Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris Evans
...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.