Jim, using your word, I believe the sword "was not typically the key weapon in European vs. Native warfare", but only an element in the whole european arsenal. Also, we must notice wootz was used against armour and european swords during the crusades, and we donīt have any reference from this times that this metal was unsuitable to figh against armour and other swords. There are many speculative elements in the analysis of wootz, as the blades made from it are not well studied. But I recall findings of wootz blades being too soft in terms or comparison with modern blades. Just as the european blades were in this time. Tough I donīt kow if the hardness was measured over the wootzīs perlite matrix, or if the hardness of the carbon dendrites was also measured. This last comment is only a speculation from my part and I donīt know if my point is valid from a metallurgic point of view. Furthermore, I donīt believe the european conquerors fought in the old fashion of armour made of single plaques, as shinning knights, but maybe for exceptions. And also, at least until the 16th Centiry they were also using shields, just as the defenders.
And I think we cannot speak about "industrialized" Europe until very late in history. Industrialization commenced in England and then diffused in different degrees to the rest of Europe. My belief is that swords were made in Europe the same artisan way than in the indian subcontinent, although with different methods. I donīt believe that Spain or Portugal were "industrialized cultures", but to the end of the 19th Century. No offense intended. And they were great colonist powers.
Regards
Gonzalo
|