True Combat Value of Wootz

tsubame1 · 22nd October 2006, 12:34 PM

You're right Carter. Sorry for inconveniences caused.

Deleted to open another thread :

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...5127#post35127

Ann Feuerbach · 22nd October 2006, 03:33 PM

From S. AL-Anizi: Not necessarily Ann, in pre-islamic arabian poetry, swords and their 'firind' are always being described and emphasized upon. Wootz is a very older thing than many people think it is. The more I read, the more it seems that wootz blades were quite common since pre-islam in the near east. Either being imported from india, or even locally produced in Yemen or even Damascus, although its very hard to prove that.

You are quite right. The earliest known crucible steel blade is from the 1st century AD (Taxila) and the 2nd and 3rd known earliest blades are from the Russian Caucausus, indicating that they were well in use before the coming of Islam. In my discussion, I was referring to the influx of swords during the 16th-17th centuries.

From Rivkin: any islamic country subscribing to the pact of Umar or its variations must ban non-muslims from pocessions of any weapons. It is a rather important part of fikh and dhimmi/muslim relationship.

Thank you I did not know what the correct term was. Yes, I am well aware of the ban of non-muslims having weapons during some periods of time (and place). However, sometimes (depending on the time and place) non-muslims were in the military (as mercinarys, slaves etc). I have forgotten the reference.

On another related note, apparently some blades were not used for battle so its performance was not a factor...such as one of the Prophets blades al-Qadib. It was made for companionship and defense only, but not for battle.

S.Al-Anizi · 22nd October 2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Thank you I did not know what the correct term was. Yes, I am well aware of the ban of non-muslims having weapons during some periods of time (and place). However, sometimes (depending on the time and place) non-muslims were in the military (as mercinarys, slaves etc). I have forgotten the reference

.

As in the Ummayad emirate of al-andalus, the palace guard, the 'saqaliba' (slavs), were christians in the service of the emir, and *I think* were allowed to carry weapons.

Chris Evans · 23rd October 2006, 01:59 AM

S.Al-Anizi,

I was muzing over your original question and in particular the replies given by Jeff Pringle and Gt Obach.

Of course one of the problems is that we we do not know, or at least we haven't defined, the lower limit of acceptable mechanical properties for a war sword. Nor have we established what significant advantages and in what context can be obtained by exceeding this lower limit. I suspect, that for a cavalry sword made from conventional martensitic steel, that is not likely to encounter heavy armour, a hardness of 45Rc is adequate, as long as it is not brittle.

Be that as it may, it will do us well to remember that pearlitic steels can be work hardened to a surprising degree, as exemplified by piano wire, which is usually made from hard drawn pearlitic 0.8% carbon steel. It is both very tough and hard. Now, going back to that paper by prof.Verhoeven's, A.H.Pendray's, and W.E.Dauksch's, I suspect that had they Brinell tested the blades they would have obtained a higher hardness reading, perhaps in the low to mid 40s and as well, I don't think that they tested top class swords. Additionally, the part of a sword where hardness counts the most is at the edge and that part cannot be tested by either the Rockwell or Brinell, but only by Vickers, which makes such a small indentation that with wootz it could be misleading,

I think that it would be a fair bet that the very best of the of the woots swords had much harder work hardened blades.

Just some thoughts
Chris

Rivkin · 23rd October 2006, 06:21 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

1. Wootz and practicality: it is interesting that Mubarak-Shah in "Kitab adab al-harb va'shudzhaat" right after saying that indian wootz swords are the best, speaks about "abnach" - indian sword made from copper and silver and according to Mubarak being one of the prized indian swords and very beautiful.
So the beauty was important.
2. Non-mulsims in muslim armies - by memory there is a lot in hadith about Mohammed using jews in his raids until certain point (I remember how they come to him and ask whether his attack plan is from Allah or of his invention and if it the latter they don't care about the spoils they wan't go). Concerning ummoyads - they did not really apply the law, they even had statues. Indeed the presence of semi-muslim ex-christians in muslim armies was overwhelming (mamluks, yanissarians, ghulam etc.), but at the same time the presence of openly christians was limited to episodes like early Osman army (lots of armenians and some western knights) and later - military advisors (usually in "modernizing" islamic armies).
3. Fencing with shamshirs - actually they did so, despite the lack of protection for the hand. Napoleon selected mamluks for his guard based on how horrible they hands looked, so I assume experienced fencers had many,many scars.
4. Concerning western vs. eastern swords - after looking through the literature I think everyone had his own preferances. Hudud al'alem for example liked european swords - he says that they bend much better than local. Mubarak-Shah liked indian swords like nothing else, yet I have read in one of the mamluk manuals (sorry, had it on my hard drive somewhere) that such swords should be hanged around women who can't give birth to boys, while the best swords are made in yemen and have golden dots.
For example Kolchin in his work "Black Mettalurgy and ironwork in ancient Russia" believes based on Ibn-Hordadbech, al-Mukaddasi and Abu Hamid that early "oriental" swords were brittle and too hard tempered had no buyers in Europe but where sold only to savages in the north who liked pretty and hard tempered metal (??) (whih is sort of suggested by abu-Hamid), while western swords were well prized in the East.

And you to try to figure out in this mess who is right and who is wrong, and what exactly do they mean.

5. I am sorry for repeating myself, but after reading all these literature I think that everyone has his own biases; victorians had their own, but everyone else seem to be also guilty as well, some are more and some are less.

Chris Evans · 23rd October 2006, 07:30 AM

Rivkin,

You are a marvelous source of information. Thanks for this interesting contribution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivkin

Ladies and Gentlemen,

1. Wootz and practicality: it is interesting that Mubarak-Shah in "Kitab adab al-harb va'shudzhaat" right after saying that indian wootz swords are the best, speaks about "abnach" - indian sword made from copper and silver and according to Mubarak being one of the prized indian swords and very beautiful.
So the beauty was important..

I think that we should remember that until the appearance of national armies, late in the renaissance, only the nobility could afford expensive and comprehensive arms and armour - And for them beauty=status. The peasant foot soldiers were often armed with nothing else than slings and sticks (siege of Belgrade) . I imagine that for some of the orientals, this state of affairs lasted longer.

In fact, it has been observed that the remarkable success of the Turks and Mongols in Eastern Europe was in no small amount due to the inability of feudal societies to field large and consistently well equiped armies.

Do you know if and when and the Ottoman Turks introduced regulation pattern weapons?

Quote:

3. Fencing with shamshirs - actually they did so, despite the lack of protection for the hand. Napoleon selected mamluks for his guard based on how horrible they hands looked, so I assume experienced fencers had many,many scars...

Well, their wounds couldn't have been too serious as in those days they couldn't repair severed tendons and wire together broken hand bones. Incidentally, I once saw a Middle Eastern mail gauntlet that weighed, at my estimation, around 1.75Kgm, so they must have understood the need for better hand protection.

Cheers
Chris

tsubame1 · 23rd October 2006, 01:00 PM

This thread really grows, more and more interesting.

Andrew · 25th October 2006, 07:02 PM

If Ann doesn't have a problem with how her work was characterized in the book, neither do I.

Let's move along, please, and get back on topic.

ariel · 25th October 2006, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

If Ann doesn't have a problem with how her work was characterized in the book, neither do I.

Let's move along, please, and get back on topic.

I do not have a problem how her work was characterized in the book. I do have a problem, however, whether the content of her book was faithfully cited or misrepresented to the point that the origins of crucible steel were attributed to Iran rather than to proper inventors.
This bears direct influence on the topic of our current discussion on wootz.

Andrew · 25th October 2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

I do not have a problem how her work was characterized in the book. I do have a problem, however, whether the content of her book was faithfully cited or misrepresented to the point that the origins of crucible steel were attributed to Iran rather than to proper inventors.
This bears direct influence on the topic of our current discussion on wootz.

This thread is not about the origins of crucible steel, nor is it about the book. Therefore, this discussion is off-topic.

ariel · 24th October 2006, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach

From S. AL-Anizi: Not necessarily Ann, in pre-islamic arabian poetry, swords and their 'firind' are always being described and emphasized upon. Wootz is a very older thing than many people think it is. The more I read, the more it seems that wootz blades were quite common since pre-islam in the near east. Either being imported from india, or even locally produced in Yemen or even Damascus, although its very hard to prove that.

You are quite right. The earliest known crucible steel blade is from the 1st century AD (Taxila) and the 2nd and 3rd known earliest blades are from the Russian Caucausus, indicating that they were well in use before the coming of Islam. In my discussion, I was referring to the influx of swords during the 16th-17th centuries.

From Rivkin: any islamic country subscribing to the pact of Umar or its variations must ban non-muslims from pocessions of any weapons. It is a rather important part of fikh and dhimmi/muslim relationship.

Thank you I did not know what the correct term was. Yes, I am well aware of the ban of non-muslims having weapons during some periods of time (and place). However, sometimes (depending on the time and place) non-muslims were in the military (as mercinarys, slaves etc). I have forgotten the reference.

On another related note, apparently some blades were not used for battle so its performance was not a factor...such as one of the Prophets blades al-Qadib. It was made for companionship and defense only, but not for battle.

Ann,
I am intrigued:
In the recent book by Mr. Khorasani "Arms and Armor from Iran", you are cited on pp. 103-104 (your Ph.D. dissertation) as stating that the earliest crucible steel blade possibly comes from Luristan (Western Iran) and the next published object is a Sassanian sword of the 6-7th century.
Now, you are saying that the earliest came from Taxila ( Western India) and later ones from the Russian Caucasus ( what exact area?).
Am I missing something?
Have you changed your opinion based on recent info?
Were you misquoted in the book?
And, just for your info, here is the reference to the Pact of Umar that was mentioned by Rivkin:
http://www.domini.org/openbook/umar.htm

Ann Feuerbach · 24th October 2006, 02:30 PM

Well spotted. It is all correct, but needs clarification. The blade from Luristan has spheroidal cementite suggesting it is crucible steel, but the date is uncertain as they were looted and therefore lost all context and dating. The earliest excavated and well dated blade is from Taxila (1st century AD). The second and third earliest excavated are from the Russian Caucasus (3rd-4th century AD), the fourth earliest blade is from Sasanian period. The blades from Luristan and Sasanian Perisa are the two earliest known from IRAN, not the earliest in the world.

Ann Feuerbach · 24th October 2006, 02:41 PM

Oh, that you as well for the link to Umar. It is now properly placed in my database. Russian Caucausus...near Kislovodsk, I analyzed 35 blades, 4 were crucible steel, those two early ones are associated with the Alani culture, a 7th century one was found in association with a horse burial, and an 11th century one associated witht the Saultovo Mauaskaya culture (related to the Khazar Turks before the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols. There has also been crucible steel objects found in Kazakstan.

Rivkin · 24th October 2006, 04:17 PM

Interesting !
I thought Taxila findings are from a collection of burial places of some central asian tribes related to alans - is there a possible connection between them ?
If you are interested in Umar's pact, as far as I remember (and I hope there are people here who actually know fiqh, not pretend they do, like me), it is supposed to stem from a message of Mohammed to non-muslims of Yemen, non-muslims were not supposed to be left in Arabia, so it was the first place where the coexistance started. Understanding of Pact of Umar changed to some extent over time, especially nn the boundaries of umma, places like India or Spain (where Moghuls held rather unusual views and Spain is the place where Umayads and Almohads had diametrically opposite view on the issue). Shias have traditionally somewhat different view on the Pact since they are very careful concerning "impurity" laws.

ariel · 25th October 2006, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach

Well spotted. It is all correct, but needs clarification. The blade from Luristan has spheroidal cementite suggesting it is crucible steel, but the date is uncertain as they were looted and therefore lost all context and dating. The earliest excavated and well dated blade is from Taxila (1st century AD). The second and third earliest excavated are from the Russian Caucasus (3rd-4th century AD), the fourth earliest blade is from Sasanian period. The blades from Luristan and Sasanian Perisa are the two earliest known from IRAN, not the earliest in the world.

That is not how it was reported in the book. I have an uneasy feeling about the misrepresentation of facts and mis-quoting of your data in the book: it was made to sound as if Iran was the cradle of crucible steel technology. Whoever has this book, please read the section I referred to and compare it to Ann's post here: am I the only one viewing it to be an intentional misquoting?

Rick · 25th October 2006, 02:59 AM

I thought you had a copy of this book Ariel ?

ariel · 25th October 2006, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

I thought you had a copy of this book Ariel ?

Yes, I do. That's where I got the information. I just want to have opinions of other readers.

S.Al-Anizi · 22nd October 2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsubame1

You're right Carter. Sorry for inconveniences caused.

Deleted to open another thread :

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...5127#post35127

No no not at all Carlos, I was getting quite interested in your conversation, you and Chris, ive always found Japanese swords quite controversial

I just felt that deserved a sole thread for it, and I would gladly contribute to that thread if something pops up

22nd October 2006, 12:34 PM	#1
tsubame1 Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Magenta, Northern Italy Posts: 123	You're right Carter. Sorry for inconveniences caused. Deleted to open another thread : http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...5127#post35127 Last edited by tsubame1; 22nd October 2006 at 02:17 PM.

23rd October 2006, 01:59 AM	#4
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	S.Al-Anizi, I was muzing over your original question and in particular the replies given by Jeff Pringle and Gt Obach. Of course one of the problems is that we we do not know, or at least we haven't defined, the lower limit of acceptable mechanical properties for a war sword. Nor have we established what significant advantages and in what context can be obtained by exceeding this lower limit. I suspect, that for a cavalry sword made from conventional martensitic steel, that is not likely to encounter heavy armour, a hardness of 45Rc is adequate, as long as it is not brittle. Be that as it may, it will do us well to remember that pearlitic steels can be work hardened to a surprising degree, as exemplified by piano wire, which is usually made from hard drawn pearlitic 0.8% carbon steel. It is both very tough and hard. Now, going back to that paper by prof.Verhoeven's, A.H.Pendray's, and W.E.Dauksch's, I suspect that had they Brinell tested the blades they would have obtained a higher hardness reading, perhaps in the low to mid 40s and as well, I don't think that they tested top class swords. Additionally, the part of a sword where hardness counts the most is at the edge and that part cannot be tested by either the Rockwell or Brinell, but only by Vickers, which makes such a small indentation that with wootz it could be misleading, I think that it would be a fair bet that the very best of the of the woots swords had much harder work hardened blades. Just some thoughts Chris Last edited by Chris Evans; 23rd October 2006 at 02:40 AM.

22nd October 2006, 03:33 PM	#2
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	From S. AL-Anizi: Not necessarily Ann, in pre-islamic arabian poetry, swords and their 'firind' are always being described and emphasized upon. Wootz is a very older thing than many people think it is. The more I read, the more it seems that wootz blades were quite common since pre-islam in the near east. Either being imported from india, or even locally produced in Yemen or even Damascus, although its very hard to prove that. You are quite right. The earliest known crucible steel blade is from the 1st century AD (Taxila) and the 2nd and 3rd known earliest blades are from the Russian Caucausus, indicating that they were well in use before the coming of Islam. In my discussion, I was referring to the influx of swords during the 16th-17th centuries. From Rivkin: any islamic country subscribing to the pact of Umar or its variations must ban non-muslims from pocessions of any weapons. It is a rather important part of fikh and dhimmi/muslim relationship. Thank you I did not know what the correct term was. Yes, I am well aware of the ban of non-muslims having weapons during some periods of time (and place). However, sometimes (depending on the time and place) non-muslims were in the military (as mercinarys, slaves etc). I have forgotten the reference. On another related note, apparently some blades were not used for battle so its performance was not a factor...such as one of the Prophets blades al-Qadib. It was made for companionship and defense only, but not for battle.

23rd October 2006, 06:21 AM	#5
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Ladies and Gentlemen, 1. Wootz and practicality: it is interesting that Mubarak-Shah in "Kitab adab al-harb va'shudzhaat" right after saying that indian wootz swords are the best, speaks about "abnach" - indian sword made from copper and silver and according to Mubarak being one of the prized indian swords and very beautiful. So the beauty was important. 2. Non-mulsims in muslim armies - by memory there is a lot in hadith about Mohammed using jews in his raids until certain point (I remember how they come to him and ask whether his attack plan is from Allah or of his invention and if it the latter they don't care about the spoils they wan't go). Concerning ummoyads - they did not really apply the law, they even had statues. Indeed the presence of semi-muslim ex-christians in muslim armies was overwhelming (mamluks, yanissarians, ghulam etc.), but at the same time the presence of openly christians was limited to episodes like early Osman army (lots of armenians and some western knights) and later - military advisors (usually in "modernizing" islamic armies). 3. Fencing with shamshirs - actually they did so, despite the lack of protection for the hand. Napoleon selected mamluks for his guard based on how horrible they hands looked, so I assume experienced fencers had many,many scars. 4. Concerning western vs. eastern swords - after looking through the literature I think everyone had his own preferances. Hudud al'alem for example liked european swords - he says that they bend much better than local. Mubarak-Shah liked indian swords like nothing else, yet I have read in one of the mamluk manuals (sorry, had it on my hard drive somewhere) that such swords should be hanged around women who can't give birth to boys, while the best swords are made in yemen and have golden dots. For example Kolchin in his work "Black Mettalurgy and ironwork in ancient Russia" believes based on Ibn-Hordadbech, al-Mukaddasi and Abu Hamid that early "oriental" swords were brittle and too hard tempered had no buyers in Europe but where sold only to savages in the north who liked pretty and hard tempered metal (??) (whih is sort of suggested by abu-Hamid), while western swords were well prized in the East. And you to try to figure out in this mess who is right and who is wrong, and what exactly do they mean. 5. I am sorry for repeating myself, but after reading all these literature I think that everyone has his own biases; victorians had their own, but everyone else seem to be also guilty as well, some are more and some are less.

23rd October 2006, 01:00 PM	#7
tsubame1 Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Magenta, Northern Italy Posts: 123	This thread really grows, more and more interesting.

25th October 2006, 07:02 PM	#8
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	If Ann doesn't have a problem with how her work was characterized in the book, neither do I. Let's move along, please, and get back on topic.

24th October 2006, 02:30 PM	#12
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	Well spotted. It is all correct, but needs clarification. The blade from Luristan has spheroidal cementite suggesting it is crucible steel, but the date is uncertain as they were looted and therefore lost all context and dating. The earliest excavated and well dated blade is from Taxila (1st century AD). The second and third earliest excavated are from the Russian Caucasus (3rd-4th century AD), the fourth earliest blade is from Sasanian period. The blades from Luristan and Sasanian Perisa are the two earliest known from IRAN, not the earliest in the world.

24th October 2006, 02:41 PM	#13
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	Oh, that you as well for the link to Umar. It is now properly placed in my database. Russian Caucausus...near Kislovodsk, I analyzed 35 blades, 4 were crucible steel, those two early ones are associated with the Alani culture, a 7th century one was found in association with a horse burial, and an 11th century one associated witht the Saultovo Mauaskaya culture (related to the Khazar Turks before the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols. There has also been crucible steel objects found in Kazakstan.

24th October 2006, 04:17 PM	#14
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Interesting ! I thought Taxila findings are from a collection of burial places of some central asian tribes related to alans - is there a possible connection between them ? If you are interested in Umar's pact, as far as I remember (and I hope there are people here who actually know fiqh, not pretend they do, like me), it is supposed to stem from a message of Mohammed to non-muslims of Yemen, non-muslims were not supposed to be left in Arabia, so it was the first place where the coexistance started. Understanding of Pact of Umar changed to some extent over time, especially nn the boundaries of umma, places like India or Spain (where Moghuls held rather unusual views and Spain is the place where Umayads and Almohads had diametrically opposite view on the issue). Shias have traditionally somewhat different view on the Pact since they are very careful concerning "impurity" laws.

25th October 2006, 02:59 AM	#16
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,339	I thought you had a copy of this book Ariel ?