We have already spent inordinate amount of time arguing about relative mechanical value of wootz vs. european monosteel. Whereas the latter examples coming from high quality places were uniformly good, wootz had inordinate variaility and was often pretty substandard mechanically: witness rubbed off pattern on some Figiel's blades simply as a result of contact with softwood scabbard inserts. Not for nothing did Al Kindi and some Indian authors spend so much effort explaining the features of good and bad blades. They knew that there was a big skeleton in the closet.
How would wootz compare to good european monosteels? Who knows? It had never been tested edge to edge, nobody is willing to sacrifice his Assadulla to be cut for analysis, and nobody would be willing to subject his Kalbali to rigorous european-style testing ( slamming the blade against massive woodblock, dropping the blade point first on a sheet of iron or bending it repeatedly ). In limited tests ( Zschokke), wootz blades had incredible variability in terms of chemistry and pretty low hardness. There were good wootz blades and very bad wootz blades. Thus, the mere fact of wootz-iness gave no guarantee that the blade would perform well. As to their skin-deep beauty, - here I agree 100%: wootz is pretty. I suspect that even that is an exaggeration: mostly the prettiest blades, never tested in battle, survived. The multitude of cheaper ones just perished like anything else that was made by lesser masters for mass production.
Why do contemporary masters still are trying to uncover the "secret of wootz"? The Everest syndrome: because it is there. Just to prove that they can reproduce the pretty pattern. More power to them. But is there any practical reason? Likely not. Modern alloys will beat wootz 100:0 any time.
|