ariel,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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