True Combat Value of Wootz

[ariel]

Originally posted by tsubame 1
Samurai too. I wonder why the heck they used the same type of technology
for almost 1000 years being such blades so prone to bending...

Don't get it. Are you being facetious?

[Lew]

Originally Posted by ariel

Originally posted by tsubame 1
Samurai too. I wonder why the heck they used the same type of technology
for almost 1000 years being such blades so prone to bending...

Don't get it. Are you being facetious?

Well gentlemen

In battle a bent blade is better than a broken one and if you survived and the blade only had a slight bend it could be straightened back out by the smith. Said blade was than retired but was held in great reverence.

Lew

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

Ann, many thanks for that very informative essay on wootz swords and Gt Obach your observations on the subject are most instructive.

Ariel: I also wondered about those chisel cuts. If any rubbish got into them, or the weld was incomplete, then am sure that they would have not helped.

Re swords breaking in cold weather: Steels exhibit, what is known in the trade as the "brittle transition temperature"; This is a temperature range below which it ceases being ductile. Apart from impurities such as Phosphorus, a number of other factors also determine this temperature. To make things more complicated, whether a sword, or implement, breaks or not is again determined by a number of other factors that are dealt with in the discipline of "fracture mechanics" - In short, the presence of micro cracks, however acquired, and their ability to propagate through the steel are of paramount significance. Brittle fracture is primarily determined by the interaction of the said cracks, ductility/brittleness of the steel and the geometry of the implement as well as other mitigating factors such as the presence of crack arrestors (say, slag in wrought iron). Structures of quite ductile steel can and do fail in a brittle manner if the right factors are present. So it is not just about embrittlement, though it is certainly one very important factor. This probably explains why some Japanese swordsmen are said to be able to break the swords of their opponents with a cut, a feat often mistakenly attributed to the superiority of their swords. Another observation in this respect is that based on anecdotal reports, a good many of those Japanese swords that broke during winter, in fact failed under extremely cold told temperatures, conditions under which other steel implements also failed.

Reading through this threads confirms, at least to me, that there is much more to swords than what mere metallurgical considerations would suggest; It also reinforces my long held belief that they were rather poor weapons of war, except in very select applications, such as cavalry cutting down fleeing infantry. This on account of their vulnerability to the inevitable abuses encountered on the battlefield, not to mention tactical disadvantages, when compared to other weapons.

I also would like to make the following observations:

a) The amount of blade to blade clashing that a sword is expected to undergo is indicated by the comprehensiveness of its handguard. Eastern swords, with the exception of the Indian gauntlet sword, offer minimalist hand protection and thus it is a safe bet that they were not used much for parrying, if at all (except as acts of desperation) - Japanese swords, for one, are incredibly fragile if clashed against another similar blade, and most swords are very quickly reduced to saw/junk status if abused in such a manner, even rapiers. I still obstinately hold to the view that parrying with a sword blade is a post small-sword development and whilst it can be done to some extent with heavier swords, in practice it was infrequently resorted to.

b) Cutting through iron rods with a sword may not be such a big deal as when fully annealed, the rod can be made incredibly soft.

c) Any edged sword can be bent or terminally damaged by a badly executed cut - Not just Japanese. Cutting requires considerable proficiency.

d) Japanese blades are quite thick at the shoulder, with little taper along their length and have a greater sweet spot around their COP, thus minimizing the tendency to bend under a badly executed cut. In fact this thickness has often been cited as a deficiency of Japanese blades, as it inhibits penetration - The Japanese highly polished their blades to mitigate this drawback and to enable them to slide through the medium being cut into. Also, it is reported that when European sabres were introduced into the Japanese cavalry, those officers skilled in traditional swordsmanship fund them much harder to cut with because of their springy blades and thinner foibles.

Cheers
Chris

[Ann Feuerbach]

Thanks all for such an informative discussion, I am learning quite alot about Japanese swords. I just wanted to add a few cents on fractures and cracks. Of course, cracks follow grain boundaries (back to microstructures again). That said, one of the benefits of crucible steel is the spheroidal cementite. On a microstructual scale a crack would hit the roundish cementite and the stress would dissapate (sorry can't spell, just woke up and still on first cup of coffee), thus stoping the cracking. This all shows how much more work really needs to be done. I too have wondered about the "benefits" of hardness testing to answer archeological/anthropological questions. I think we need some "battles" with high quality authentically replicated swords, but it would be indeed a pity to work such masterpieces until they break!

[Gt Obach]

Hi

there are some good articles out there on brittle fracture..
http://www.key-to-steel.com/default....Article&NM=136

and some of the elements that affect it

just my opinion... but i think that swords were rather effective close combat sidearms.... ( spear being no. 1 ) ....
- there has to be some value to it..... or why would so many cultures value such a costly item... ( you can make many spears out of one sword ) ... besides, iron production back then was very small scale compared to today... so your limited interms of materials to which you can use for war..
-- even the northlands valued the sword.. as is evidenced by the viking blades... and the complex patternwelds
- are there any Rc tests done on viking blades...
- from the few museum curators that i emailed ... (Longtime ago) they mentioned that the northern swords had a lower Rc ....somewhere round 40
- but i've never seen those stat's anywhere


steel is such a complicated thing.... uggh
Greg

[ariel]

Ann,
Even after a single cup of coffee you are still better than all of us together !
What coffee do you drink? I want the same brand.

[ariel]

I agree with Greg: of course, spear is very effective, but swords utilise an additional element of motion, ie, circular arm movement as opposed to the linear one of the spear. An example is Chaka's transformation of the throwing/stabbing Zulu spear with a smallish head into a massive sword-like weapon.

This thread is astonishing: in one fell swoop we started to demolish the mythology of the 2 greatest blademaking traditions: Japanese and Persian.
It appears that good mass-produced European blades were at the very least as good and perhaps even better than legendary "Masamunes and Assadollahs". And for less effort and money, too! Overall, the effort:result ratio was orders of magnitude in favor of Europe. Unquestionably, it was the result of scientific revolutions in Europe to which Japanese or Middle-Easterns were very late-comers or just passive consumers. No individual tradition, no matter how refined, can compete with a massive and systematic onslaught of Scientific Technology. Un-romantic, but true.....
Ironically, of course, the great European blades became widely available when they were no longer needed..... But then, the same technology gave Europe another edge:

"Whatever happens
we have got,
the Gatling gun
and they have not."
- Hillaire Belloc

[Gt Obach]

i believe its more a matter of economy.... .... for myself.. i can't really tell much of a difference between my modern type wootz steel and 1084, W1, or 1095 steel.... but.... I can buy a 3/4 round of W1 for 7 bucks but my wootz cost me at least 70 bucks to make the 3lbs ingot.... and even with forge experience, the success rate to produce a sword length is low... (lots of things can go wrong) ..... but that is just a modern scenario....

in the past... i believe economy and quantity would be reason..

even bloom steel like the vikings made or the bloom steel the Japanese made would be a slow process...

look at this post Jesus made on replication of tatara
http://forums.dfoggknives.com/index....topic=6220&hl=

viking blades would be similar but patterns would be formed with different bloom steels
here a tutorial jake did
http://www.powning.com/jake/commish/progress1.shtml

also here's a video Dan just did on his patternwelding..
http://www.ferrum.cc/en/online/videos.html


Long process forsure...... but it's important to note that the processes still survive today and are still sought after.... wootz, tamahagane, among a sea of very affordable mass produced blades.


Greg

ps.. warnings... i do have a bias towards wootz

[Tim Simmons]

Ariel, have you practised any armed martial "arts" ? how many spears have you handled? The spear is the primary weapon. It can be used in a circular motion. I would agree that in a melee of a broken line the sword would have some advantages but you are still in danger of getting stuck by a spear. I think it is the combination of weapons that works best. Rather you than me, I would prefer to be one of the rabble rousers

[S.Al-Anizi]

Originally Posted by ariel

I agree with Greg: of course, spear is very effective, but swords utilise an additional element of motion, ie, circular arm movement as opposed to the linear one of the spear. An example is Chaka's transformation of the throwing/stabbing Zulu spear with a smallish head into a massive sword-like weapon.

This thread is astonishing: in one fell swoop we started to demolish the mythology of the 2 greatest blademaking traditions: Japanese and Persian.
It appears that good mass-produced European blades were at the very least as good and perhaps even better than legendary "Masamunes and Assadollahs". And for less effort and money, too! Overall, the effort:result ratio was orders of magnitude in favor of Europe. Unquestionably, it was the result of scientific revolutions in Europe to which Japanese or Middle-Easterns were very late-comers or just passive consumers. No individual tradition, no matter how refined, can compete with a massive and systematic onslaught of Scientific Technology. Un-romantic, but true.....
Ironically, of course, the great European blades became widely available when they were no longer needed..... But then, the same technology gave Europe another edge:

"Whatever happens
we have got,
the Gatling gun
and they have not."
- Hillaire Belloc

I totally agree.

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by ariel

This thread is astonishing: in one fell swoop we started to demolish the mythology of the 2 greatest blademaking traditions: Japanese and Persian.

Here I totally disagree. You can't judge a weapon out of context, either historical and cultural. When japaneses were reached by portugueses they copied guns and armor NOT the swords. Simply european swords weren't made to fit japanese style of swordfighting. The same when westerner knew about the japanese blades. They were looked at as extremely well made weapons but NOONE copied them in Europe or imported them for our cavalry. Again they didn't fit the combat style and battlefield needs.

Originally Posted by ariel

It appears that good mass-produced European blades were at the very least as good and perhaps even better than legendary "Masamunes and Assadollahs". And for less effort and money, too! Overall, the effort:result ratio was orders of magnitude in favor of Europe. Unquestionably, it was the result of scientific revolutions in Europe to which Japanese or Middle-Easterns were very late-comers or just passive consumers. No individual tradition, no matter how refined, can compete with a massive and systematic onslaught of Scientific Technology. Un-romantic, but true.....
Ironically, of course, the great European blades became widely available when they were no longer needed..... But then, the same technology gave Europe another edge:

"Whatever happens
we have got,
the Gatling gun
and they have not."
- Hillaire B .

Here I totally agree. You should read "Guns Germs ans Steel. The Fates of human Societies", W.W. Norton and Co. New York -London 1997 by
Jared Diamond, a Pulitzer-awarded writer. An astonishingly well made explanation about how and because the "white/european" people reached the technological domain, that perrfectly matches with your quote.
Well, you'll have to deal with the fact that all started in present day Iraq, but I'm confident you can live with this...

[Chris Evans]

1. Ariel,

Originally Posted by ariel

This thread is astonishing: in one fell swoop we started to demolish the mythology of the 2 greatest blademaking traditions: Japanese and Persian.
It appears that good mass-produced European blades were at the very least as good and perhaps even better than legendary "Masamunes and Assadollahs". And for less effort and money, too! Overall, the effort:result ratio was orders of magnitude in favor of Europe. Unquestionably, it was the result of scientific revolutions in Europe to which Japanese or Middle-Easterns were very late-comers or just passive consumers. No individual tradition, no matter how refined, can compete with a massive and systematic onslaught of Scientific Technology. Un-romantic, but true.....

I think that you are spot on, but as collectors we tend to gravitate towards the exceptional or magnificent and not necessarily the practical - And then we fantacize about them, at times a little too freely. To my mind, very few Euro swords can match the sheer beauty, not to mention the unbelievable craftsmanship, of a top wootz or Japanese blade - Practical weapons with which to equip an army? Not really. Magnificent examples of metal working? Unquestionably so. Collectables? A most resounding yes!


2. GT Obach,

Thanks for that link on brittle failure - Made for good reading. Here is another one:

http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094...w/ballard.html

3. There are many other relevant topics that are a bit difficult to adequately cover in a setting like this. For example: The origination of micro cracking, crack propagation and arresting, residual stresses and their role in assisting or inhibiting crack propagation, notch sensitivity of steels and so on.


4. As to the perennial and recurring question as whether these swords were better or inferior to their Western European counterparts, that entirely depends on how they were deployed and the theatre of war. For one, the Mongol hordes did not use very high quality weapons, yet they were remarkably successful.

5. As an aside, for those interested in Japanese swords and their style of fencing, as assessed from the European perspective, there is wonderful little book written by F.J Norman and titled The Fighting Man of Japan. Norman was a Brit cavalry man who taught the Japanese in the 1870s and was probably the first Englishman to seriously study their style of swordsmanship. He made a number of very interesting and astute observations re the merits of the two styles. He opined that whilst a top class Euro duelist could perhaps beat a Japanese in a one to one contest on favourable ground, on the battlefield he felt that the Euro sword of his times was too cumbersome for unmounted use. He also observed that notwithstanding its shorter blade, the Japanese sword did not lack reach because of its longer handle. He was sufficiently level headed to acknowledge that whilst he considered the Japanese sword and its wielding very good, nevertheless both could have been improved.

Cheers
Chris

[frequent]

greetings...

Originally Posted by ariel

This thread is astonishing: in one fell swoop we started to demolish the mythology of the 2 greatest blademaking traditions: Japanese and Persian.

well i dont see how this is provable what do you mean by demolish. don't you think you are assuming too much?

It appears that good mass-produced European blades were at the very least as good and perhaps even better than legendary "Masamunes and Assadollahs".

again how do you prove this? have you ever used a masamunes or assadollahs weapon or more common persian or japanese swords you say you fenced but sorry fencing is not real sword work. you have never used real sword in real practice yes or no, please answer.i dont understand why you assume inferiority. no One can talk about inferiority of blades if they dont use it.this is very wierd that you say these things. are you new to these weapons?

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by ariel

Originally posted by tsubame 1
Samurai too. I wonder why the heck they used the same type of technology
for almost 1000 years being such blades so prone to bending...

Don't get it. Are you being facetious?

Sorry, forgot to put a smiley there. yes I was facetious.
Obviously Samurai didn't find NihonTo so prone to bending.
But yes, some modern JSA quotes that a bad cut can bend a bad sword.
Bend doesn't mean to have a L shped blade, simply have a slightly out of shape blade, still recoverable and effecive in battlefield.