magnification (x100), the sample demonstrates a mottled structure after etching in nital (the microstructure consists of globular cementite in a fine pearlite matrix). Feurerbach (2002b:231) is of the opinion that the fine pearlite matrix is an indication of semi-rapid final cooling. Another key aspect is that since the cementite is not alligned, the sword would not have had a damascus pattern."

This is the entire quote from Pg 103-104, the readers can judge for themselves.

All the Best
Jeff

[Ann Feuerbach]

It may have been more accurate if the phrase "in Iran" was placed in the text. However, as this was a book on the Arms and Armour from Iran, this may have been construced by a publisher as redundant, rather than misleading.

[Chris Evans]

I always suspected that cutting a silk scarf had little to do with the quality of the steel and was a mere stunt of swordsmanship, one that could be done with almost any decent sabre-sword that was kept unusually sharp.

Well, J.M.Waite, an English professor of fencing, late 2nd Life Guards, and author of Sabre, Singlestick, and Sword Feats, in the late 19th century wrote:

Fold a veil neatly lengthwise and lay it on the edge of the sword, almost close to the hilt.

Place your feet together, with your sword hand resting on the bend of the left arm, the edge of your sword turned up. Take two quick steps to your front , beginning with your left foot and as you make the second, deliver an upward cut with a good edge, throwing the point of the sword high in the air, so that when the veil separates the two parts will have some distance to fall. A good effect will thus be produced.

At the finish of this cut......the arms should be brought straight.......

For this feat.... you require a special sword called a handkerchief cutter. It should have the edge of and be kept as sharp as a razor.

The edge should be ground and set towards the hand, and when sharpening or stropping it, you should rub from point to hilt.

If you look through a very powerful magnifying glass you will find the edge of a sword is serrated like a saw, but not so regularly; Therefor by having the teeth pointed towards the hilt, the edge more readily lays hold of the veil.

Haven't tried it, but someone here should :D


Cheers
Chris

[Gt Obach]

Hi Chris

that is basically what i said at the beginning.... that cutting fabric only tells you about the type of edge.... there are many different types of edges... and all have their strong and weak points.. ... it would make sense that the arms were tailored to the targets they were meant to cut...... hollow grind for razors, flat for bowies, convex for choppers....just for example...

-- ofcourse this is not a static rule..... you can have a wide hollow grind and it will make a stong blade..... or really sharpen a convex edge and it will shave paper..

-- what about the sharpening technology...... it says something about that aswell..... you have to have decent abrasives..... or you simply cannot get a fine edge otherwise...

-- look at the top notch polish on Japanese blades..... if they didn't have access to such fine silicate stones.... it would be very hard to replicate this..... because you simply can't pop over to the local hardware and buy graded abrasive papers... it has to be quarried and graded...


sharp topic ;)

Greg

[katana]

I have followed this thread with interest and found the metallury comments informative. However, I feel from my limited knowledge on the subject that a 'Occam's Razor' approach may be relavent (not sure if the 'Razor' is wootz...but I digress :) ).
In my mind there are so many variables to this debate...the quality of the steel, the differences of forging technigue and method, the design and thickness of the blade, edge formation (hollow ground, flat ground and so on)etc etc.....that it would be almost impossible to reach a conclusive answer.

But I know this to be true.....an old, battle weary sword MUST be a GOOD sword......It has survived all the testing it required, perhaps this is why they end up as 'heirloom' pieces.......'here son ..inherit my sword...which I know to be battle worthy and will not fail you in combat.'

Simplistic...I know.....but then again simplicity served 'Occam' well ;)

[Rivkin]

It may have been more accurate if the phrase "in Iran" was placed in the text. However, as this was a book on the Arms and Armour from Iran, this may have been construced by a publisher as redundant, rather than misleading.

Well, my verbal IQ is rather close to zero, but here is the problem as I see it:
"Feuerbach (2002b:229) believes that the earliest crucible steel blade possibly comes from Luristan.... She further (2002b:230) claims that the earliest crucible steel blade of a double-edged sword is dated to the first century A.D."

Either in both cases "Iran" is assumed and than the earliest blade comes from first century A.D. Iran, or in both cases it should be understand as "the earliest" in principle, and then the birthplace of crucible steel is Luristan.

[Andrew]

If Ann doesn't have a problem with how her work was characterized in the book, neither do I.

Let's move along, please, and get back on topic.

[ariel]

It may have been more accurate if the phrase "in Iran" was placed in the text. However, as this was a book on the Arms and Armour from Iran, this may have been construced by a publisher as redundant, rather than misleading.
Dear Ann,
You must be a remarkably nice person and I admire your forebearance.
However:
1. Was the information on Taxila and Caucasian swords available in your dissertation cited in the book?
If the answer is no, I can understand that Mr. Khorasani honestly cited your source. If yes, I would have major problem defining his rendition of your material (under your name!) as anything but gross and willful misrepresentation.
2. I have problems to believe that the editors viewed a 2 word sequence "in Iran" to be crucial in editing a 780 page-long book full of redundant and repetitious information.
The origin of crucible steel is a major point of our discussion here and, certainly, of the Mr. Khorasani's book. It is important that we get to the bottom of his statement. As Rivkin cleverly noticed, no matter how you read his paragraph, the intended meaning does not change: he wants us to believe that crucible steel originated in Iran and uses you as a source of the information.
I am very disturbed.

[ariel]

If Ann doesn't have a problem with how her work was characterized in the book, neither do I.

Let's move along, please, and get back on topic.
I do not have a problem how her work was characterized in the book. I do have a problem, however, whether the content of her book was faithfully cited or misrepresented to the point that the origins of crucible steel were attributed to Iran rather than to proper inventors.
This bears direct influence on the topic of our current discussion on wootz.

[Andrew]

I do not have a problem how her work was characterized in the book. I do have a problem, however, whether the content of her book was faithfully cited or misrepresented to the point that the origins of crucible steel were attributed to Iran rather than to proper inventors.
This bears direct influence on the topic of our current discussion on wootz.


This thread is not about the origins of crucible steel, nor is it about the book. Therefore, this discussion is off-topic.

[Chris Evans]

Gt Obach,

You make very good and valid observations - I totally agree.

Discussions of this kind take us down some very interesting side issues. I found this thread most valuable and the various contributions made by the forumites of a high order.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi katana,



.....an old, battle weary sword MUST be a GOOD sword......It has survived all the testing it required, perhaps this is why they end up as 'heirloom' pieces.......'here son ..inherit my sword...which I know to be battle worthy and will not fail you in combat.

You know, I always wondered if a sword survived that long, if it ever saw much combat, if any...... :confused:

Cheers
Chris

[ariel]

Hi katana,



You know, I always wondered if a sword survived that long, if it ever saw much combat, if any...... :confused:

Cheers
Chris
I am not sure you are right. The ones from Figiel's collection are pristine; they definitely never were drawn in anger. But most of mine are pretty worn, scarred, re-sharpened, broken here and there, nicked... They must have been tough old buggers!
Cheer up, man! There is a lot of old human DNA to be extracted from yours, too!

[Ann Feuerbach]

If, and I do mean IF, the blades from Luristan are indeed crucible steel, and IF they are as early as they are thought to be, then yes, they would be the earliest known crucible steel objects known. This does not Prove, Disprove, nor should it suggest any "origin" for the process. There was a great deal of trade going on and movements of people and empires. Only a well dated and well documented, early unquestionable crucible steel production site, might tell us where and when the process originated. Until that is found, be it in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Baluchistan, Uzbekistan, Iran or elsewhere, my mind remains open. India is the most likely place of origin, but I refuse to ASSUME that India is the place of origination of the process just because they were a major producer later on.

If we look at the published facts, apart from the objects found at Taxila (Pakistan, which geographically is Central Asia) all the earliest crucible steel object known (by that I mean published), are from OUTSIDE of India. This is probably just a feature of preservation and discovery, rather than reflecting what really happened in the past. But nevertheless, these are the facts!

Lets look at the textual "evidence":
PhD extract "During the first century AD Pliny (died 79 AD) wrote …“But of all the varieties of iron the palm goes to the Seres with their fabrics and skins. The second prize goes to Parthian iron; and indeed no other kinds of iron are forged from pure metal, as all the rest have a softer alloy welded with them” (Pliny, XXXIV translated by Rackham, 1995, 143-146). Bronson (1986) has argued that there is no evidence that the Seres were producing and exporting “wootz” to Rome. Those who discuss Pliny’s statement seem to only be concerned about who the Seres were, probably the Tamil Cheres of South India (Juleff, 1990). However, the rest of Pliny’s statement is perhaps even more telling. Regardless of who the Seres were, Pliny states that they, and the Parthians, are the only people to produce pure metal. " It is likly that this "pure metal" is crucible steel, as it is referred to as pure metal in later literature.Thus, this suggests that crucible steel was being produced in Iran (Parthia) from an early date.

Lets look at later ethnographic evidence:
PhD extract:
"It is important to recall Bronson’s observation that no first hand ethnographic reports from South India mention that the steel produces a Damascus pattern (Bronson, 1986, 39-40). In addition, the experiments performed by Wilkinson (1839, 389) on crucible steel ingots from Cutch, in Northern India on the India-Pakistan border, and from Salem, southern India, concluded that only the ingot from Cutch produced a good pattern, whereas the Salem sample had only a slight indication of a pattern. Therefore, the evidence from all archaeological, ethnographic, and replication experiments, indicates that crucible steel from South India/Sri Lanka, i.e. the areas associated with the terms wootz, produced crucible steel blades with either no pattern or a faint pattern only. Arguably, it is the coarse pattern, such as the Kara Khorasan pattern, that is most often associated with or characterizes “Damascus steel” (refer to Figures 97-100). As mentioned above, the archaeological evidence from Merv and Termez indicated that the microstructure of the ingots could have resulted in a coarse patterned blade. In addition, textual evidence (e.g. al-Beruni in Said, 1989, 219-220), and ethnographic reports (e.g. Abbott, 1884; Wilkinson, 1839, 38) all state that crucible steel blades with a good pattern were produced in Central Asia and Northern India, places where the term pulad (or related term) was used. Therefore, all the afore mentioned evidence indicates that crucible steel from Central Asia, which includes Northern India, could produced crucible steel blades with a coarse pattern, while the South Indian/Sri Lankan wootz ingots probably did not. This is contrary to the generally accepted opinion that Indian wootz steel was primarily used to produce “Damascus blades” (e.g. Verhoeven, 2001; Figiel, 1991, 7; Rostoker and Bronson, 1990, 130; Sachse, 1994, 67).

If we only go by what people assume they know, rather than the facts, we will not progress. We might as well be looking for the origin of Damascus steel in Syria!
:)

[Andrew]

If, and I do mean IF, the blades from Luristan are indeed crucible steel, and IF they are as early as they are thought to be, then yes, they would be the earliest known crucible steel objects known. This does not Prove, Disprove, nor should it suggest any "origin" for the process. There was a great deal of trade going on and movements of people and empires. Only a well dated and well documented, early unquestionable crucible steel production site, might tell us where and when the process originated. Until that is found, be it in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Baluchistan, Uzbekistan, Iran or elsewhere, my mind remains open. India is the most likely place of origin, but I refuse to ASSUME that India is the place of origination of the process just because they were a major producer later on.

If we look at the published facts, apart from the objects found at Taxila (Pakistan, which geographically is Central Asia) all the earliest crucible steel object known (by that I mean published), are from OUTSIDE of India. This is probably just a feature of preservation and discovery, rather than reflecting what really happened in the past. But nevertheless, these are the facts!

Lets look at the textual "evidence":
PhD extract "During the first century AD Pliny (died 79 AD) wrote …“But of all the varieties of iron the palm goes to the Seres with their fabrics and skins. The second prize goes to Parthian iron; and indeed no other kinds of iron are forged from pure metal, as all the rest have a softer alloy welded with them” (Pliny, XXXIV translated by Rackham, 1995, 143-146). Bronson (1986) has argued that there is no evidence that the Seres were producing and exporting “wootz” to Rome. Those who discuss Pliny’s statement seem to only be concerned about who the Seres were, probably the Tamil Cheres of South India (Juleff, 1990). However, the rest of Pliny’s statement is perhaps even more telling. Regardless of who the Seres were, Pliny states that they, and the Parthians, are the only people to produce pure metal. " It is likly that this "pure metal" is crucible steel, as it is referred to as pure metal in later literature.Thus, this suggests that crucible steel was being produced in Iran (Parthia) from an early date.

Lets look at later ethnographic evidence:
PhD extract:
"It is important to recall Bronson’s observation that no first hand ethnographic reports from South India mention that the steel produces a Damascus pattern (Bronson, 1986, 39-40). In addition, the experiments performed by Wilkinson (1839, 389) on crucible steel ingots from Cutch, in Northern India on the India-Pakistan border, and from Salem, southern India, concluded that only the ingot from Cutch produced a good pattern, whereas the Salem sample had only a slight indication of a pattern. Therefore, the evidence from all archaeological, ethnographic, and replication experiments, indicates that crucible steel from South India/Sri Lanka, i.e. the areas associated with the terms wootz, produced crucible steel blades with either no pattern or a faint pattern only. Arguably, it is the coarse pattern, such as the Kara Khorasan pattern, that is most often associated with or characterizes “Damascus steel” (refer to Figures 97-100). As mentioned above, the archaeological evidence from Merv and Termez indicated that the microstructure of the ingots could have resulted in a coarse patterned blade. In addition, textual evidence (e.g. al-Beruni in Said, 1989, 219-220), and ethnographic reports (e.g. Abbott, 1884; Wilkinson, 1839, 38) all state that crucible steel blades with a good pattern were produced in Central Asia and Northern India, places where the term pulad (or related term) was used. Therefore, all the afore mentioned evidence indicates that crucible steel from Central Asia, which includes Northern India, could produced crucible steel blades with a coarse pattern, while the South Indian/Sri Lankan wootz ingots probably did not. This is contrary to the generally accepted opinion that Indian wootz steel was primarily used to produce “Damascus blades” (e.g. Verhoeven, 2001; Figiel, 1991, 7; Rostoker and Bronson, 1990, 130; Sachse, 1994, 67).

If we only go by what people assume they know, rather than the facts, we will not progress. We might as well be looking for the origin of Damascus steel in Syria!
:)


Thank you, very much, for the additional information, Ann. :)

Let's let this be the final word on this here, everyone.

[ariel]

Going back to the combat value of wootz swords.
Iranian chronicles report that Shah Ismail at Chaldaran split a fully armoured opponent from head to saddle with one stroke of his wootz shamshir: helmet, mail, the works. Also, he split in two several enemies cutting them across the body or diagonally. He was also reported to cut 7 chains securing Turkish heavy guns with the same sword.
Do you think these stories are true or exaggerations by the Ismail's court poets?
The Japanese performed cutting tests with their swords on human bodies, but those were naked. I find it difficult to believe that a sword, no matter how good, would be able to slice a full set of armour through-and-through or 1-2 cm thick steel chain links.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ariel,

I am not sure you are right. The ones from Figiel's collection are pristine; they definitely never were drawn in anger. But most of mine are pretty worn, scarred, re-sharpened, broken here and there, nicked... They must have been tough old buggers!
Cheer up, man! There is a lot of old human DNA to be extracted from yours, too!

I am one who believes that swords have a definite service life, after which they better be retired from active duty. Of course, if the blade saw little or no use, then it can be used indefinitely. My problem is not with old swords kept as family heorlooms, but as when supposedly used used for combat, from generation to generation. Internal flaws can grow with repeated loading on the blade.


Re your observations on armour cutting feats with wootz swords: Perhaps not entirely without substance, but probably exagerated - For what it is worth, the Japanese had stout armour cutting swords with which many of their cutting stunts were performed. These were often modified naginata (halberd) blades. I did see one such sword in Japan and it had a shoulder about twice as thick as that of an ordinary sword, that is, around 12mm and had an edge like a cold chisel. I have a reference, somewhere in my library, in which an experienced old samurai criticized a display of helmet splitting, by a colleague, arguing that he cheated buy using a naginata blade. Perhaps tsubame1 (carlo) can help us out here.

Cheers
Chris

[ariel]

Hi Ariel,



I am one who believes that swords have a definite service life, after which they better be retired from active duty. Of course, if the blade saw little or no use, then it can be used indefinitely. My problem is not with old swords kept as family heorlooms, but as when supposedly used used for combat, from generation to generation. Internal flaws can grow with repeated loading on the blade.


Cheers
Chris
No doubt, a combination of age and mileage will induce a lot of infirmities and I can only empathize :)
On the other hand, I would not be excited having a sword that spent its entire life in some armoury, cleaned and oiled at 3 months intervals.

I have a wakizashi that bears a signature of somebody from 13th(?) century. Probably, forged. It is so old, that it has about half of its original width left. I dread to think of all the mechanical stresses it went through. I would not dream offering it to somebody for a cutting test. But, if it had been polished and repolished so many times, it must have signified something to its many owners. It earned a comfortable retirement in a company of other, equally scarred, veterans.

[Chris Evans]

I have a wakizashi that bears a signature of somebody from 13th(?) century. Probably, forged. It is so old, that it has about half of its original width left. I dread to think of all the mechanical stresses it went through. I would not dream offering it to somebody for a cutting test. But, if it had been polished and repolished so many times, it must have signified something to its many owners. It earned a comfortable retirement in a company of other, equally scarred, veterans.

And I bet that it is worth quite a bit! ;)

Cheers
Chris

[ariel]

And I bet that it is worth quite a bit! ;)

Cheers
Chris
Na-a-ah... I am sure no true Nihonto fanatic would want it.
I got it at a local gun and knife show in a pile of rusty bayonets and spent an equivalent of a sushi lunch on it. No sake.

[Lee]

Bladesmith Dan Maragni told me once that for a while, British Army blades were being very strenuously tested, every one, as they came into service, to assure quality. They passed the test but went on to fail in use. The severity of the testing had damaged them.

It is interesting when you have an opportunity to examine old blades, from the age of serious use, that have managed to survive above ground and dry. Very often there is evidence of deformity from use and its repair and rehoning. I gather nicks must be removed before the next use or the nick will be the starting point of failure when the blade is next put under load.

It is also interesting to consider what blades have survived in good numbers versus those once very common but now very scarce. Odd specialized specimens were possibly less likely to be "used up" or perhaps saved as a curiosity while some mainline medieval forms that continued in use for a very long time must have been pretty much exhausted as they are quite scarce in surviving material.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Lee,

Bladesmith Dan Maragni told me once that for a while, British Army blades were being very strenuously tested, every one, as they came into service, to assure quality. They passed the test but went on to fail in use. The severity of the testing had damaged them

Possibly, but not necessarily. Swords can fail in any number of ways due to either a single overloading or cumulative wear and tear. Also the proof tests were by no means exact replicas of all the loads that could be expected in service. A good many failures occurred at the tang, when the blade encountered severe resistance, as when hit by another weapon; Very hard to proof test for - A common cause for failure at this point was a sharp corner, as opposed to a well rounded blend in, where the tang met the blade. A crack would start growing at the said corner. Pre assembly visual inspection would have been the better way to go. Also some tangs were ridiculously weak and would fail the moment that the hilt developed some play.

Also those proof tests were by no means all that thorough. I have a Brit sabre that has the proof stamp, yet the blade has a large forging flaw and have seen others obviously only nominally tested : They were so badly heat treated that they bent at the slightest flexing - Paid off inspectors?

It is also interesting to consider what blades have survived in good numbers versus those once very common but now very scarce. Odd specialized specimens were possibly less likely to be "used up" or perhaps saved as a curiosity while some mainline medieval forms that continued in use for a very long time must have been pretty much exhausted as they are quite scarce in surviving material.

I often wondered about this myself. Perhaps some blades lapsed into obsolescence due to the onset of better designs and as such were retired before badly damaged and ended up on the walls of the rich. Also what was retained in collections, probably reflected a predisposition towards what looked good, as opposed to the desire provide a historical record for later day hoplologists.

Cheers
Chris

[tsubame1]

I have a reference, somewhere in my library, in which an experienced old samurai criticized a display of helmet splitting, by a colleague, arguing that he cheated buy using a naginata blade. Perhaps tsubame1 (carlo) can help us out here.

Naginata is for sure a thicker blade then a Katana. Anyway,
Kabutowari (helmet-cutting), even if much less known then other forms of
fixing Wazamono rating (ability to cut) has been performed in old times and
a fist of times in modern days too, with swords. The most known is the one advertised here : http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html . This link provides further information about past Kabutowari tests as well.

Nonetheless this specific cutting test isn't IMHO enough historically accurate.
The blade IS NOT a NihonTo. Is a blade made by Paul Champagne, that's for sure an incredibly good blade, but has no value for a comparative test with NihonTo. More belivable is the previous test (which likely Obata Toshihiro has been inspired by) made by Terutaka Kawabata Sensei.

The following picture (not reported in that site) refers to the experiment made by (scroll down to Post-Meiji attempts in the link provided) Terutaka Kawabata Sensei with Yoshihara Yoshindo *unmounted* blade. This detail is of great importance and this is the reason I scanned the picture (Obata test was made the same way, without a proper made handle).
These tests are often referred to as unreliable due to the fact the neck of
the helmet's owner would absorbe a lot of energy (resulting, IMHO, in the breaking of the said neck BTW...), an opponent isn't a fixed target but a mobile one (of no pertinence, IMHO) and that the helmet was old and possibly already damaged. Even if the first statement can have some validity, as per the 3rd one the helmet was accurately choosen and of good quality (sic...) and the blade made the traditional way. The lack of mounting can only add to the ability of the cutters and, in a lesser way, to the quality of the blades. Being the helmet, for it's shape and paramount importance, likely the most resistant part of the armor, it can be, IMHO, safely assumed that *some* armors, might be the lesser or lighter ones, could be cut *in some places* (sleeves and other) by a sword (not necessarily a japanese one and no matter about the steel used).

As per swords durability : Oakeshott used to say "a sword has 3 battles or
3 hundred years in it, whichever come first".

Quiet exaggerate IMHO (at least for NihonTo that have 9 centuries battle-proof living examples...), but gives a good idea about a general rule : nothing is forever in this world and the swords that have survived till today either :

a) have seen few to no usage

b) have been used, even heavily, but were of very high quality

c) had an incredible amount of luck

d) an interesting mix of the previous three statements .

[ariel]

So, going back to the combat value of the woorz blades: do we think that the poetic descriptions of Shah Ismail's cutting feats ( see my earlier post) are compatible with real abilities of a very good wootz sword or are gross exaggerations?

[tsubame1]

So, going back to the combat value of the woorz blades: do we think that the poetic descriptions of Shah Ismail's cutting feats ( see my earlier post) are compatible with real abilities of a very good wootz sword or are gross exaggerations?

Does he provides the geometry of the blade involved ?

[Rivkin]

Muhammad Mansur Mubarak-Shah in Qitab Adab al-Harb... is quite clear that "gorz (mace), chubak (similar to mace, i think in english it is called warhammer ?), hudzhikan (spear), bulkoteg (another type of mace) - weapon of those confident in their strength and is used against those dressed in ...(names of different types of armor) armor". He gives a few examples of the use of these weapons, telling that tabar can also be used against armored cavalrymen, but never does he speak about swords being used against them. It is obvious that sword can be used against armour; we see numerous references to someone cutting mail so badly it looked like that on David (by memory).
However, from manual it seems to be clear (to me) that sword in principle was not a primeral weapon against heavily armored soldiers: spear, mace-like weapons, even arrows were used against mail.
Now, to Shah Ismail - I would believe in him killing a man, but head to toe, then guns, then another two men - that sounds more like hashish talking. What's the original source for this, I suppose legend ?

[S.Al-Anizi]

Going back to the combat value of wootz swords.
Iranian chronicles report that Shah Ismail at Chaldaran split a fully armoured opponent from head to saddle with one stroke of his wootz shamshir: helmet, mail, the works. Also, he split in two several enemies cutting them across the body or diagonally. He was also reported to cut 7 chains securing Turkish heavy guns with the same sword.


And then he was defeated :D You even ask ariel?! ;)

[tsubame1]

I would believe in him killing a man, but head to toe, then guns, then another two men - that sounds more like hashish talking. What's the original source for this, I suppose legend ?

This is obviously a legend. All cultures have similar accounts about the
swords they relied on.
Mace is likely the better weapon against heavy and even not so heavy armor
as chainmail proved to be very resistant even against arrows.
I think that the sword is in some way tied to mankind subconscious.
Even if the mace was so highly valued to begun the materialization of the King power in the sceptre, still is the sword that is used to give power to others and that is portraied in the tombs.
There were a variety of armors on the battlefield and legends always has a little truth in them, might be much lesser and more belivable events took place and were later made gigantic. Old advertising ?

[Lee]

The old Norse had their sagas, verbally handed down, as did most traditional cultures. Our technology gives us CGI enhanced motion pictures and television. In my opinion, the heroic, exaggerated content is the same as always, only the technology has been updated. And I am sure that to have heard one of these tales very well told while sitting around the fire on a cold night then was as much a thrill for my ancestors as that excitement which I experience occasionally at the theater.

[Chris Evans]

Folks,

When attempting to assess extraordinary cutting feats with swords, disregarding the attributes of the steel for a moment, we also have to consider the energy input required to make the cut.

To put it into simple terms: When felling green timber, the quality of the steel from which the axe is made is not all that critical, yet nobody would expect to cut through a smallish tree in a single stroke. Why not? Because the energy required exceeds that which even the most powerful swing can generate - And even if such a mighty lumberman did exists, the handle of the axe would fail.

Now, we have to remember that energy is required not only for the shearing of whatever is being cut, but also to displace the already cut material sideways, so that the thicker shouder of the blade can penetrates, not just its edge. Just what a considerable drain on energy this can be, is best illustrated when cutting with a sword into a large block of moist potters clay. The hardness/toughness/sharpness of the blade in this instance is comparatively insignificant, yet the blade will come to a halt after only a few inches of penetration. The energy of the sword is dissipated by the effort required to displace the cut clay and the friction that the flat of the blade encounters.

I imagine that cleaving through a human body clad in armour, even light armour, will require more energy than what can be delivered by even the mightiest sword arm - Never mind the hilt standing up to the task.


There is a often quoted story from the Napoleonic wars in which a Brit cavalryman cleaved a Frenchmans head, cutting right through his helmet, which I believe was made from brass. But despite that he was using the famous 1796 pattern sabre, and steel quality was not an issue, the cut only reached the victim's jaws, or thereabouts.

I think that extraordinary sword feats from the distant past parallel those of the old archers. Feats that when subjected to mechanical analysis, do not stack up all that well.

Cheers
Chris

[tsubame1]

Now, we have to remember that energy is required not only for the shearing of whatever is being cut, but also to displace the already cut material sideways, so that the thicker shouder of the blade can penetrates, not just its edge. ...OMISSIS... The energy of the sword is dissipated by the effort required to displace the cut clay and the friction that the flat of the blade encounters.

So true that the japaneses polishes their blade from back to edge and by hand instead of from handle to point with wheel-grinders as most of other cultures. In this way they create the Niku (http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/niku.htm)
that helps to displace the already cut material sideway. The way to perform the cut is also important, as well as the weight of the blade, a detail undervalued by many wannabe experts.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Carlo,

So true that the japaneses polishes their blade from back to edge and by hand instead of from handle to point with wheel-grinders as most of other cultures. In this way they create the Niku (http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/niku.htm)
that helps to displace the already cut material sideway. The way to perform the cut is also important, as well as the weight of the blade, a detail undervalued by many wannabe experts.

Absolutely so.

I don't know if you came across this article:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/artsguerriers/divers/sabrekatana.htm

Unfortunately it is in French, but can be translated with Alta Vista's Babelfish. Makes for very interesting reading. I suspect that the sabre in question must have been an experimental one, because all the 19th century military sabres that I have seen, had edge geometries very similar to that of Japanese swords.

Deep fullers can reduce the friction encountered, but that to me is something of an overstated argument because on sabres, the COP usually falls right where the fuller ends.

Here are some measurements that I have made on two of my sabres:

Ames 1862 :Edge angle at COP: 22deg At 3"from pt 17.68deg Blade thickness at COP 5.5mm and 3"from pt 3.5mm

Brit 1854 :Edge angle at COP: 23.53deg At 3"from pt:20.6deg. Blade thickness at COP 5mm and at 3"from pt 4mm

Perhaps you could tell us how these geometries compare with that of Japanese blades. Unfortunately, I do not have one at the moment.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Carlo and Folks,

Sorry about that link, but it seems to have gone dead.

It was the story of a French soldier, a keen sabreur and advocate of the cut, who whilst in Japan in the late 19th century compared his sabre against the native sword. In test cutting, he claimed to outdo the Japanese on account of his swords better edge geometry - No, he did not cut into helmets.

Whilst no doubt a thin foible on a sword adds up to deeper penetration, the sweet spot around the COP is reduced and the blade can be ruined much more easily with a less than expert cut.

That article is probably obtainable from another website, so I'll start looking.

Cheers
Chris

[tsubame1]

Hi Carlo,



Absolutely so.

I don't know if you came across this article:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/artsguerriers/divers/sabrekatana.htm

Unfortunately it is in French, but can be translated with Alta Vista's Babelfish. Makes for very interesting reading. I suspect that the sabre in question must have been an experimental one, because all the 19th century military sabres that I have seen, had edge geometries very similar to that of Japanese swords.

Deep fullers can reduce the friction encountered, but that to me is something of an overstated argument because on sabres, the COP usually falls right where the fuller ends.

Here are some measurements that I have made on two of my sabres:

Ames 1862 :Edge angle at COP: 22deg At 3"from pt 17.68deg Blade thickness at COP 5.5mm and 3"from pt 3.5mm

Brit 1854 :Edge angle at COP: 23.53deg At 3"from pt:20.6deg. Blade thickness at COP 5mm and at 3"from pt 4mm

Perhaps you could tell us how these geometries compare with that of Japanese blades. Unfortunately, I do not have one at the moment.

Cheers
Chris

It's hard to me to give edge angles due to the above mentioned Niku that offers a curved surface to measure. Kasane (spine thickness) on many of either my long blades and/or which I've access to and/or in my files is in that range at COP, a bit less tapering toward the point. Mihaba (width) is crucial and very variable too. Anyway I'm not sure the different processes of making (mass versus custom) can give us a good comparison between the two.
Military swords, being subjected to standardization, are by far easier to
compare (type versus type) then blades made to tightly fit the needs of a specific man, not to talk about difference in tall between europeans and japaneses and avoiding the nightmare of the different smithing schools.
Japanese long blades had only a top-lenght standardization in Edo, every weight or thickness or width allowed as far as it was functional, so it can vary a lot and the homogeneity is only apparent, IMHO. Same for curvature. Another difference is that fullers (Hi) in japanese weapons most of the times passes the COP and its positive/negative phisical action versus the gain in weight is highly debated by Tameshigiri (cutting) practicioners.

[ariel]

The "viscosity" of the material is one thing. But my question is somewhat different: what about cutting hard steel? Of course, there is the issue of lateral displacement and mechanical engineers among us can easily calculate the proportion of energy going laterally in a wedge.
But there is also an issue of hardness and resiliency: can one reasonably expect a superb wootz sword to cut through a substantial steel gun chain several times without being broken? Even a minute angle of contact would redistribute the energy to shatter the blade. Similarly, while we see old steel mails with cuts ( and we do not know whether these were done by an axe), can we expect a wootz blade slice through multiple, hardened rings to effect a " total body" cut?
My suspicion is that there is much more than the quality of steel in the final effect. Also, wootz might have been much keener than regular steel, but it was of no advantage when dealing with real life objects.

[Jeff Pringle]

Also, wootz might have been much keener than regular steel, but it was of no advantage when dealing with real life objects.
Yes, it would just mean you would not have to sharpen it as often - that may have been the most obvious practical effect of wootz' superiority as a steel in it's era.
I've only seen analyses of early medaeval european mail, but those show iron, not steel for the link material.
;)

[Gt Obach]

also...... chain was usually made of wrought iron.. ... and this is a soft metal.... i really doubt that steel was used for this at this time.. ( big difference )

with a decent blade... you can cut into mild iron without much problem... i've done it several times... actually..... in the forge i have a cold cut that i use weekly to cut 1/2 mild rounds..... and rarely have to dress the edge...

i realize that not everyone deals with this daily basis... but a properly heat treated piece of steel with good edge geometry should have no problem with mild iron or wrought iron..


on cutting....... theres also a big difference between a chopping cut and a draw cut...... with a draw cut......distal taper has a big effect when pulling the blade through the target... .... aswell as adding to a swords ability to resist bending in a local area

Greg

[Gt Obach]

actually... if you do a search you can find plenty on wrought iron chain... .... -wrought iron being iron made by a reduction process in a bloom furnance... ... - a spongy bloom of iron and silicate slag is produced..... this is then folded and forge welded many times... to squeeze out some of the silicate slags.... and evenly spread out the remaining stringers....

the low grade has lots of large stringers... and used for stuff like wagon wheels...
-- if you fold the lower grade many more times.....it becomes more homogenous .... and this is what you would use for chain..... still today... if you want some high grade wrought for knife fittings... you still can get this will large boat or anchor chains.....

-- and it is soft... very little carbon in it.... and not hardenable (unless altered) ..... corrosion resistant, and tough, fiberous, .... very desirable for its easy forge welding

both of my peter wright anvils have a wrought iron body and a steel plate for the face... and its only a 100 years old... .. so wrought was still used for a long time


Greg

[Chris Evans]

ariel,

I ask if you would be surprised if a chisel would cut through the said chain/armour. I think that the safe answer is no. Then why not?

Because a chisel's edge has a different geometry, more obtuse, AND because several hammer blows can impart the required energy - One just keeps on hammering until the cut is effected.

Of course, such edge geometry, except on a very specialized sword, would not do at all for an all purpose weapon. And then a single cut is unlikely to have sufficient energy to finish the job.

I have a utility knife that I made from a high speed alloy tools steel blade. Hard as hell and full of carbides (can barely sharpen it) . When a saw, it used to cut steel bars. Once, for an experiment I tried to cut a small, around 1mm dia, nail with it and the edge started to nick. Why? because its low angle edge could not support the load imposed on it. Cuts fine otherwise, but not nails. The steel is the same, but the edge geometry has changed.



GT Obach: A small comment on wrought iron chain

You are spot in your remarks. I just would like to add, that those slag inclusions in wrought iron chain are highly desirable because they act as crack arrestors. This and its superior corrosion resistance is why wrought iron is the preferred metal for ship's anchor chain - Very tough and shock absorbent, yet soft, malleable and easily hammer welded.

Cheers
Chris

[ariel]

So, Chris and Greg, as the most knowledgeable "metal" people around, here is the question to summarize all questions: is there a real practical, combat advantage of wootz over a good steel? I am not talking about super-duper modern steels , but want to compare apples to apples: take a 17-18th century wootz shamshir or khanda (made by the best masters of the time)and pit it against best contemporary European blades.

Assuming the task set for all of them is not a show-y handkercief cutting, but a real battle use by competent cavalry men, will there be an appreciable difference in performance? What advantages or disadvantages would you predict for each?

[Chris Evans]

ariel,

So, Chris and Greg, as the most knowledgeable "metal" people around, here is the question to summarize all questions: is there a real practical, combat advantage of wootz over a good steel? I am not talking about super-duper modern steels , but want to compare apples to apples: take a 17-18th century wootz shamshir or khanda (made by the best masters of the time)and pit it against best contemporary European blades.

Assuming the task set for all of them is not a show-y handkercief cutting, but a real battle use by competent cavalry men, will there be an appreciable difference in performance? What advantages or disadvantages would you predict for each?

Like I said at the outset, I never had the opportunity to examine wootz. All I know about it is what has been published here and there and from learned reports from people like Ann, who is the real expert on this metal here.

Trying to extract a black and white judgement out of metallurgists on a subject like this, is like pulling the proverbial hen's teeth. As opposed to laymen, we are aware of too many variables that can have an effect and as such we are reluctant to commit ourselves. With that said, in my student days, almost half a century ago ( Blast - just gave the game away!), wootz was often mentioned as an early example of a superior steel that was held in extraordinarily high regard in Europe.

Disclaimer: I am writing this on the run, and could easily have left something out, so please don't shoot - OK?

If you truly were comparing apples with apples, then you would take the sword out of the mix and just compare a large number of test specimens, so as to be representative of what could be expected on average, made from wootz and Euro steel from a given time frame (worked/heat treated to the degree that it would be in the sword) and test it for:

a) Hardness (macro and micro);
b) Tensile strength;
c) Impact (Charpy/Izod);
d) Establish the brittle trans temp;
e) Hardenability
f) Chemical analysis:

These would give you the basic properties -Then, you would have to do additional tests to see which of the steels is easier to forge or shape, and which is more unforgiving of its heat treatment.

With all that out of the way, you would then have to relate all this information to the sword's design and intended application, and most importantly to the availability of a skilled workforce.

For example, a purely thrusting sword, such as a smallsword, is only expected to be a decent spring and not snap if flexed. The point does not require any out of the ordinary qualities. If however, the sword is of a lightish cut type, then the plot thickens, depending on what you intended to cut into: Military uniforms, semi naked tribal warriors in Africa or Asian armour.

My own gut feeling tells me that the variability of the steels of the olden days was so great, that on the whole, wootz was probably the better steel to start out with, though I hasten to add that it could be easily ruined during forging. So I'll stick my neck right out and take a chance: In all probability, the very best wootz swords were better than the very best Euro equivalents, though this did not necessarily translate into a military advantage. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the same applies to armies. The best cavalry sword is little use if you cannot secure large supplies at an affordable price, and if there is a shortage of horses, then you climbed the wrong tree.

To my mind, the whole secret of the unparalleled success of Europe in war, is attributable to a general disregard for excellence and instead a more pragmatic concern for the lowest common denominator, which was better than of her rivals.

I hope that I have not muddied the waters too much.

Cheers
Chris

[tsubame1]

...OMISSIS...which is more unforgiving of its heat treatment.

With all that out of the way, you would then have to relate all this information to the sword's design and intended application, and most importantly to the availability of a skilled workforce. ...OMISSIS..., though I hasten to add that it could be easily ruined during forging.

I agree, because these considerations bring up again that a steel is as good as the smith is able to make it so. Wootz and middle eastern smiths were a mix that together made extraordinary works. The best wootz in the hands of an unskilled (with THAT steel) smith gives for sure a bad result.

As discussing about cutting heavy chains, men in full armor and gun barrels or birds feathers I'm under the STRONG impression it is only a way to dismiss wootz. These are obviously exagaggerations, hypes that ALL and EVERY culture had in its heritage.
There is no way to say from armchair or on a gym-based fencing knowledge if wootz cuts better then eurosteel and/or if it was a merely eye-candy.
A deep comparative analysis of the contents of the steels can give us
an idea about the components and properties of the steel, but NOBODY can
talk about the smiths skillfullness without having cut with such weapons.
If you wantn't rely on historical (???) accounts you should make your own database.
Japaneses had made their own cutting experiments even destroying very
valuable weapons (see picture/captions below, a hundred thousand dollars today...) to test reliability of swords under every aspect (the picture refers to -60° C tests for brittleness in the '30, good for another topic elsewhere here, I believe).
Want to say if a great wootz blade cuts better then a great euro one ?
This forum has plentiful supply of antique dealers. Buy a bunch of swords
of both type, learn how to correctly use them and try on a historically correct target (the target topic only would request a lot of study). There is no other way to have definitive evidences. Everthing other are armchair speculations.

Test by Omura Kunitaro
Reference:
Nagoya Shinbun, Nagoya Shinbunsha, February, Showa 12
Shumi no Token Kenmasube, Omura Kunitaro, May, Showa 8
Nihonto no Kantei to Kenma, Omura Kunitaro and Fukunaga Suiken, June 1st, Showa 50.

1) Norimitsu katana, ni-ji mei, Sue Bizen kazu uchi mono, bent upon a single cut. (This blade was the first tested and it was at normal room temperature )
2) Norimitsu katana, (Blade from test 1) After it was conditioned to -60 ° C, it was broken when struck.
3) Tadamitsu katana, Bishu Osafune Tadamitsu, Meiou 3rd year 2 month day, a well made sword with horimono, conditioned under -60 ° C, broken when struck.
4) Masaiye tanto signed Mihara ju Masaiye, era Choroku , conditioned under -60 ° C, bent and large ha-gire when struck.
5) Yamato-mono katana, mumei, Oei period, conditioned under -60 ° C, bent and large ha-gire when struck.
6) Muramasa tanto, mumei, 2nd generation, conditioned under -60 ° C, bent when struck.
7) Mino-mono wakizashi, mumei, Oei period, conditioned under -60 ° C, bent when struck.
8) Morimasa wakizashi, Bishu Osafune Morimasa, Oei 21 year 2 month day, conditioned under -60 ° C, big and deep shinae occurred on the ji when struck.
9) Mihara-mono katana, mumei, Tenbun period, conditioned under -10 ° C bent with three large ha-gire when struck. One of these ha-gire caused the blade to break.
10) Sue Shimada-mono tanto, mumei, conditioned under -60 ° C broken when struck.
11) Shinto Seki mono, mumei, heavy and thick tanto, conditioned under -15 ° C broken, one big mune gire and three ha-gire when struck.
12) Signed and dated gendai tanto, by Toukoto in mid autumn of Showa 11, modern steel alloy of Tungsten and Molybdenum, conditioned under -60 ° C bent when struck.

[Jeff Pringle]

Buy a bunch of swords of both type, learn how to correctly use them and try on a historically correct target (the target topic only would request a lot of study). There is no other way to have definitive evidences.
Now that's a great idea, and sounds like good fun as well. :)
Not the only way to have a good idea of wootz's value, though - you could try to convince one of the few smiths making wootz today to do 2 identical blades, one in wootz and one in steel made from bloomery metal, and do empirical tests. (edit - even better, have him make charpy bars and really get quantifiable :D )
One way would require a lot of swords to even out the effects of different edge geometry, heat treatments, etc., the other is suspect 'cause it's just one datum, but either would get you closer to the answer.
;)

[ariel]

Carlo,
All of us are armchair specialists, yourself included (no offence). The age of chivalry is gone, swords are obsolete as weapons and nobody's life depends on the quality of his Katana, Shamshir or Shashka. Some of us still want to feel a small fraction of the thrill of sword wielding and cut empty Coke bottles, styrofoam noodles or green bamboo stalks in what they think is a "keeping of tradition". My kids, when they were little, fought dandelions in the backyard with plastic swords ( I did the same when I was their age :o ), and I see very little difference in the motivation and the enthusiasm of a 5 year-old with a sword from Toy-R-US in a backyard and a 40 year-old with a custom-made katana in a Dojo. Neither should be embarrassed in the least.
It's just a game, no more.

I would view practical tests that you suggest using an Assadollah's Shamshir or Masamune's Katana as acts of vandalism, akin to testing the durability of Rafael's paints by pouring acid on the canvas. This thread was about examining legends of wootz swords possessing almost magical qualities. We can use contemporary knowledge of metallurgy and what little actual info we have. The old accounts of incredible cutting feats seem to be exaggerated ( as Lee wisely mentioned, they are seen in all cultures, in all times, and are best suited to campfire chats).
We shall never (hopefully!) be so dumb as to plan any practical tests. The money you mentioned is only a minor factor: it is the destruction of the object of art that would hopefully stop us from committing the folly.

Until then, let kids behead dandelions, grown men pretend being samurai or vikings, metalworkers make better and better blades , with Kirk, without Kirk, this hardness, that resilience to cold temperatures, and then all of us can sit in our comfy armchairs with a glass of Grappa or beer and swap stories.

[ariel]

BTW, here is an example of what can happen to wootz.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=003&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=130038740731&rd=1&rd=1
Look at the very first picture: very big area of delamination.

[katana]

BTW, here is an example of what can happen to wootz.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=003&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=130038740731&rd=1&rd=1
Look at the very first picture: very big area of delamination.

Hi Ariel, is this the area you are referring to....?

[S.Al-Anizi]

That seems like a fatigued edge.

[ariel]

That's the one.
BTW, whose signature is in the cartouche?
Another Assadollah? :)

[tsubame1]

Carlo,
All of us are armchair specialists, yourself included (no offence).

Yes, the problem is that I wantn't to seem anything more than this.

Some of us still want to feel a small fraction of the thrill of sword wielding and cut empty Coke bottles, styrofoam noodles or green bamboo stalks in what they think is a "keeping of tradition". My kids, when they were little, fought dandelions in the backyard with plastic swords ( I did the same when I was their age :o ), and I see very little difference in the motivation and the enthusiasm of a 5 year-old with a sword from Toy-R-US in a backyard and a 40 year-old with a custom-made katana in a Dojo. Neither should be embarrassed in the least.
It's just a game, no more.

Correct. "The difference between a man and a child is the price of the toys..."

I would view practical tests that you suggest using an Assadollah's Shamshir or Masamune's Katana as acts of vandalism,

For sure. I'm still in pain thinking at that Muramasa Tanto in my previous pics.
But it was militarism and trianny that leadd to suc a moronish usage not
the nedd for knowledge.
Artzi will never give you an Assadollah for such a test, for sure, no matter how much you're friends... ;)

I prefer sakè rather then grappa. Chill and preferably by Ozeki factory (it's dry...) :)

[tsubame1]

BTW, here is an example of what can happen to wootz.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=003&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=130038740731&rd=1&rd=1
Look at the very first picture: very big area of delamination.

EDIT : I've realized that we're not talking about NihonTo. Ariel are you sure Wootz delaminate ? It's contrary about what I know about it.

[Jeff D]

That's the one.
BTW, whose signature is in the cartouche?
Another Assadollah? :)


Looks like an old weld repair to a chip, probably from cutting cannon barrels :) .

Jeff

[tsubame1]

you could try to convince one of the few smiths making wootz today to do 2 identical blades, one in wootz and one in steel made from bloomery metal, and do empirical tests. (edit - even better, have him make charpy bars and really get quantifiable :D )
One way would require a lot of swords to even out the effects of different edge geometry, heat treatments, etc., the other is suspect 'cause it's just one datum, but either would get you closer to the answer.
;)

By FAAAR a better idea than mine... :D

Strange that no such a smith posts here...

[ariel]

By FAAAR a better idea than mine... :D

Strange that no such a smith posts here...
Provided we can be certain that the contemporary wootz is identical to the original one, and, as far as I know, this is a very uncertain area. The best reviews of modern wootz sound like "... looks very similar in structure and appearance..."
BTW, in one of your earlier posts there was a picture of a helmet cutting test. Was the helmet real? Having seen that pic as well as the horror of "Sword testing", I seem to begin changing my opinion about Japanese reverence for their cultural objects :eek:
As for yor drinking taste, I am disappointed... I am giving you a way out: try Peruvian Pisco: it's their version of Grappa, but the grapes are different.
One glass and you look like that...

[tsubame1]

Provided we can be certain that the contemporary wootz is identical to the original one, and, as far as I know, this is a very uncertain area. The best reviews of modern wootz sound like "... looks very similar in structure and appearance..."
BTW, in one of your earlier posts there was a picture of a helmet cutting test. Was the helmet real? Having seen that pic as well as the horror of "Sword testing", I seem to begin changing my opinion about Japanese reverence for their cultural objects :eek:
As for yor drinking taste, I am disappointed... I am giving you a way out: try Peruvian Pisco: it's their version of Grappa, but the grapes are different.
One glass and you look like that...

mmm.. Are the dimensions of that c*ck related to the reason you know Pisco ? :rolleyes:
if it makes such a magic i've to try it.

Still waiting your explanation about how the heck wootz steel can delaminate...

[Gt Obach]

Hi

yes wootz has some odd fissures at times...... they can arise from many reasons... from air bubbles (that why you try to keep the top of the ingot for the back of the blade )... -- maybe some slag inclusion ---- or working the ingot too hot.....-- may also have some uneven distribution of elements..aswell

wootz does align in sheets.... but they are not like patternwelded blades....there is no weld boundaries.... so delamination is an awkward term for this.... and besides it shouldn't keep shearing appart....


as i like the question... was wootz combat worthy.... i did some tests today...

got out my last piece of wrought iron... a piece of flat bar... 3/16 thick... and used one of my wootz blades to test.....

i held the WI ontop of a large 190lbs piece of steel i have sitting in the forge..... i struck it many times.... with a very large wind up... .. and on one chop i actually cut the bar in half...
-- keep in mind that i can hammer things quite hard as i do enough smithing

as i have done far more stressful tests on my blades.....i wasn't worried about doing this to one of my knives....

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e396/dimenickel/test%20wootz/Picture004.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e396/dimenickel/test%20wootz/Picture005.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e396/dimenickel/test%20wootz/Picture008.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e396/dimenickel/test%20wootz/Picture009.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e396/dimenickel/test%20wootz/Picture011.jpg


so far..... the blade did have some damaged..... as you can see some of the etch was removed... (which i can easily redue )..... there is only a little chip that can be felt when running your finger nail on the edge..... but very hard to see........ this happened when i chopped through the wrought iron bar and into the corner of the steel underneath...... but i can redress this edge without worry...

the knife is 1/8 inch thick and inch and half wide......

actually i was shocked that there was a minute bit of damage.... it does tell me that i should maybe temper a little bit higher...... but thats it...... as i've done this test many times before with mild iron and 1/4 plate

the blade is my wootz type crucible steel... as it does come very close to the Indian style watering

now........ does this end the question...... i don't think so.... as this is a modern creation by me...... i can only stand by my word and hammer...

but it does tell you that i'm not scared of any turkish cannon chain.. :D

[ariel]

Greg,
This is remarkable! The most honest test I've heard of so far!
Can you repeat it with an equivalent of a European sword blade?
From now on, you can proudly carry a title " Assadollah Wisconsini"
And the Turks better beware: if you get any better, you will start slashing through cannon barrels :eek: :eek: :eek: :D

[Gt Obach]

thanks

i should mention abit about the blade..... the ingot was designed to be 1.5% carbon...... and it was quenched into oil to harden.... ... and tempered twice in an oven to toughen it....
-- also the air temperature yesterday was about 10 celsius

- and i also did several small chops before the two large ones... you can see several v grooves at the top about 1/4 inch deep (sorry for bad photos )
- two large chops.... my accuracy went off on the first one.... and i chopped a piece off the end of the bar which flew into some corner of the shop...??? ... it slipped abit with the tongs i used to hold the Wrought iron... but second shot was on the mark

-- i would not expect an air quenched wootz to do the same..... as its edge will have different characteristics...... ... so becareful if you decide to test a blade on a cannon chain and end up with an impacted edge.. ;)

yes.. a euro blade would be a good test aswell.... i'll see what i can come up with for a some what similar steel ....
-- my guess is that it would also hold up quite well !

Greg

[Rivkin]

I have no problem with wootz cutting iron, nor with "simple" steel cutting iron - remember eisenhower, gurda marks, which to some extent precisely mean - cuts through iron. Now here comes my difference from Jim - he would cite you all the literature, but I am lazy, so I want :):
These marks probably appear around XVIIth century, and probably "cut an iron nail" test becomes a standard perfomance test sometime around this date.

Now, after reading about 15 different middle eastern authors and western travelers on middle eastern warfare, I find interesting pattern: western swords, specifically those sold by supposedly vikings to the middle east are highly praised for their quality, something until XIIIth century. Then you start seeing things that suggest that they are of not highest quality (like an edict requiring prosecution of masters who make "frankish"-like swords, but selling them as "damascus", extensive praise for hindu swords, with also extensive reference to their beauty, and, sometimes - directly to their fighting qualities (even though it is often said that such swords are "hard" and good to cut this, and such swords are soft and they are better in cutting that) starts to be applied consistently.

Now, we know quite a few western swords from before XIVth century used in the Middle East (Alexandria arsenal may be not the best example). But I checked numerous accounts of traders to Safavid Persia - not a single one was importing swords.
But then in early XVIIIth century we see that western swords reappear again.

However it can all be explained not only by variations in western vs. eastern swords qualities but also by the dynamics of trade routs and differences between western and eastern use of swords (popularity of slashing etc.).

[RSWORD]

As this interesting discussion winds down, I only have one thing to add. :D

[Jeff D]

As this interesting discussion winds down, I only have one thing to add. :D
Sweet Rick!
I will second that opinion :)

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,

I think that we gave this topic a pretty good airing, but by no means wrote the last word on the subject.

Someone brought this to my attention today:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.knives/browse_thread/thread/574f831a4ecffd34/b56bbef23a0311ac?hl=en#b56bbef23a0311ac

Carbon nanotubes?

Help - We need to get hold of that paper.

Cheers
Chris

[Rivkin]

Well, my personal impression is somewhat mixed. The article in Nature starts bad - it talks a lot about crusaders, about mysterious blades their encountered, and then says oh, here we analyze such blade - from XVIIIth century. Then it continues to say that wootz (called damascus in the paper) have exhibited highly unusual super-qualities. As we discussed in this thread, this is somewhat questionable. There are some authors who liked it, some, like for example Tournie, whom Manoucher quotes on a different issue, believed that wootz weapons are simply very bad ones, and mechanical damascus is much better. Then it says that the secret of making wootz was "lost" in XVIIIth century, but yet somehow Kyrgyz and other smiths were able to work with Anosov in creating wootz blades in XIXth century. Geurk did make some wootz weaponry relatively late in XIXth century, albeit I think he did not make wootz.

Then we go into subject of carbon nanotubes. Ok, carbon nanotubes. It is obvious that carbon in wootz samples formed some sort of structure and it is obvious that this pattern would be formed on a nanoscale. I guess 50 year ago, before the word "nano" started to mean "grant money", no one would really care to specifically mention the nanoscale. What is new in this article is that it is formed a nanotube structure rather than diamond or graphite. This is what significant over here, and it is indeed an interesting discovery. Which again requires certain reiteration of the question "what is Wootz ?" For example Anosov, as fas as I remember, believed that wootz should consist chemically from carbon and iron, and all these stories about alloying are wrong. He is also quoted that every steel with a pattern would be called "bulat" (he did not use the word "wootz") by the people, even though some of it is mechanical, i.e. "artificial bulat", and some is "real bulat". So again we need to agree on what is wootz. For example Pendrey &Verhoeven & company believe that ".... The prior studies claiming to have either reproduced the genuine Damascus steel or explained the mechanism of pattern formation are reviewed. None of these studies have allowed modern blade smiths to reproduce the steel. The author and a blade smith, Alfred Pendray, has developed a process with which Pendray can produce blades that match the microstructures of the best museum quality genuine Damascus blades", meaning I guess that everyone else's wootz is fake. If they would mention which museums blades are "quality genuine Damascus blades", and which are definitely not, despite having visual pattern, this would make me more happy.

[Chris Evans]

Rivkin,

Where did you see the article? Do you have a link to it?

Cheers
Chris

[Rivkin]

Rivkin,

Where did you see the article? Do you have a link to it?

Cheers
Chris

I can send the pdf file of the article to everyone who emails me via the site(I don't have enough storage for private messages) his/her email.

Btw, have you seen Wadsworth's review article ?

[Ian]

Chris:

It's unclear to me what properties carbon nanotubes and nanowires might convey to steel. The authors suggest that such structures might explain the extaordinary cutting properties and strength of wootz versus other steels. Since we are having trouble here agreeing that wootz per se did have such special properties, I would put the discovery of these microstructures in wootz as interesting observations deserving further attention, but far from conclusive evidence that they convey special properties to wootz and not other steels. Do we know that these nanotubes and nanowires do not occur in other types of steel? Do we know that such strcutures convey greater strength and sharper cutting edge?

I suspect that wootz is not unique in regard to having these structures. Perhaps Dr Ann can help us here.

The article abstract is here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/abs/444286a.html

You can purchase the full article online for $30 (I recommend the PDF version) here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/full/444286a.html. Or you can go to your local library, get the November 16, 2006 number of Nature, p. 286, and photocopy the article for pennies.

Ian.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Rivkin,

I can send the pdf file of the article to everyone who emails me via the site(I don't have enough storage for private messages) his/her email.

Btw, have you seen Wadsworth's review article ?

Sent you an e-mail to take up your very kind offer. Thank you.

No, I haven't seen Wadsworth's article. Where is it available?

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ian,

Chris:

It's unclear to me what properties carbon nanotubes and nanowires might convey to steel. .

I learned and practiced my metallurgy before the advent of so called nano-technology, so I confess absolute and total ignorance about the effects of sub microscopic structural components on the mechanical properties of steels, indeed any material. At this stage, all I can do is apply some basic logic to evaluate the evidence presented. But first I must read the full paper.


The authors suggest that such structures might explain the extaordinary cutting properties and strength of wootz versus other steels. Since we are having trouble here agreeing that wootz per se did have such special properties, I would put the discovery of these microstructures in wootz as interesting observations deserving further attention, but far from conclusive evidence that they convey special properties to wootz and not other steels. .

I thinks that we can safely accept that Wootz was, if properly forged and heat treated, at least potentially a notch above other contemporary steels. GT Obach's experience is agood example, and even 50yrs ago it was talked about (by metallurgists) as an outstanding early steel.

However, you raise the same points that I immediately thought of, namely that the same sub-microscopy structures may be found in other steels and may not be exclusive to Wootz.

Additionally, I have yet to see (it may have been published but I haven't seen it) comprehensive mechanical test results of Wootz vs more primitive steels, not to mention an exhaustive analysis of the mechanical loads that a sword edge is expected to cope with. Hardness I have seen, but not the other properties - We need this data before we can make valid comparisons. If it turns out that Wootz did indeed have superiors mechanical qualities over good quality primitive steel, then we can start exploring the contribution, if any, of its sub-microscopic structure.

Cheers
Chris

[Ann Feuerbach]

Hi all,
Just got back from a conference and will be reading the nature article soon. I have seen some work on nano structure in a 2004 article. History section in all these areas are bad. FYI wootz, only from 1795, not a real word, too bad it is used so much as it is so inaccurate and as no etymological roots.
:)

[Andrew]

Hi all,
Just got back from a conference and will be reading the nature article soon. I have seen some work on nano structure in a 2004 article. History section in all these areas are bad. FYI wootz, only from 1795, not a real word, too bad it is used so much as it is so inaccurate and as no etymological roots.
:)

Hi Ann. Welcome back. :)

So, it sounds like the much more accurate term would simply be "crucible steel"? How about the term "balut"?

[Ian]

Hi all,
Just got back from a conference and will be reading the nature article soon. I have seen some work on nano structure in a 2004 article. History section in all these areas are bad. FYI wootz, only from 1795, not a real word, too bad it is used so much as it is so inaccurate and as no etymological roots.
:)Thanks Ann.

Hope the conference was enjoyable, informative and productive. Like Andrew, I would welcome your suggestion for a better term than wootz. Look forward to hearing your views about the possible significance of these fine sub-micronic structures that have been described recently.

Regards,

Ian.

[Ann Feuerbach]

Hi all,
Bulat is good, but pulad (phulad) is better, because bulat comes from pulad or a related term and variations of the word pulad can be found in many languages. I did an etymological study of the words. The earliest use of the term pulad is a 6th century AD text. It may have originally came from Sanskrit or Avesten (which had a common root language). In sanskrit languages the prefix pu means pure or purify, while there are hundreds of words for iron in the languages of India including loha, lauha, etc. Pu loha (meaning pure or purified iron) or such was probably the origin for the word. I have checked this theory out with Sanskrit scholars and they agree with this.

I have no problem with the use of the term wootz when refering specifially to Indian steel, but the word assumes a geographic location, which can be inaccurate and assuming. I prefer the term crucible Damascus steel to prevent assumptions.

On a related note: If I read one more reference in the news, including the Nature article and National Geographic news (where the author even contacted me but took no notice to what I said) to the process being only from India, being lost, and references to crusaders and Damascus, Syria I am going to scream!
:eek:

[Rivkin]

I think what we have here is a cultural issue. I grew up in a commpunity (Asia/Eastern Europe) where "bulat" novadays simply means steel. Any steel. Even if you buy almost any translational of any old text, you will see that translator uses word "bulat" with no regard for the original text, i.e. assumes that it simply means steel. This is why you occasionally see russian works on bulat that pronounce that you know what (since we don't know how to call it ?), was used by Roland, prince Igor and virtually every other historic person, because the author did not check the manuscript's original for the exact _original_ wording.

Even in XIXth century, per Anosov, bulat meant any steel with a pattern, whether it is mechanical, you know what, or something even more simple.

The "wootz" word for me is a slang and I think we need such a word to clearly identify what we are talking about.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,

Rivkin very kindly sent me a copy of that paper that was published in Nature. He is indeed a gentleman and a scholar and my sincerest thanks go to him

I hurriedly read it and the thing that immediately struck me is is the claim that Wootz had superior qualities, without telling us which exact attributes were being talked about. After all, in the context of swords, there are a number of mechanical properties that are considered desirable, most having to do with hardness and toughness. Hardness, is relatively simple, but toughness has many aspects.

The most often mentioned advantage of Wootz is its supposed combination of hardness and ductility resulting from the presence of carbides and nearly pure iron in its microstructure. The simplistic logic appears to be that the hard carbides do the cutting and the soft near pure iron provides the toughness. This paradigm is contrasted by that of conventional quenched & tempered Martensitic steels in which the same homogenous microstructure embodies both attributes.

Whilst true to some extent, I have a lot of trouble in accepting the above line of reasoning as a justification for declaring Wootz to be a superior steel. After all, it is well known that steel obtains its optimal hardness and toughness in the quenched and tempered Martensitic state, though I hasten to add, that work hardened Pearlitic steels, such as piano wire, can also be both surprisingly tough and hard. Whether Wotz swords were ever work hardened to to the same extent as modern piano wire, I have yet to find out.

A theoretical evaluation, from first principles, of Wootz is very difficult because the very large number of variables to be considered and all this has to be done in the context of various sword, the design of which introduces yet more variables.

Based on the papers that I read, most Wootz blades were not Martensic, rather work hardened Pearlitic with additional iron carbide embedded in it, though GT Obach did make the very important observation that partially quenched Martensitic blades, where the edge was expected to do the cutting, as well as fully quenched, were not uncommon. However, here we have to remember that once the carbon content of Martensitic steels exceeds 0.8%, the surplus carbon precipitates out as iron carbide, which can have detrimental effects on toughness, depending on its microstructure and localization. Whilst this effect can be minimized with very careful heat treatment, it is extremely unlikely that the ancients would have had the means or knowledge to achieve this.

So where does this leave us in relation to carbon nanotubes and which properties did these influence? I am at a loss.

Just looking at the evidence that so far I have managed to lay my hands on, it would appear that in centuries past Wootz acquired its formidable reputation more than anything else on account of the fact that it was melted during firing.

Unlike primitive steel, Wootz was free from insoluble inclusions, such as slag, which would float to the surface -The presence of coarse lumps of impurities in primitive steel could greatly weaken it and hence the need to remove these and disperse uniformly what remained - This was done by the process of extensive hammering and folding. But the presence of these impurities could only be minimized, never eliminated, and as such, primitive Martensitic steel always had a question mark against it. Also, during the process of hammering and folding, often the welds were incomplete due to poor technique or bad luck, introducing additional flaws.

To complete this rambling, I should reiterate that the great disadvantage of primitive Martensitic steel, in contrast to Wootz, was its variability due to the then poor understanding of metallurgy, as well as the presence of slag like impurities.

Of course, Wootz was good steel to start out with, but the forging process could very easily ruin it and the end product was not necessarily any better than that made from primitive steel. I think, that by sheer chance, it was possible to make a sword out of primitive Martensitic steel that was every bit as good as those made from Wootz, for in the end, all that was required was a correctly heat treated blade of about 0.8% carbon (optimal) and largely free from slag inclusions; But given the then extant incomplete knowledge of metallurgy and on the balance of probabilities, the odds lay with Wootz to deliver a superior blade.


Cheers
Chris

[tsubame1]

Of course, Wootz was good steel to start out with, but the forging process could very easily ruin it and the end product was not necessarily any better than that made from primitive steel. I think, that by sheer chance, it was possible to make a sword out of primitive Martensitic steel that was every bit as good as those made from Wootz, for in the end, all that was required was a correctly heat treated blade of about 0.8% carbon (optimal) and largely free from slag inclusions; But given the then extant incomplete knowledge of metallurgy and on the balance of probabilities, the odds lay with Wootz to deliver a superior blade.

This gives me the possibility to highlight again that in order to evaluate
the "true combat value of wootz" as this thread is named, we should consider
the SMITH too.

Assuming (and i'm only saying ASSUMING) that the wootz is no better then
other western steels, we get only half of the equation's result. Might be the
great performances that the wootz is assumed to have are due to the
abilities the smiths achieved in working this material.
May be both were only slightly superior in front of western ones but adding
such slight superiorities we get a not-so-slight superiority.
The smith factor is overlooked in this thread making it a debate about
sheer composition of the steel, not the qualities he can achieve with
proper and skillfull smithing. "Nanostructures" of rough material can be
useless to a crappy smith.

[Gt Obach]

I'd completely agree with that.. ... very good points..

i will add... something here..

if you look at one factor in steel such as grain size... if you have a large grain size, the steel won't be as tough and can crack easier..... Now... the same steel with a very small grain size will be much tougher and resist cracking

now... if you look at the 2 processes... when you forge weld steel, the temperature is very very high (yellow to white heat) and tends to grow the size of grain in the steel...... if you do not take steps to Normalize the steel.... you will have a steel that is weakened due to large grain... ... an experienced smith should know how to make the grain small again..!

The wootz forging process must be done at a lower heat.... from red to orange.... because any heat higher than that and you are very close to melting some of the components of the ingot... .. it is strange... but some components of the ingot matrix start to fall apart and the whole cake will become mushy/crumbly....
-- so by the very nature of wootz... it will force you to keep the grain structure small......

its something i'm familiar with having forged a few blades.... but i never seen it written about in the old historical accounts..


don't worry though..........if you have a patternwelded blade.... with a small grain structure .... it will be very tough steel aswell......

So it does boil down to....... a well made patternwelded or wootz blade, involves many people... if all these people do their job very well...... you'll have a very tough and beautiful sword...

Greg

[tsubame1]

Exactly Greg.
Michael "Tinker" Pierce is of the same advise as per the attachment
hereunder. I add a table about the temperatures at which you should get the
several structures (showed at microscope) too :

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,



1. What Carlo and GT Obach say about the input of the smith is absolutely correct and cannot be emphasized sufficiently. These days we concentrate a little too much on the potential of the basic steel and tend to disregard the process of forging and heat treatment, which in the old days was of equal or greater importance. We have to keep in mind that the ancients had no accurate means of measuring temperature and worse still, had little or no idea as to why things turned out (metallurgically) the way they did. Theirs was an entirely empirical process.

2. GT Obach: Did you ever do a metallographic examination of your quenched Wootz blades? If so, what was the carbide distribution like?

3. Carlo: Thank you for those illustrations of grain sizes and microstructures. For those who would like to read a little more, here is a good article, albeit a little heavy at times.

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/861397-Tb7pb9/861397.PDF


Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

Here is something that I picked up, written by Dr. John Verhoeven:

There is a general myth in some of the popular literature that genuine Damascus steel blades possess outstanding mechanical properties, often thought superior to modern steels. This idea was shown to be incorrect as long ago as 1924. A famous Swiss collector, Henri Moser, donated 4 genuine Damascus steel swords, one with a non typical carbon content and microstructure, to B. Zschokke, who performed extensive careful experiments including metallographic and chemical analysis in addition to mechanical testing [15]. A series of bending tests compared samples from the swords to a pattern welded blade and a cast blade from the famous German knife center in Solingen. The 3 good Damascus blades showed significantly inferior bending deflection prior to breakage than the 2 Solingen blades in spite of the fact that the Brinell hardness of the 3 ranged from only 193 to 248, compared to 347 and 463 for the pattern welded and cast Solingen blade, respectively. This is not too surprising in view of the now well known fact that toughness of high carbon steels is inherently low; the Solingen blades had carbon levels of 0.5 to 0.6% compared to 1.3 to 1.9% for the 3 Damascus blades. The reputation of Damascus steel blades being superior to European blades was probably established prior to the 17th century when European blades were still being made by forge welding of carburized iron. It is hard to avoid embrittlement of such blades due to imperfect welding during the forging process as well as difficulty with the carburizing process.

The full article is here: http://bronksknifeworks.com/historical.htm

I don't know how representative the samples studied were, but the above observations further support the view that Wootz was only outstanding when compared to the primitive steels of olden days. However, here is another article that puts things into a somewhat different perspective:

http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/237566.pdf

Cheers
Chris

[Ann Feuerbach]

Here is my two cents, extract from my PhD...
"The ductility of Damascus blades was one feature that distinguished it from other types of steels. Damascus steel blades typically contain spheroidal/globular cementite in a ferrite/pearlite matrix. Metallurgical experiments conducted by Ebner and Maurer (1982) on steel concluded that toughness and ductility coincide with a spheroidization of carbides. They also noted that additional tempering decreases the strength whereas toughness and ductility vary only slightly (Ebner and Maurer, 1982). Thus, the microstructure of hypereutectoid Damascus steel is optimum for ductility."

I think trying to determine which is the "best quality" sword is like trying to determine what the "Best" car is...American made? Japanese? German? Italian? British? depends on your needs, even the most expensive ones can produce a "lemon", while a cheaper car may perform very well for a long time, plus personal experience, preference, and how much you can afford. :)

[Gt Obach]

Hi

oddly... i do have abit that is suppose to be looked at.. and hopefully i'll get some good pic's from it...

but that is the problem right there... my steel is a modern crucible steel... and there is no way to make a connection a solid connection to the past.. .. i try to use the old recipes that are out there... .... ..it's like baking a cake with a list of ingredients and process... made by a person who is a casual observer..... ..... so there are alot of pieces missing to the puzzle..

i've read about the Zschokke swords and have real difficulty with some of the study..... such a narrow sample generalized to a whole sword population should be taken with a grain of salt.... it totally overlooks low carbon wootz... and other types of wootz...its not all made the same way..
-- also ... there are many ways wootz can be hardened... i'd like to hear about martensite... seemingly overlooked for some bizarre reason ?

actually what we really need is a series of studies.... from blades in crucible steel producing areas... and other regions... ... also the studies must be done by people who arent' going to benefit financially from the study..
( i know i'm asking alot... but i can dream )

onto my homebrew
I've said this in the past... that my steel functions much like a 1080 carbon steel... so i've never seen magic properties, just a very decent knife steel.....

oh by the way... if you want to read more about uhcs, det, detwad... theres tonnes of patents on the stuff... back in university i used to love to read it...

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,445,685.PN.&OS=PN/5,445,685&RS=PN/5,445,685

check the references..... and click on the blue links for more.... also look at the studies...
-- enough superplasticity to boggle the mind

oh and by the way... i just did a little tutorial on SFI about my forging process... . but be warned... I went picture crazy and the download might bore you to tears..

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=74040

take care
Greg

[Ann Feuerbach]

From Greg: "actually what we really need is a series of studies.... from blades in crucible steel producing areas... and other regions... ... also the studies must be done by people who arent' going to benefit financially from the study..
( i know i'm asking alot... but i can dream )"

No dream, I have put in a grant for such a study (and have been gathering data on this for years) cross you fingers I get the grant! I do hope to gain financially from the study (in the form of a book) but have no hidden agenda's of what the outcome of the study should be. Just need: time, money, and samples! :)

[Rivkin]

Chris Evans: thank you very, I appreciate your words, however wootz is not my specialty so here I am not a scholar.

Because of this topic I have consulted my library extensively in the past two months, with just a single conclusion - hell knows.

First of all there were collosal number of experiments performed on wootz blades starting with XIXth century (Moser collection, russian cavalry experiment, the most recent experiments by Tavadze and so on), with exactly opposite conclusions. In order to keep it "in bay" I would just address the russian part. all said below is my personal opinion.

Stage I - during russian-caucasian and russian-ottoman conflicts of early XIXthe century general Patto writes that the enemy's yataghans and shashkas are better than russian weapons. Assumption is made by the ministry of finance that this superiority is due to crucible damascus (wanted to say wootz) nature of the swords. Massive expeditions are mounted in all directions (central asia, caucasus, west) to find the secret.

Stage II - the expidition send to Caucasus collects various techniques and comes to a conclusion that neither shashkas nor yataghans are made of crucible damascus (too long, "crud" from now on), but rather - from mechanical one. Report is presented to the minister of Finance, supervising the effort. In the same time in Zlatoust georgian Revaz makes wootz weapons repeating indian patterns, but no one can reproduce his results by using his technique, so he is declared to be a crook.

Stage III Anosov publishes his techniques of "bulatization". Interesting notes:
1. He claims historical attribution of super-powers to bulat based on the literature (prince Igor) which never contained "bulat" in the original, the term was used in later translations.
2. He makes a few blades, repeating the "best" pattern of indian and khorasani swords, with very good cutting properties. The problem - the blades do not nearly match the chemical decomposition of indian blades they are compared with.
3. No one is able to reproduce any of his processes after Anosov's death (Chernov and others).

Stage IV - persian bulat blades completely fail the russian army test on bending. As a results all persian blades are given special standards, 3-4 times "lighter" than for other blades (i.e. 1/13th of a "line" rather than 1/4th of a "line" bending angle to be used in testing).

Stage V. Russian government nearly completely abandons the research.

[tsubame1]

3. Carlo: Thank you for those illustrations of grain sizes and microstructures. For those who would like to read a little more, here is a good article, albeit a little heavy at times.

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/861397-Tb7pb9/861397.PDF




Chris, thanks for the link. This is another one that, even if referred to
japanese swords only, is of high interest to the ones that are interested in
metallurgy. Many information of general interest :

http://xoomer.alice.it/tsubame/ZZZZZZ_DOWNLOADS.htm

Click on Tatsuo Inoue Swordsmithing file.

You've to download it.
Sadly it is no more on line and I've stored it into my website to preserve
the info from oblivion.

[tsubame1]

I think trying to determine which is the "best quality" sword is like trying to determine what the "Best" car is...American made? Japanese? German? Italian? British? depends on your needs, even the most expensive ones can produce a "lemon", while a cheaper car may perform very well for a long time, plus personal experience, preference, and how much you can afford. :)

You're right Dr. Ann.
This thread switched from "True combat value of the wootz" to "in order to produce swords is crucible damascus better then european steels in later times ?".
Whether, after the info provided, we can answer at the original topic
"wootz had good and true combat value", at the second question which the
thread has switched to, due to the almost exclusively western info provided
we can only reply the way you made : "depends on...".

[Chris Evans]

GT Obach and Ann,

I have been wondering about Martensitic (quench hardened) Wootz. I imagine that the practical difficulty would have been the avoidance of re-dissolving the iron carbides whilst Austenitizing and then upon quenching ending up with retained Austenite, as well as Martensite, which is a trait of high carbon steels and potentially disastrous to toughness.

I suppose that this could have been minimized by keeping the Asutenitizing temperature as low as possible, but in the absence of modern temperature measurement apparatus and knowing how to deal with the problem, I just cannot see how the ancients managed to get over it. Any thoughts?

Cheers
Chris

[Ann Feuerbach]

FYI, Personally, I have not come across any blades with Martensite. I would be interested in any metallurgical studies of antique blades that do have Martensite, so references please. :)

[Rivkin]

1. I could not agree more with the importance of smith's qualifications.
2. So do we move from wootz to "crucible damascus" or we stay with "wootz" ? I like wootz more - it is shorter.
3. The problem is also "what is wootz ?". For example, a lot of people do not believe that what Anosov made was anything similar (besides patterns) to traditional wootz.
4. While the subject is heavily obscured by myths and so on, it seems that comparison wootz vs. others were repeatedly made with different results (i.e. Anosov's bulat seemed to be of really high quality).

[Ann Feuerbach]

FYI, I have held the blade that Anosov made for Faraday. It had a light sham-like pattern, however, the blade was overcleaned and that may be why the pattern was faint and only visable near the handle.

[Rivkin]

The patterns - no problems. But is it true that their chemistry/structure is usually very different than the swords they were supposed to imitate ? Again, I guess you know this material, while I just read some papers, so I would really appreciate to be corrected here.

[tsubame1]

FYI, Personally, I have not come across any blades with Martensite. I would be interested in any metallurgical studies of antique blades that do have Martensite, so references please. :)

Hi Dr. Feuerbach.

NihonTo (japanese blades) have martensite. A very high quality work my Dr. Tatsuo Inoue
was online but it is now available only downloading it by my site here under the title "Tatsuo Inoue Swordsmithing file":

http://xoomer.alice.it/tsubame/ZZZZZZ_DOWNLOADS.htm

I believe that "Control of inclusions in japanese ancient iron and steelmaking"
(available in the same link) can be of some interest to you too...

[Gt Obach]

Hi

retained austenite is alway a problem with high alloys... especially with chromium.. .. I know Achim made a wootz with stainless levels of Cr ... and he did maintain it was tough... so i don't know .... if you reach the temp for martensite finish ... you should have good conversion... that why i like to undercool my blades abit... (just me being paranoid )


with the martensitic wootz.... you don't have an extended soak time as you would with other high alloy steel... I just treat it as a plain carbon steel with a very short 4 min soak at non-mag... ... basically, i don't want the large macro carbides to go into solution... just the steel matrix..... i know its abit bizarre.... just the opposite of modern heat treatments for high alloy steels... in the modern case you want the carbides to be dissolved
-- take for example A2 .... with 5% Cr needs 30 to 45 min at 1750 to 1800F for proper heat treat....

-- if you think about it..... part of the forging of the barstock is the growth of these macro carbides........ basically dissolving little ones and adding to the big.. .... through all those heat cycles......... from a black heat up to orange etc


also....... alot of the pattern of wootz has to do with how slow the cool time is from liquid charge to solid.... and.... combined with the roast time (anneal ) afterwards.......both time and temperature ...


just my opinion
;)

[tsubame1]

Can't find better words then the Ted Tenold's ones to describe the following pictures that shows the grouped martensite called "Nie" in japanese swords :

quote...

Nie is basically "spheroidal martensite" which are clumps of martensitic growth propogated by long high heat and maintained in a rapid agressive quench.

...unquote.

pictures by Keith Larman ( http://moderntosho.com ) :

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o95/tsubame1/jinie.jpg

close-close-close up :

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o95/tsubame1/jinie2.jpg

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ann,

FYI, Personally, I have not come across any blades with Martensite.

Neither was I aware that they existed until that earlier post by GT Obach and also this paper by Verhoeven and Pendray, available here:

http://met.iisc.ernet.in/~rangu/text.pdf

would be interested in any metallurgical studies of antique blades that do have Martensite, so references please. :)

So would I, but apart from the above, unfortunately I cannot help. I hasten to reiterate that as far as Wootz is concerned, I am a beginner on a steep learning curve.

I imagine that there must have been attempts to quench harden, as opposed to work harden, Wootz blades because of the superior hardness/strength attainable, but we do know the problems associated with quenching hypereutectoid steels. Perhaps quenching from the lowest possible temperature, established empirically would have minimized the problems to an acceptable level. Maybe, by sheer chance every now and then they managed to turn out a martensitic blade that wasn't badly flawed and performed superbly; I just cannot see the ancients regularly turning out superb Martensitic Wootz blades - Just my thoughts as an informed layman on the subject.

If I may impose on you a little: What is the highest measured hardness of a historical blade that you are aware of? And how was it tested (Brinell, Rockwell, Vickers)?.

I suspect that herein resides the original question of this thread. If Wootz swords were not quench hardened, merely work hardened, then I very much doubt that they could have ever been able to cut through armour, never mind wrought iron chains. And as such, whilst serviceable, their legendary reputations must have been based on gross exaggerations.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

GT Obach,

Thanks for that information. I have no doubt that with modern pyrometry and metallurgical know-how, we can get around the problems of producing Martensitic Wootz that performs - After all, you obviously did, as amply demonstrated by that cutting through wrought iron.

However, the question remains whether the ancients could do the same and to answer this, we need historical samples.

Cheers
Chris

[Gt Obach]

Hi Chris

you got it
-- we really need to test more ancient samples..... ... despite the couple studies that were done... i still have hope for some good martensite structures.....(i've been optimistic about it for years... ;)

there are a couple of accounts that talk about oil quenching... ( yes, i know words are not proof enough for either of us...but they are interesting to read. )

Massalski account : "When the blade has cooled, it is quenched in boiling hemp seed oil. Some armourers add a little grease and bone marrow. The wooden tub which contains the oil is sufficiently large for the blade to go in easily. The oil is heated by plunging two or three pieces of red hot iron into it. During this time the blade is given a heat between red and white hot, and then plunged into the bath. If it is a dagger it is held flat; if it is a sabre, it is quenched little by little, beginning by the end of the cutting edge, holding the latter toward the bath. This manoeuvre is repeated until the oil stops smoking, which proves that the blade has cooled. After quenching the blade is always soiled with burnt oil. This dirt is removed by heating it enough to set light to a piece of wood, and by rubbing with a rag from a bedsheet. It is at this time too that imperfections are corrected and the blade is straightened if it is out of true. After 5 or 6 heats the blade leaves the fire quite ready, i.e it then only has to be cleaned with sand, polished with emery and mottled by pickling in iron sulphate. "


I've got others just got to dig them up...

also... one last thing... I'm really not sure that the air quenched wootz would be able to cut a cannon chain... but i could be wrong..... it may cut flesh well but i'm not sure about the other... what i do know is that air cool wootz is much much harder to get a nice even etch on... ...


take care
Greg

[Chris Evans]

Hi Greg,

Many thanks for that account. It certainly cannot be ignored and is food for thought as it does support the case for Martensitic Wootz. Not being familiar with the author, when was it written?

As far as work hardened Pearlitic Wootz is concerned, my guess (based on modern similarly hardened products) is that the equivalent of 45Rc should be readily attainable. And this hardness level is that of many 19th century military sabres, so is quite serviceable, but not outstanding.

Cheers
Chris

[Marc]

Just as a pointer...

Chris, the text in PDF you linked is not an article from Verhoeven and Pendray, but an extract (only the main text, without the figures, nor the frontpage, foreword and acknowledgements) of a book written by a couple of Bangalore (India) researchers, Dr. Sharada Srinivasan and Prof. Srinivasa Ranganathan, from the National Institute of Advanced Studies and the Indian Institute of Science, respectively. I think these institutions acted as the publishers, also. The title of this work is "India's Legendary Wootz Steel: An Advanced Material of the Ancient World". It was commissioned by the company Tata Steel, and came out in 2004. The rest of the book can also be found in the same page (which is Prof. Ranganathan's, by the way, would anyone be concerned about Intellectual Property issues). The first pages are HERE (http://met.iisc.ernet.in/~rangu/frontpage.pdf), and the figures are HERE (http://met.iisc.ernet.in/~rangu/wootz-figures.pdf).

Good discussion, Gentlemen :)

[Ann Feuerbach]

Neither was I aware that they existed until that earlier post by GT Obach and also this paper by Verhoeven and Pendray, available here:
http://met.iisc.ernet.in/~rangu/text.pdf

Sorry to be a pain, but where in the book do they mention a historical crucible steel blade with martensite? I have had a look and can not find it. Plus is GT Orbach's one from replication or an historical object? I remember doing a survey of all known published historical crucible steel objects, and I do not remember any with martensite, but I could have missed it. :shrug:

Rivkin, As far as I recall, the information of Anasof's experiments, published by Bogachev, does suggest that his processes were comparable to traditional crucible steel ingredients and processes.

[Gt Obach]

Hi

Metallographic examination of two damascene steel blades... by Jerzy Piaskowski... 1978

no mention of Martensite but sorbitic matrix...

SORBITE:

Structure of steel, resulting from the tempering of martensite. In a truly sorbitic structure, the cementite is completely dispersed in the matrix. The trend is to call this structure tempered martensite.

this can be confusing... because i don't know if people still use that term sorbite... .. i know the bladesmiths all call it tempered martensite..


Look on pg 9 in the " discussions "
-- the structure of both blades is very uniform along the whole of the cross-section. The measurements of hardness showed identical values for each of the swords which, in turn, points to the fact that the blades were subjected to quenching and tempering, according to the descriptions by J. Barker and Massalski, who travelled in the Near East.


so... .. I was wrong...... as their is some evidence.....

thank you...
:D :D :D


Greg



another quote from the study..

" strips of carbides are visible to the naked eye on the blades surfaces and appear in the form of light coloured bands typical of the damascus pattern, whereas the dark background of this pattern forms a sorbitic matrix "

[tsubame1]

this can be confusing... because i don't know if people still use that term sorbite... .. i know the bladesmiths all call it tempered martensite.

You're right. Sorbite is martensite tempered at high temperatures (600°)
for quiet a long period and is known as tempered martensite.

Hereunder two exaples from my HD :

Typical structure of oil quenched martensite :

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o95/tsubame1/martensite.jpg

Sorbite (martensite quenched in oil and tempered at 600° C for 2 hours) :

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o95/tsubame1/Sorbite.jpg

[Rivkin]

Very interesting. I thought for example Anosov used graphite instead of traditional materials such as coal/wood. But taking in mind that I have no idea how smithing works, it well may be that I am saying that simple shocks the present in its ignorance :).

[tsubame1]

I thought for example Anosov used graphite instead of traditional materials such as coal/wood.

Usually graphite is found in cast (pig) iron being connected with a too much
high carbon content (2,8%-3,8%). I wonder if the burning of graphite
in these experiments can be connected with transferring some carbon to
steel or simply because it achieve the needed temperature in a faster
way or it can hold such temperature longer (only supposing about these two
last properties of graphite).

Japanese smiths transfer carbon to the blade using vegetal fiber wrapping
in certain stages of the smithing. Might be that putting steel into a
burning graphite bed is intended to the same aim to compensate the
carbon loss during the smithing ? Are wootz/crucible steel blades
folded many times as the japanese ones, meaning a loss of carbon in the
process and so needing a trick to maintain high the carbon content ?

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ann,

Sorry to be a pain, but where in the book do they mention a historical crucible steel blade with martensite? I have had a look and can not find it. Plus is GT Orbach's one from replication or an historical object? I remember doing a survey of all known published historical crucible steel objects, and I do not remember any with martensite, but I could have missed it. :shrug: .

First I must thank Frank for his correction and the supplementary links.

I found that link late in the night and read it too hastily. The authors were most certainly not by V&P - My mistake, for which I apologize.

In my haste, I did not read the work in full, just did a global search for the words `quench' and `Martensite'. However, it appears to me that the author links the hardening of Wootz with quenching and tempering, but I add, none too clearly for me, especially when we get to Pg 87.

On page 29/90 under the heading of Steel Processing: Reference to Indians smiths quenching swords into banana trees and worse :eek:

Pg 86/90: Reference to work by Kochman and colleagues in which a historical blade was examined for microstructure and bits of Martensite were found. The full article can be read here:

http://www.crystalresearch.com/crt/ab40/905_a.pdf

I found it interesting that: a) Martensite was formed in the 1st place, as this usually requires quenching of some sort, b) that there appears to be little Cementite near the very edge and c) the rather obtuse angle of the edge, which suggests something or another.

Pg 87/90: Elaboration on the idea of high carbon Martensite decomposing.

Cheers
Chris

[Ann Feuerbach]

Thanks loads Chris for the link. I did not have a copy of the article.
Ok, let me add some more murkiness to the mud.....

From Samuel's Optical Microscopy of Carbon Steels, 1980, ASM, P 26-28.
"Sorbite....It was subsequently shown that these constituents often were merely fine lammellar pearlite, but unfortunatly the terms were also indiscriminately used to refer to tempered martensite. This duality or origin was in fact recognized in the original ISI definition......." The text goes on in detail (sorbite was named for Sorby if anyone is interested).

From what I gather, there is primary and secondary sorbite: Primary from the eutectoid transformation process (and perhaps very important for pattern discussion) and secondary sorbite which is tempered marteniste.

Now all that said, my brain hurts and I am no more the wise. :shrug:

[Gt Obach]

Hi Ann

yes.. you are correct and note... that it seems that sorbite... is a confusing term.. ... due to it being used for both tempered martensite and pearlitic sorbite ...

i've read more that a couple times that its an old term that seems to be out of style...lol

I had to reread that study i quoted several times before i realized they were talking about tempered martensite...... the term sorbite had fooled me at first

you see... he mentions sorbite that is produced in the case of these two swords were made according to the Massalski and Barker accounts..... In the Massalski account ... this is definitely an oil quench and that would make martensite ...

if it was pearlitic sorbite... then you wouldn't need an oil quench nor a temper cycle afterwards....... just air cooling


Greg

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,

1. I am beginning to think that we are rapidly reaching an impasse because of a lack of what can be considered sufficient studies on enough samples to be representative of Wootz swords - Especially those that were more than just eye candy. Nevertheless, we can state with some confidence the following:

a) In the absence of new knowledge, the quench hardening of hypereutectoid (>0.8%C) Wootz would have presented the ancients with enough problems to render the process quite haphazard - Whilst it is conceivable that some smiths could consistently estimate the lowest Austenitization temperature by the colour of the heated steel, a bit too much heat and some of the carbides re-disolved leading to retained Austenite after quenching (very undesirable);

b) That whilst unquenched hypereutectoid Woots can be work-hardened, the hardness obtainable would have been insufficient to produce swords capable of cutting through armour, or for that matter, knives and tools (say woodworking or stone cutting) with a sufficiently keen/hard edge to be truly functional;

c) Quenching/tempering and the attendant superior qualities thus attainable were sufficiently well known in antiquity, for Indian and Middle Eastern smiths to ignore and be satisfied with the inferior alternatives; And

d) there are too many instances of quenching being mentioned in olden times.

2. Other thoughts on this matter:

Why are we concentrating on hypereutectoid Wootz and exclude hypoeutectoid (<0.8%C) as representative of the kind?

What I am getting at is that there is no real difficulty in obtaining excellent Martensitic steel from hypoeutectoid stock, and tempered Martensite is the preferred microstructure for a sword that cuts by impact.

If the Indians could reliable produce hypoeutectoid crucible steel then the problem of how to obtain truly great hardness&toughness disappears. I imagine that it may have even been possible to arrive at a hypoeutectoid steel by de-carburizing hypereutectoid crucible steel stock. At this point of my deliberations, the only real advantage that I can see for hypereutectoid Wootz, apart from appearance, is a lower melting point which facilitated the crucible reduction process.

Greg could be right, as per his posts elsewhere, that our current day definition of what constitutes Wootz is unreasonably narrow by restricting it to hypereutectoid steel. For example, Vehroheven&Pendray decided that one of the swords they studied was not Woots Damascus because it did not contain the expected carbides. Ands yet, the term Wootz is said to be the Anglicization of the Kannada word for steel (any steel or crucible steel?). Of course they added the appellation `Damascus' to their definition, but then why go looking for mechanical attributes that may have have been the property of swords exclusive to this definition?

I think that it is fairly safe to say that when ancient chroniclers recorded that some swords performed remarkable cutting feats, that they did not class them by their carbon content, rather their origin, and even that very broadly.


Cheers
Chris

[Ann Feuerbach]

Hi Chris,
You are right. I have been arguing that hypoeutectoid crucible steel (producing ferrite/pearlite banding pattern) should not been seen as inferior. I am SURE that both were made in the same workshop, and were in the furnace next to each other, to control a difference between >0.8% and <0.8% would have been difficult to control. I am sure that cast iron was occasionally made as well.

Also, when I did my PhD I found that only 18 blades had been studied, which is why I am trying to increase that "database". How can we base any theories on such a small sample base? Plus, where the sample was take on the blade is also a concern when it comes to microstructures etc.

Just a note to say that I am not against any quenching/tempering of ancient blades, just the lack of evidence, but as mentioned above, could be due to sampling. :)

[Emanuel]

Hello,

This is a wonderful discussion, thanks to all the metallurgists for the great information!

In "Armes blanches du monde Islamique" by Alain Jacob, I think, I recall an account by a French officer in Napoleon's army who commented on Mamluk sabres. He gave an account of the way Mamluks trained: they would ride at full speed towards a block of wood on which was placed a turban. They would have to slice the turban in half without displacing it off the block, careful not to hit the block of wood as it would break the sword and cause great shame. I don't recall if he characterized the blade as Damascus, but the passage indicates that these blades could hold a magnificent edge, but were extremely brittle. Would such blades exhibit a high austenite content?

Regards,
Emanuel

[tsubame1]

Hello,

This is a wonderful discussion, thanks to all the metallurgists for the great information!

In "Armes blanches du monde Islamique" by Alain Jacob, I think, I recall an account by a French officer in Napoleon's army who commented on Mamluk sabres. He gave an account of the way Mamluks trained: they would ride at full speed towards a block of wood on which was placed a turban. They would have to slice the turban in half without displacing it off the block, careful not to hit the block of wood as it would break the sword and cause great shame. I don't recall if he characterized the blade as Damascus, but the passage indicates that these blades could hold a magnificent edge, but were extremely brittle. Would such blades exhibit a high austenite content?

Regards,
Emanuel

Emanuel, have you realized that hitting a wooden block at that speed would have meant to cut into the block itself making angled leverage on the blade during the very few seconds of gallopping away ? This would break *every* sword or bent a too soft one. Never cut, eh ? ;)

[S.Al-Anizi]

Hello,

This is a wonderful discussion, thanks to all the metallurgists for the great information!

In "Armes blanches du monde Islamique" by Alain Jacob, I think, I recall an account by a French officer in Napoleon's army who commented on Mamluk sabres. He gave an account of the way Mamluks trained: they would ride at full speed towards a block of wood on which was placed a turban. They would have to slice the turban in half without displacing it off the block, careful not to hit the block of wood as it would break the sword and cause great shame. I don't recall if he characterized the blade as Damascus, but the passage indicates that these blades could hold a magnificent edge, but were extremely brittle. Would such blades exhibit a high austenite content?

Regards,
Emanuel

Hi Manolo,

this practice technique is in the furussiya manual, and is the basis of mounted sword use. It advances onto a stage where a mamluk has to cut his way through a series of turbans, not just one, on his left and right. The manual also states that training swords, and I assume, the ones used here are, incredibly sharp and brittle, but are not to be used in real combat.

[Emanuel]

Carlo and Saqr, thanks for your replies.

The short passage concerning this training exercise had merely stated that the sword would break -presumably on impact...I really don't recall its details but I will get the book from our library and read it again.

You're right about the angled leverage Carlo, and I understand it. Lateral stress can easily snap metal, one can even break some bars over one's head assuming proper training.
My thought was in regards to the discussion in this thread about wootz swords cutting through armour and chains. "If a sword were to snap on a direct edge impact with hard wood, how could it withstand metal?" I thought. But since we are talking of different swords for different purposes, the question is moot.

Emanuel

[Chris Evans]

Hi Manolo,

..... Would such blades exhibit a high austenite content?



Thank you for your appreciative words. I think that both Ann and Greg,as well as the others deserve a special thanks for their extermely valuable contribution. I certainly learned a lot about Wootz from this thread.

Now for your question: It is hard to explain all the ins and outs of the heat treatment of steel within the constrains of a thread like this, but I'll try, albeit at the risk of oversimplification.

Carbon steel at room temperature consists of a mixture of near pure fairly malleable iron, known as Ferrite, and very hard iron carbides, known as Cementite. In this state, steel is moderately soft and can be bent and worked fairly easily.

Hardening by Quenching and tempering:

Steel is heated to a temperature at which its crystal structure changes and becomes as soft and malleable as lead. This structure is called Austenite and it can dissolve all of the carbides that we mentioned above, forming a solid solution of carbon in iron. Here I should mention that solids can dissolve in other solids, not just liquids - Hard to believe, but the process is complex and you'll have to take my word for it.

When heated Austenitic steel is rapidly cooled, as when quenched in water, the carbon cannot come out of solid solution, as it would under slower cooling, and the Austenitic crystal structure changes to one that is very resistant to deformation, on account of the carbon atoms trapped in it.

This new crystal structure is called Martensite and it is very hard and brittle.To render it usable, it is usually tempered by reheating, so as to allow some of the carbon atoms to come out of solid solution and thus reduce both its extreme hardness and brittleness. The carbon that is thus removed from the Martensite forms tiny spheroids of Cementite and results in a structure sometimes known as Sorbite, but more commonly called tempered Martensite. If Martensitic steel is tempered at high temperatures for a very long time it reverts to its original unhardened structure of Ferrite plus Cementite.

OK - Those are the raw basics. Now for the problems.

Plain carbon steel (without additional alloying elements) with less than about 0.4%C cannot be cooled fast enough to transform the Austenite into Martensite, but between 0.4%C and 0.8%C there are no great problems.

However, once the carbon content exceeds 0.8%C, known as the eutectoid composition, then upon quenching the tendency of the Austenite is to stay as it is and not transform into Martensite - Contrary to its usual high temperature `habitat', this Austenite remains as such at room temperature and is known by metallurgists as `retained Austenite', that is retained after the quench.

If we quench hypereutectoid steel (>0.8%C) not all of the steel remains as Austenite. In practice, depending on by how much the 0.8%C is exceeded, we tend to get a mixture of Martensite (hard and brittle) together with retained Austenite. Now remember that as I said at the start, Austenite is very soft and malleable. At the risk of gross oversimplification, now you should think of the retained Austenite as if it wasn't there, because it is so weak. The net result is a Martensitic sword blade with what amounts to all intents and purposes as `strength gaps' all over and inside it. Really disastrous for strength. Of course, the real picture is more complex, but at this level we need not overly concern ourselves with metallurgical minutiae.

In the heat treatment of modern high carbon steels there are strategies to minimize the problem posed by retained Austenite; For example with cutlery high carbon stainless steels such as 440C, any retained Austenite is converted into Martensite by cooling to very low temperatures.

However, the ancients, not understanding what went on inside the steel, would have had only two options (that I can think of):

a) Stick with hypoeutectoid steels (0.4%C-0.8%C), not easy to do as they could not analyze for carbon, nor knew about its critical role; And

b) if having to heat treat higher carbon content steels, they would have had to be extremely careful to quench from the lowest possible temperature at which Austenite forms. This so as to minimize the dissolution of the segregated carbides back into the Austenite and thus raising its carbon content, which would lead to retained Austenite. I imagine that by trial and error this temperature could be judged by the colour of the hot steel, but my guess is that they would have turned out a lot of bad blades.

I hope that this helps. If you would like to obtain more information see the entries in Wikipedia, as it gives a fairly good account.

I also hope also that you can see why the manufacture of a well hardened sword was more often than not a stroke of luck and why such swords had such exalted and legendary status.

Cheers
Chris

[Andrew]

Great discussion, folks. Many thanks. :)

[Jeff Pringle]

...they could not analyze for carbon, nor knew about its critical role;
I think we have to be careful here: yes, they did not have a scientific understanding of carbon and it's specific role in how steel behaved in the quench. However, they had generations of empirical knowledege that said things like 'steel that looks like this, behaves like so;' to such a degree that when metallurgy and metallography became the way to understand steel they were checking the new theories against the eyeballing of fracture surfaces by the old foundry guys. They could give you the carbon content down to tenths of a percent or better just by looking at a quenched and broken surface. All that knowledge dissappeared in the last hundred years, but I think it's safe to assume it went back a thousand or more, and they had a good idea of how to treat the hypo- and hyper-eutectoid steels as they came from the furnace, if not precisely why.
;)

[Chris Evans]

Hi Jeff,

I think we have to be careful here: yes, they did not have a scientific understanding of carbon and it's specific role in how steel behaved in the quench. However, they had generations of empirical knowledege that said things like 'steel that looks like this, behaves like so;' to such a degree that when metallurgy and metallography became the way to understand steel they were checking the new theories against the eyeballing of fracture surfaces by the old foundry guys. They could give you the carbon content down to tenths of a percent or better just by looking at a quenched and broken surface. All that knowledge dissappeared in the last hundred years, but I think it's safe to assume it went back a thousand or more, and they had a good idea of how to treat the hypo- and hyper-eutectoid steels as they came from the furnace, if not precisely why.
;)

I absolutely agree with you that they had lots of empirical knowledge, but perhaps not quite as much as we may think. I am open to be persuaded to the contrary, but would like to know more of their methods.

All the same, they were very good. For one, I never cease to be astonished as to how Japanese swordsmiths managed to identify the high carbon steel for the edges - It was done as you say, by breaking bits of steel and examining their surface. However, we must remember that good steel or swords were the exception and not the rule, which strongly argues for a lottery factor in their methodology.

Carbon was identified as an element at the end of the 18th century and from that point on the metallurgy of steel advanced in leaps and bounds. Once an accurate analysis could be made, all sorts of indirect qualitative tests could be standardized against laboratory results and this is how those very savvy tradesmen did their seemingly unbelievable assessments. For example, if one has a good collection of steel samples of known composition then with a simple grinder spark test one can identify an unknown sample with astonishing accuracy. But without those reference samples it becomes much more difficult.

With bloomery steel made by solid state reduction, the resultant was nearly pure iron which had to be carburized. This was done by heating in a carbon rich environment and the iron absorbed the carbon. My suspicion is that although they did not know what exactly they were doing, they could correlate the end result with carburization time. But in the absence of accurate temperature and furnace atmosphere control, it must have been an uncertain process.

Here is an interesting link onto 18th century steel making:

http://www.staff.hum.ku.dk/dbwagner/REHD/REHD.html#Heading1

Cheers
Chris

[Ann Feuerbach]

And of course their were good smiths and less good smiths. Plus add in those who have been working along with their father since they were very young, or at least around 12 years old, they would/could have a great amount of hands-on knowledge passed down for generations. Whereas others, may not have had as good training, didn't care, or simply weren't that talented.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ann,

You make very valid points. The quality of smithing must have varied enormously.

As well, we must remember that in the absence of patent rights, the empirically hard won advances were jealously guarded and not shared as we might expect. There is the story of the Japanese swordsmith's apprentice who put his hand in the quenching water and had it cut off by his master. Perhaps apocryphal and with different interpretations as to why the youth was treated so savage; But a Japanese friend, also a metallurgist and very knowledgeable on their sword making opined that probably the young man was trying to find out the temperature of the quench water, something that his master wanted to keep a secret.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,

I would like to draw your attention to two most interesting pos by Zifir (22&25) under the thread of Fencing With Sabres. He presents quotes from William Elton, esq., A Survey of the Turkish Empire, London, Printed for T. Cadell, jun. and W. Davies, 1799. on Turkish sabers.

It states that Turkish swords were both hard and brittle, capable of cutting through an iron nail thick as a finger, and strongly suggesting that they were hardened by quenching and tempering.

Cheers
Chris

[Emanuel]

Hi Chris,

Many thanks for your explanation. I had simply understood austenite to mean a high-grain crystal structure, as per Carlo's informative pictures. I understand my mistake now. I also found this good site http://www.metal-mart.com/Dictionary/dictlist.htm with quick definitions for metallurgical terms.

So temperature control is more or less the whole secret to good forging, correct? Now, would an European smith with comparable levels of knowledge and experience to a top Indian/Persian smith be able to create wootz/pulad ingots and forge a watered blade from European iron ore? Or is the precise mix of iron/carbon of Indian ore important? Gt.Obach, is your home-forged wootz chemically the same as the traditional Indian ingots?

Carlo, besides splitting kindling with an axe and cutting bread, it's true I've never cut anything :) Some training would indeed be recommended.

Regards,
Emanuel

[Chris Evans]

Hi Emanuel,

Hi Chris,
So temperature control is more or less the whole secret to good forging, correct?

You certainly identified correctly one of the most important factors. But there are many others such as the chemical composition of the steel, that of the fuel, atmosphere control, `soaking' time and temperature. Metallurgy involves the successful management of quite a number of variables.

Now, would an European smith with comparable levels of knowledge and experience to a top Indian/Persian smith be able to create wootz/pulad ingots and forge a watered blade from European iron ore? Or is the precise mix of iron/carbon of Indian ore important?

Forging Damascus Wootz with the tell-tale surface pattern was considered a lost art until very recently. Have a read of that paper that I gave the link to in my post early on, No8 in this thread. It will probably answer your questions. One of the big problems, as I see it, is that we do not even have a clear consensus as to what we are talking about, that is what exact type of steel, forging and heat treatment we are specifically interested in. For my part, I am happy to settle for any pre modern crucible steel, but others apply a much tighter definition. For example, in the above link, one of the swords was declared not to be true Wootz Damascus because it had a lower carbon content.

Cheers
Chris

[Gt Obach]

Hi

yes.. i believe the definition of wootz does wander all over the place for reasons....

ask yourself some questions...
- why does the definition wander
- why does the current definition follow the patent on wootz
- was wootz a lost secret prior to the patent ??
- was a proper survey done before making the above claim
- Do accurate recipes exist that are from ancient records and are accessible with university interlibrary loan..? ..... did they exist prior to the patent ? or did they magically appear after the patent?

I know i ask alot of questions... but I can't help my self... .. i have to stir the pot sometimes..



Manolo: the problem with comparing Euro smiths to Indian/Persian smiths is that they basing their smithing practices on much different materials... ... that is why the Euro smiths had a hard time with forging wootz... as the wootz material has to be forged at a much lower heat than what they safely use for their sword material....

now with the same technique... i believe it maybe possible with some of the european ores..... remember the carbide formers are micro alloys... very small amount is needed..
-- but the carbon level is critical to making the high carb wootz...


My homebrew wootz is made alot of the time with cast iron cut with mild iron.... but now a days... there is alot of tramp elements in the scrap iron... so you have to watch it... .. our metal standards are going down hill..
-- i've made all sorts of wootz from scrap... ..some with 52100 and cast iron.... with assorted springsteels and cast... 1018 iron and charcoal.... wrought and charcoal...

i know Jeff uses local ore
and Ric will use that high purity iron

I'd love to get some ore from the old areas... and try my hand at it... ... i thought awhile back that Achim did something like that.... i know he's worked some old ingots

so much wootz, so little time

Greg

[Jeff Pringle]

The steel I make typically runs a little higher in silicon and quite a bit lower in phosphorus compared to the analyses in the JOM article, but I recently got an ingot with comparable phosphorus that has great pattern, even though it's 0.73% Carbon...but I also get good patterns with low phosphorus, so I'm not sure what that means :shrug:
Need...more...data :D

[Chris Evans]

Hi Greg,

I wasn't even aware that Wootz was patented. Who took out the patent and what exactly was patented? The composition or forging? Or both?


Jeff,

That blade's pattern is very beautiful. Given its hypoeutectoid composition, did you quench harden it? Are the patterns due to Ferrite or carbides?

Cheers
Chris

[Gt Obach]

Nice work, Jeff.... thats real sweet ! :D


Hi Chris... .. I spent a good bit of time... but i finally dug up the patent on the us patent site... so you can look for your self.. its alway better to see references first hand..

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=6&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=283&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=damascus&OS=damascus&RS=damascus


I don't believe its been challenged :rolleyes:

[Chris Evans]

Greg,

Many thanks for that link - That patent explains a lot that I couldn't understand.

Cheers
Chris

[RSWORD]

As a collector of wootz blades this has been an enlightening and quite enjoyable discussion. While I am not an experienced metalurgist to contribute to the discussion, I have made casual observations in the various wootz blades I have handled over the years or are in my collection. The first is that from a collectors point of view, the pattern of wootz is oftern associated with a particular region. For example, I would typically associate sham style wootz with Turkey or Syria. Low contrast wootz with a fine granular structure is most often associated with India. Very bold, high contrast wootz is often associated with Persia although you do find similar patterning in some Sosun Pata and Khanda that are almost certainly Indian. I even have an example of Russian forged wootz that has very little contrast but the pattern is tight and consistent throughout the blade. I have also noticed some other interesting features. One is heat treatment. I have a number of blades which exhibit a "hamon" of sorts, essentially a darkened zone along the edge due to the heat treatment. I have seen blades that seem only to be heat treated at the tip or in certain spots of the blade. One very interesting blade in my collection actually has a high carbon edge plate that has been inserted into wootz "cheeks". Now, imagine what potential cutting properties this sword might have. You have a high carbon edge plate which can be very hard and sharp with cheeks of wootz steel which can be quite pliable. I even have an "unknown" blade that is extremely thin, extremely pliable but is quite hard and tough throughout as an interesting variant.

You also see varying degrees of success in the overall controlling of heat of a blade. I have seen a few fine blades with really nice patterns that just melt away or disappear in areas where the heat was not controlled. I have an example of an Indian shamshir that broke in two in its life but was welded back together with practically no loss of the wootz pattern. In a day and time when controlling temperature must have been difficult, it seems the smiths had abilities to do some interesting things.

All this says is that wootz provides a fascinating variety of patterns, contrasts, colorations, heat treats, etc. that I think it is impossible to lump into one big broad category. It seems like one of those endeavors the more you learn about it, the more you realize is unknown. But isn't that the fun!

[Chris Evans]

Hi RSWORD,

Thank you for your most interesting post. You are confirming my worst fears, that we have reduced the term Wootz to a metallurgical cliche!

I think that there is much more to crucible steel than current interpretations of the term Wootz would suggest.

It would be very educational if you could photograph your collection, at least the more outstanding pieces and post them here. A bit of judicious file testing for hardness, standardized against steel specimens of known hardness would also throw a lot of light on the subject.

Cheers
Chris

[Jeff Pringle]

Given its hypoeutectoid composition, did you quench harden it? Are the patterns due to Ferrite or carbides?

Yes, its quenched in oil, from not too far above the critical temperature. There is a 'Hamon' effect due to the edge hardening but not the thicker part of the blade. Low alloy steels like wootz are very shallow hardening, so only the edge area cools fast enough to harden when you quench into oil.
The pattern is due to the natural alloy segragation that happens during ingot solidification; since it is not too far from the eutectiod, the pattern cannot be from excess carbides or excess ferrite. In higher carbon wootz, the carbides are just along for the ride, the pattern fundamentally comes from the difference in composition of the first and last parts of the melt to solidify.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Jeff,

Many thanks for that account.

I wonder if the ancients could consistently turn out hypoeutectoid Wootz, other than by accident. I imagine that controlling carbon absorption would be the main problem. It certainly would have made quenching and tempering easier.

Cheers
Chris

[FourBlades]

RSWORD,

I also have a (tulwar) blade that looks like it is made from two pieces of wootz with a non-wootz core. The wootz pattern stops as the blade gets thinner towards the sharp edge. It also has some areas where the wootz pattern disappears. There are some irregularities in this area and I wonder if it was also broken and welded together, perhaps not as expertly as yours. I am away from home now or I would post some pictures of it for comment.

Thanks,

John

[RSWORD]

I am always happy to share examples from the collection but I have found wootz to be difficult to photograph especially for the subtle details like we have been discussion such as coloration, temper lines, very subtle patterns, etc. Nonetheless, I will take a few shots over the weekend for comment and or discussion.

John,

Sounds interesting. Look forward to seeing some pics of it.

[Jeff Pringle]

I wonder if the ancients could consistently turn out hypoeutectoid Wootz, other than by accident. I imagine that controlling carbon absorption would be the main problem. It certainly would have made quenching and tempering easier.

It is possible that they hit upon the 1.5%-ish range as the carbon level that most often gave well-melted ingots that were still forgeable; since carbon content is the big influence on melting temp. Too little carbon and it won't melt (at whatever the max temp of the charcoal-fired clay furnace they typically used was), too much and it's unforgeable. So they may have aimed for that content with the ingredients of the charge, and had a few outliers depending on how the crucibles sat in the heat of the furnace, or how carefully they measured the ingredients.

For photos, bright indirect light is a must, and then use black or white cardboard as the background reflected by the blade, one or the other will give you a good shot of the pattern. An overcast day outside, or lights with diffusers indoors work well.

Please do post photos of any unusual wootz effects! :D

[Chris Evans]

Hi Jeff,

From the Fe-C phase diagram, the MP difference for pure Iron and 2%C is not that great (224DegC), though substantial. It is only when we get to the 0.4% cast irons that the MP drops significantly . Whilst I recognize that Wootz with 2% is easier to melt than hypoeutectoid steel, I would have thought that the difference could have been overcome.

Where I envisage the real difficulty to have been is in ascertaining how much carbon would the steel absorb, with any accuracy. At this stage, my suspicion is that the hypoeutectoid Wootz produced was by decarburization, something not difficult to do once the steel was hot and fully Austenitized. I inadvertently managed to seriously decarburize steel by poor atmosphere control on a number of occasions.

Just my thoughts...

RSWORD

It will be great to see pics from your collection. I am also interested in the angle of the edge at the centre of percussion. It can tell us quite a lot.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Jeff,

From the Fe-C phase diagram, the MP difference for pure Iron and 2%C is not that great (224DegC). It is only when we get to the 0.4% cast irons that the MP drops significantly . Whilst I recognize that Wootz with 2% is easier to melt than hypoeutectoid steel, I would have thought that the difference), though substantial, could have been overcome.

Where I envisage the real difficulty to have been is in ascertaining how much carbon would the steel absorb, with any accuracy. At this stage, my suspicion is that the hypoeutectoid Wootz produced was by decarburization, something not difficult to do once the steel was hot and fully Austenitized. I inadvertently managed to seriously decarburize steel by poor atmosphere control on a number of occasions. Just my thoughts...



RSWORD

It will be great to see pics from your collection. I am also interested in the angle of the edge at the centre of percussion. It can tell us quite a lot.

Cheers
Chris

[S.Al-Anizi]

Sorry for not contributing (for good or bad :D ) to this thread anymore, I really like the level of professional conversation and the sharing of facts and experiences around, by all those great people who have contributed to this thread. I have not lost interest in this topic, its just that I seemed to have lost it somewhere from the 5th page, I do not understand 75% of the metalurgical words tossed about :o :D Still, interesting and very informative though. ;)

[RSWORD]

Ok. I have had fun this evening as I have had some pieces out and about and taking a lot of pictures. What I am going to do is do a separate thread for each example so we can discuss them individually. I will make comments from a collectors point of view and perhaps you guys can share any metalurgical comments and we will see how it goes. In any case, I enjoyed taking all the pictures but my photography skill is obiously lacking!

[Rivkin]

Fugh. I finished going through the original Anosov's report "On Bulats". It is a fantastic work. There are two comments that I would make:

a. I have to take back my statements about inconsistency in chemical composition etc. It is impossible to make such statements, since there are no less than four distinctive processes to make bulat per Anosov, and there are dozens of ways he combined ingridients, tempering and so on. For example, to enrich the blade with carbon he tried graphite, different kinds of wood and even diamonds, with different results.

b. Unfortunately here we have the same story as with later literature - as soon as we get to the performance of wootz blades, the "magic" replaces the science. In his introduction he talks a lot about how good bulat blades are. To give you an example, one of his strong points is that japanese blades (undoubtfully made from bulat) are very good - chop iron etc. This and other arguments are rather obvious misrepresentations of what bulat really is, and btw I know a strange guy who tests his chechen kindjals by attempting to cut hard steel _drills_, which is by far nothing like iron.

Conclusion, which is also about the quality, this time of Anosov's bulats is also highly disappointing. Short text with no reproducable experiments (i.e. such blade is compared to such blade) that cites for example that Anosov was not able to make from english steel the blades that cut as fine cloth as the one made from his bulat (properly prepared). It can be interpreted as something that shows the superiority of bulat. However one also has to note that Anosov's experiments were quite complex to reproduce and required collosal work to determine the right tempering, ingridients and so on, resulting in a very expensive and very capritious with respect to the conditions of making (i.e. improper making would not produce such good results) end product. On one side it is possible that top wootz smiths produced steel far superior to ordinary pre XXth century steels; on the other hand comparison was made with mass produced english steel - who can vouch that some top quality steelmakers would not make something much better ?

[Chris Evans]

Hi Al-Anizi,

Sorry for not contributing (for good or bad :D ) to this thread anymore, I really like the level of professional conversation and the sharing of facts and experiences around, by all those great people who have contributed to this thread. I have not lost interest in this topic, its just that I seemed to have lost it somewhere from the 5th page, I do not understand 75% of the metallurgical words tossed about :o :D Still, interesting and very informative though. ;)

I was really worried that this might happen - I apologize - We turned this thread into an insider's discussion. I don't know hat we can do to remedy the situation - Perhaps, the underlisted glossary may render the technical terms used a little more understandable.

Austenite: A crystal structure of iron and its alloys that is known for its softness and malleability. It only can be found once the steel is heated to red heat. If it is rapidly cooled (quenched) it transforms into Marteniste. If, on the other hand, it is cooled slowly, it will transform into Ferrite and Cementite.

Austenite - Retained: Austenite that fails to transform into Martensite upon quenching and is retained as such at room temperature. Retained Austenite is much more likely to form with steels with a carbon content greater than 0.8%, that is , hypereutectoid. It is generally considered highly undesirable as it is a source of weakness. Usually, the quenched steel is a mixture of Martensite and Austenite in varying proportions - Depending where it is located, a small amount of Retained Austenite can usually be tolerated.

Carburization: Iron is heated in the presence of carbon so that it may absorb this element. This is obtained by heating above red heat, when the crystal structure changes to Austenite, which readily absorbs carbon.

Cementite: An intermetallic compound of iron and carbon. It is both extremely hard and brittle. It is usually, though not always, found as tiny globules, in which case it is called sperodized Cementaite or as very thin plates (lamellae) in the structure known as Pearlite.

De-Carburization: The removal of carbon from steel by heating to above red heat so that the crystal structure changes to Austenite and in an oxygen rich atmosphere. The carbon leaves the steel to combine with the oxygen.

Eutectoid Steel: A steel of 0.8% carbon content - Optimal composition for hardness and toughness.

Hypo-eutectoid Steel: A steel with a carbon content of less than 0.8% carbon, but usually more than 0.4% carbon

Hyper-eutectoid Steel: A steel with a carbon content in excess of 0.8% but less than 2%. These steels are considered very difficult to harden by transforming Austentie to Martensite (by quenching from red heat) because of the tendency of the high carbon Austenite to remain as such down to room temperature.

Ferrite: The crystal structure of unhardened near pure iron that prevails at room temperature. It is fairly soft and malleable, though not to the same extent as Austenite. As the carbon content of steel approaches 0.8%, Ferrite is increasingly complemented by the presence of Pearlite.

Hardening: A process by which steel is rendered both hard and tough. This is usually attained by the transformation of Austenite to Martensite by fisrt heating to red heat and then rapidly cooling, usually by quenching into water or oil. Afterwards the had and brittle Martensitic steel is toughened through tempering, by reheating to a lower temperature (than red heat). And alternative to hardening by heating and quenching is to cold work (work hardening) the steel - This is the same effect as when we bend coat-hanger wire backwards and forwards; Whilst this can increase both the hardness and toughness of steel, it is not as effective as heating and quenching.

Martensite: The crystal structure of steel hardened by quenching from red heat. Since in the as quenched state it is very brittle, it is normally softened and made less so by tempering. The maximum carbon content of Austenite that can be converted to Martensite is around 1% - Any more than this value will result in the retention of Austentite down to room temperature.

Pearlite: The microstructure of unhardened eutectoid steel, that is, with a carbon content of 0.8%. When viewed under the microscope it consists of very thin layers of Cementite alternating with Ferrite and has the appearance of mother-of-pearl, hence its name. Under 0.8%C Pearlite is accompanied by Ferrite and above that composition by Cementite.

Sorbite: A name given to Martensite which has been tempered.

Sponge/Bloom/Bloomery Iron: Is and extremely low carbon steel that is obtained by heating the iron ore (Iron Oxide) with carbon to red heat, without any melting taking place. The oxygen in the ore combines with the carbon, in a process known as `reduction', to leave behind the very low carbon steel in a sponge like state. The pores of the iron sponge, the Bloom, are full of slag (coarse glass) from the ore. This slag has to be removed by extensive hammering in the red hot state, by squeezing it out of the many pores. To render it into hardenable steel it has to be Carburized. This method was used extensively in antiquity to prodce iron and steel.

Steel: An alloy of iron and carbon. The stuff from which swords and dagger are made (after the bronze age). Ideally, it is both hard and tough.

Tempering: The re-heating of as quenched steel to render it less brittle, at the expense of some loss of hardness. Tempering is carried out at temperatures at which shiny steel changes its colour to that of straw or even blue.

Wootz/Puald/Bulat/Crucible Steel: Steel made in ancient India by heating iron ore with carbon in a crucible. Wootz differs from `sponge/Bloom' iron in as much that it it melts in the crucible and thus the slag and other impurities float to the surface.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

RSWORD,

Look forward to the pics.

Rivkin,

I reluctantly concluded that at this point we simply do not know enough about Wootz and the requirements of ancient swordsmen to assess its combat worthiness.

To make headway, we need to examine a larger number of swords and daggers made from this steel and most importantly ascertain if the better ones, in the functional sense and not just eye candy, were hardened by quenching or merely work hardened. Also, we have to ascertain if the practice of adding a special steel edge, in the Japanese manner, was used by the Damscus and other regional sword smiths.

As I see the problem now, with the advantage of modern metallurgical knowledge we can, as Greg and other amply demonstrated, make extremely good cutting implements from high carbon crucible steel. However, we do not know if the ancients knew all the tricks required to arrive at comparable results.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

RSWORD

I would like to express my thanks and appreciation for your efforts in posting the photos of your Wootz blades. They certainly present food for thought. As I mentioned elsewhere, it would help us enormously if somehow the edge hardness of those blades could be ascertained. A bit of very careful file testing against samples of known hardness would go a long way.....

With regards to the one that seems to have a hardened steel edge inserted, it brings to my mind a story that I was told in my student days, long ago, about clever forgeries involving a common (?) steel blade somehow overlaid with thin veneers of Wootz. I hasten to add that this never made much sense to me as the work involved would have been huge, requiring great skill - Much more likely is that here we have a composite type of sword construction that was misunderstood by Europeans.

Again, may thanks
Chris

[tsubame1]

Is the use of wootz for gun barrels enough to be considered "true combat value"?

If yes, i've already mentioned it but Philip gave a good hint in another thread :

"I suspect that the barrel on your gun is much older, with the breech altered to accept a percussion bolster and nipple. The configuration of your barrel could well indicate Persian manufacture. Without inscriptions it can be difficult to date these, but good quality ones remained in service for a long, long time.

Many of these old Persian (and Indian) barrels are of twist damascus steel. HAVE YOU TAKEN YOUR GUN APART? Often, the portion of the barrel covered by wood is less corroded and a damascus pattern might be visible."

Post n.10 here :

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3636

[S.Al-Anizi]

Many, many thanks Chris, for that list. Ive always wanted to know, very basically, what those terms meant. I already knew simple stuff like...steel (DUH :D ), hardening, tempering, quenching, but not the rest. I have even printed your text for future reference.

Thanks a bunch!

[Andrew]

Is the use of wootz for gun barrels enough to be considered "true combat value"?

If yes, i've already mentioned it but Philip gave a good hint in another thread :

"I suspect that the barrel on your gun is much older, with the breech altered to accept a percussion bolster and nipple. The configuration of your barrel could well indicate Persian manufacture. Without inscriptions it can be difficult to date these, but good quality ones remained in service for a long, long time.

Many of these old Persian (and Indian) barrels are of twist damascus steel. HAVE YOU TAKEN YOUR GUN APART? Often, the portion of the barrel covered by wood is less corroded and a damascus pattern might be visible."

Post n.10 here :

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3636

Hi Carlo. I think Philip was talking about pattern welded "damascus", not wootz.

[ariel]

Fugh. I finished going through the original Anosov's report "On Bulats". It is a fantastic work. There are two comments that I would make:

a. I have to take back my statements about inconsistency in chemical composition etc. It is impossible to make such statements, since there are no less than four distinctive processes to make bulat per Anosov, and there are dozens of ways he combined ingridients, tempering and so on. For example, to enrich the blade with carbon he tried graphite, different kinds of wood and even diamonds, with different results.

b. Unfortunately here we have the same story as with later literature - as soon as we get to the performance of wootz blades, the "magic" replaces the science. In his introduction he talks a lot about how good bulat blades are. To give you an example, one of his strong points is that japanese blades (undoubtfully made from bulat) are very good - chop iron etc. This and other arguments are rather obvious misrepresentations of what bulat really is, and btw I know a strange guy who tests his chechen kindjals by attempting to cut hard steel _drills_, which is by far nothing like iron.

Conclusion, which is also about the quality, this time of Anosov's bulats is also highly disappointing. Short text with no reproducable experiments (i.e. such blade is compared to such blade) that cites for example that Anosov was not able to make from english steel the blades that cut as fine cloth as the one made from his bulat (properly prepared). It can be interpreted as something that shows the superiority of bulat. However one also has to note that Anosov's experiments were quite complex to reproduce and required collosal work to determine the right tempering, ingridients and so on, resulting in a very expensive and very capritious with respect to the conditions of making (i.e. improper making would not produce such good results) end product. On one side it is possible that top wootz smiths produced steel far superior to ordinary pre XXth century steels; on the other hand comparison was made with mass produced english steel - who can vouch that some top quality steelmakers would not make something much better ?

RSWORD just posted this:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3680
No matter how many uncertainties are there in the Anosov's book, the final result was terrific

[Chris Evans]

Hi S.Al-Anizi,

Many, many thanks Chris, for that list. Ive always wanted to know, very basically, what those terms meant. I already knew simple stuff like...steel (DUH :D ), hardening, tempering, quenching, but not the rest. I have even printed your text for future reference.

Thanks a bunch!


Glad tp have been of some help. I wrote those definitions on the run and left out much. I suggest that if you wish to use them for future reference that you complete the picture, so to speak, by looking up more comprehensive sources

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,

Just a couple of thoughts:

Something else that we do not know, in relation to Wootz, is how common was the regional concurrent usage of steel made from sponge/bloom iron. Perhaps, Wootz was a specialized steel suitable for some applications and not others.

Another question is whether the hardened steel insert edges found on some swords, as evidenced by RSWORD's beautiful example, were made from Wootz or sponge iron steel.

Cheers
Chris

[Emanuel]

Chris,
Your definitions are extremely helpful, many thanks.

As a quick aside - since wootz/patterned crucible steel was so desirable in weapons for its aesthetic properties as well as mechanical, was wootz ever used for jewellery? Are there purely decorative objects made of crucible steel and etched?

Regards,
Emanuel

[Chris Evans]

Hi Emanuel,

Chris,
Your definitions are extremely helpful, many thanks.

Thank you.

As a quick aside - since wootz/patterned crucible steel was so desirable in weapons for its aesthetic properties as well as mechanical, was wootz ever used for jewellery? Are there purely decorative objects made of crucible steel and etched?

Very good question - We need to know more about Wootz usage.

Cheers
Chris