True Combat Value of Wootz

ariel · 20th October 2006, 02:00 PM

Chris,
I agree with you 100%: the so-called "Eastern" weapons are beautiful. That is why we collect them. I am not collecting any European swords because in my eyes they do not have the magic of Japanese, Persian or Turkish weapons.
Having said that, this thread is about practical value of wootz, not about its esthetic, collectable qualities.
I have a question: even at the height of wootz reputation European blades were very popular in India, Arabia, Caucasus etc. Marks of Styrian or British manufacturers were highly sought. Things went so far that the local swordsmiths started to counterfeight European markings far more often than Assadullah's, even though they could do either.
What does it tell us about the perceived value of the European blades in the "Eastern" societies? Does it mean that in the eyes of the native populations a sword marked Fringia or Genoa was more desirable and, by definition, better than Assadollah's?
One could say that making a wootz sword was much more time consuming and, thus, counterfeighting European blades made better economic sense. However, we see many rather low-to-mediocre quality non-wootz swords bearing (fake) signatures of Assadullah or Kalbeali. Superhigh quality was never on the mind of a faker.
Did the native warriors know something about the battle value of Persian/Indian blades vs. European ones that we do not?

20th October 2006, 02:00 PM	#11
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Chris, I agree with you 100%: the so-called "Eastern" weapons are beautiful. That is why we collect them. I am not collecting any European swords because in my eyes they do not have the magic of Japanese, Persian or Turkish weapons. Having said that, this thread is about practical value of wootz, not about its esthetic, collectable qualities. I have a question: even at the height of wootz reputation European blades were very popular in India, Arabia, Caucasus etc. Marks of Styrian or British manufacturers were highly sought. Things went so far that the local swordsmiths started to counterfeight European markings far more often than Assadullah's, even though they could do either. What does it tell us about the perceived value of the European blades in the "Eastern" societies? Does it mean that in the eyes of the native populations a sword marked Fringia or Genoa was more desirable and, by definition, better than Assadollah's? One could say that making a wootz sword was much more time consuming and, thus, counterfeighting European blades made better economic sense. However, we see many rather low-to-mediocre quality non-wootz swords bearing (fake) signatures of Assadullah or Kalbeali. Superhigh quality was never on the mind of a faker. Did the native warriors know something about the battle value of Persian/Indian blades vs. European ones that we do not?