Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris Evans
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.