True Combat Value of Wootz

[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

[ariel]

Originally Posted by 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

I see your point: even as recently as 18-19th century, the Brits maintained the superiority of bayoneted rifle over a sword. They had ample empiric evidence from their many Indian wars.
As part of my (long, long ago.....) fencing training, we had rather extensive bayonet practice; that is the extent of my knowledge. Since there were no official bayo competitions, we did not like it very much and preferred real fencing. Spear and bayo have a lot of advantages over a sword: distance, force, stocks with solid buttplates are handy etc... On the other hand, what is gained in distance, is lost in speed. But, Tim, to each his own and, since neither spear nor sword is a practical weapon these days, we can have this argument to our heart's delight over a beer or two, rather than on the battlefield.
And, buddy, if you want to be a real rabble rouser, get yourself a pitchfork!

[ariel]

Originally posted by tsubame 1

"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... "

Once again, I am at a loss: what do you mean? That technology started in Hammurabi's Babylon? That wootz was developed by Saddam Hussain? What is the connection with the "present day Iraq"? What am I supposed to "live with"?
Please explain.

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by ariel

Originally posted by tsubame 1

"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... "

Once again, I am at a loss: what do you mean? That technology started in Hammurabi's Babylon? That wootz was developed by Saddam Hussain? What is the connection with the "present day Iraq"? What am I supposed to "live with"?
Please explain.

Oh, c'mon Ariel, don't get so defensive just for any quote about middle east.

I meant that the book explain the way the western civilizations gained so much technological advantages over the others and all started with the availability of cultivable variety of vegetables, that occurred in the ancient Iraq.
Then availability of domesticable animals, over all the horse. More, the matter to be urbanized that enabled us to increase our immunitary system against bacteria and viruses that were later exported to other continents.
Really a good book explaining the way we begun what we are, placing the basis of the wester civilization that later lead to colonialism.

The way to reach the gatling gun we had and they not. I'm supporting your position, don't see you ?

[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.

[Tim Simmons]

If this spear was not African I am sure it would be considered a noble weapon equal even superior to many swords and worth a lot more as a collectors thing .

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

If this spear was not African I am sure it would be considered a noble weapon equal even superior to many swords and worth a lot more as a collectors thing .

I'll take the Beduin sword, please....

[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?

[Ian]

Guys:

Please keep discussion to the weapons and not get into personalities. There are no doubt some strongly held beliefs about the value of respective weapon traditions. Let's talk about those beliefs and their merits, but not get into who is making the comments and what they do or don't do.

I don't want to have to close this thread or hand out any suspensions.

Ian.

[Ann Feuerbach]

As many of you have pointed out, quality is relative. Presently I am looking into two related aspects: the sword as a symbol, and why the production declined. First of all, a sword was not always (and often not) the "best" method of defence/offence (arrows, firearms etc.) but it is symbolic, the so-called "phallic" aspect aside, the sword in many cultures was a symbol of war, peace, marrage (sword dances), fertility (amulets make in the shape of a sword), justice, status (age and wealth), etc. By the way, back to Iraq...the combination of war/marrage/justice goes back to the Sumarians and the goddess Ishtar/Enanna (around 2500 BC. southern Iraq).

FYI, I don't like Guns, Germs and Steel, it has some good points but is far too simplified. I thought it would be good for the "Rise of Civlization class", but it can be misleading so read with a "pinch of salt".

Back to topic, In fact in non-western societies swords seem primarily to represent peace rather than war. So its combat value was only one aspect. As for why the production declined...yes I know all about economics, used up all the ore, British not allowing production in India, etc, but these are only part of a much larger picture. Think about it..when did production in traditional societies end? late 1800's (lastest recording I think was 1902 in India or Sri Lanka). Russians were invading Bukhara and other areas of Central Asia, Ottoman empire was breaking up in the Near East. Societies, values, etc were changing in a fundamental way. The quality of the blade was only one aspect and that could be fullfilled by imported steel.

PS Ariel: 2 cups of coffee that melts the spoon, with lots of milk in it, first thing in the morning. Apparently coffee protects the liver, and I am all for protecting my liver

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach

As many of you have pointed out, quality is relative. Presently I am looking into two related aspects: the sword as a symbol, and why the production declined. First of all, a sword was not always (and often not) the "best" method of defence/offence (arrows, firearms etc.) but it is symbolic, the so-called "phallic" aspect aside, the sword in many cultures was a symbol of war, peace, marrage (sword dances), fertility (amulets make in the shape of a sword), justice, status (age and wealth), etc. By the way, back to Iraq...the combination of war/marrage/justice goes back to the Sumarians and the goddess Ishtar/Enanna (around 2500 BC. southern Iraq).

FYI, I don't like Guns, Germs and Steel, it has some good points but is far too simplified. I thought it would be good for the "Rise of Civlization class", but it can be misleading so read with a "pinch of salt".

Back to topic, In fact in non-western societies swords seem primarily to represent peace rather than war. So its combat value was only one aspect. As for why the production declined...yes I know all about economics, used up all the ore, British not allowing production in India, etc, but these are only part of a much larger picture. Think about it..when did production in traditional societies end? late 1800's (lastest recording I think was 1902 in India or Sri Lanka). Russians were invading Bukhara and other areas of Central Asia, Ottoman empire was breaking up in the Near East. Societies, values, etc were changing in a fundamental way. The quality of the blade was only one aspect and that could be fullfilled by imported steel.

PS Ariel: 2 cups of coffee that melts the spoon, with lots of milk in it, first thing in the morning. Apparently coffee protects the liver, and I am all for protecting my liver

Very clever point about sword as a symbol of peace. Only I think it was not a "symbol of peace" as such but rather ceremonial object. Because of its perceived greatness it assumed the central role in such cetremonies as marriage, birth, circumcision, special honor etc. All ( or most) ceremonies are "peaceful" by nature but it does not mean that an object participating in them has "peaceful" connotations. In all cultures and in all languages "sword" is a symbol of war; not spear, not arrow, but sword. Heroic acts on the battlefield were rewarded by a sword, not a shield. Think about it.
Yes, the Guns, germs... is not very good. Ian might be willing to express his epidemiological opinion, but just as a book it is quite shallow. Pulitzer is not a guarantee of greatness: JFK was given a Pulitzer for a book that was ghostwritten for him.
So, you think that only when swords became less important, the European imports acquired popularity? Well, the popularity of European blades was obvious even in the 16-17th centuries in India, and in the 18-19th centuries in the Caucasus, when the sword was the King of the Battlefield.
Swords were "out" when replaced by firearms. That does not explain the replacement of native blades by imports.
I got a coffee using your recipe. Not bad. The molten teaspoon was by Assadollah. Should have used Andrea Ferrara.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ann,

Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach

PS Ariel: 2 cups of coffee that melts the spoon, with lots of milk in it, first thing in the morning. Apparently coffee protects the liver, and I am all for protecting my liver

Where did you get the Wood's metal?


Cheers
Chris

[ariel]

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?

[Andrew]

Interesting point, Ariel. I see a couple potential explanations for this phenomenon.

The exotic is often desireable, and "native" consumers might have been attracted to European blades.

European consumers might have wanted Euro bladed weapons (these two are not necessarily mutually exclusive things).

And, as you suggest, perhaps certain folks viewed Euro blades as superior.

[Jeff Pringle]

.... 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....

I don't know, some of those early descriptions of making and forging wootz cakes sound like there were a lot of rejects, at each step in the process. I think a low (copmpared to modern industrial standards) success rate is an antique scenario as well.

Think about it..when did production in traditional societies end? late 1800's

Hmm, much as I'd like to lay the blame at the feet of the industrial revolution and the peak of colonialism, perhaps it was more fundamentally the increase in travel and communication which made the homogenization of commodities on a world-wide basis possible.

When the Europeans were trying to figure out how to make steel in a more efficient way than the blister and shear methods (late 18th to 19th C.), they studied wootz but didn't really figure it out. In Smith's "History of Metallography" he says "Interest in duplication of the [wootz] blade declined as European steelmakers developed their own techniques and the introduction of the Bessemer and Siemens processes gave [a] homogenous steel more adaptable to large-scale production"
...so wootz was recognized as a superior material until the new technologies overtook it; this also coincided with the death of the sword as a functional object, since it was also overtaken by new technologies. I think that early scientific interest in the properties of wootz helped keep the legend alive into the modern era.

[S.Al-Anizi]

Originally Posted by ariel

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?

Very good points Ariel, I can quote Musil, who has described the values of different kinds of sword blades that were available to the Rwala clan in northern arabia. The Khurasani Persian, presumably wootz, is the most expensive, at $135 a blade. Compared to a 'Shintiyan', some kind of european blade, cost from $2-10. Clearly, wootz blades were the most valuable, and this information comes from a society which relied on swords and lances for life.

Strangely though, it seems that they did not like curvy blades. Even with Persian wootz blades, bedouins always sought out for wide blades with a slight curve. European blades of the period, fit the bill perfectly.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ariel,

Originally Posted by ariel

Chris,
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?

You pose a very good question and one which I cannot answer, save for making an educated guess.

With Japanese blades we do know that the best were superb, but those produced in quantity for their feudal armies were nowhere as good . This in all probability explains why some swords acquired a legendary reputation. I imagine that perhaps the same applied to wootz swords; Those that were well made were unquestionably of excellent quality, but probably the run of the mill not anywhere as good - This because even if the raw steel used was top class, it could stilll be easily ruined by bad forging.

My intuition tells me that Euro military swords of the period were probably of a higher average quality. My guess is that once Euro sword blades were manufactured in factories, as opposed to village smithies, and in conformity with tried and tested procedures, the quality became much higher and more consistent.

However this may be, steel quality is one factor and sword shape and dimensions another. If a soldier thinks that the swords of his enemies are of a superior design, then he will covet them, even if the steel that they are made from is not all that outstanding. Wellington, Murat, San Martin and a quite a number of other famous cavalry generals preferred Eastern swords during the Napoleonic era, simply because they perceived that their hilts and curved blades were better suited for that kind of combat.

In this regard, it is worth remembering that on all accounts the Japanese sword made for a very poor mounted weapon (they never understood cavalry). Similarly, despite the above mentioned infatuation that the Europeans had for Far Eastern sabres in the early 1800s, by the middle of the 19th century they were completely superseded by better performing patterns. So maybe, at some point in time Easterners as well figured that Euro swords were of a better design.

Cheers
Chris

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by ariel

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?

In order to sustain Andrew's suggestion about "exotic fashination" I would reverse Ariel's thinking way. Europeans liked very much wootz blades, but didn't replicate them: The reverse for european blades was made in middle east.
Never thought that the solution might be : europeans weren't able to make wootz, middle eastern smiths were able to make european-like steel ?