Another theoretical question: what are those Central African swords used for anyway?

fearn · 16th May 2005, 01:13 AM

Hi Tom,

We're straying off topic, but I think that you might have a slightly different idea of medieval/third world economics than I do. Oliver Rackham's done a lot of work on european historical ecology, and a lot of what you said above isn't quite right, especially about charcoal production and its relationship.

Basically, to use the Medieval UK (Rackham's Ancient Woodlands is my guide here), their woodlands were the only source for fuel (charcoal and wood) and building materials. All of these were owned, and they were managed for sustainable production. For instance, a glass factory in England owned and managed a large woodland that supplied it with all the charcoal it needed, and they were very careful to keep the wood supply going.

This is a lot different than today, where people try to get around these obstacles by clearing land and investing the money somewhere else in the world. I agree that, if a modern smith wants to maintain a middle-class income, he's going to charge *a lot* of money for a sword that takes him that long. Thing is, most of our weapons were made under conditions where the cost of living was (or is) much cheaper, and that economy passes down or up the scale. That's why I'm still comfortable with my first statement. However, if we ever eliminate poverty from the globe, one of the casualities will be cheap hand-made blades. They will all be either manufactured or made at "art blade" prices.

This is an area I'm interested in, but it's straying way off topic. Feel free to PM me if you want more info.

Fearn

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

16th May 2005, 01:13 AM	#31
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi Tom, We're straying off topic, but I think that you might have a slightly different idea of medieval/third world economics than I do. Oliver Rackham's done a lot of work on european historical ecology, and a lot of what you said above isn't quite right, especially about charcoal production and its relationship. Basically, to use the Medieval UK (Rackham's Ancient Woodlands is my guide here), their woodlands were the only source for fuel (charcoal and wood) and building materials. All of these were owned, and they were managed for sustainable production. For instance, a glass factory in England owned and managed a large woodland that supplied it with all the charcoal it needed, and they were very careful to keep the wood supply going. This is a lot different than today, where people try to get around these obstacles by clearing land and investing the money somewhere else in the world. I agree that, if a modern smith wants to maintain a middle-class income, he's going to charge a lot of money for a sword that takes him that long. Thing is, most of our weapons were made under conditions where the cost of living was (or is) much cheaper, and that economy passes down or up the scale. That's why I'm still comfortable with my first statement. However, if we ever eliminate poverty from the globe, one of the casualities will be cheap hand-made blades. They will all be either manufactured or made at "art blade" prices. This is an area I'm interested in, but it's straying way off topic. Feel free to PM me if you want more info. Fearn