True Combat Value of Wootz

[Rivkin]

I have no problem with wootz cutting iron, nor with "simple" steel cutting iron - remember eisenhower, gurda marks, which to some extent precisely mean - cuts through iron. Now here comes my difference from Jim - he would cite you all the literature, but I am lazy, so I want :
These marks probably appear around XVIIth century, and probably "cut an iron nail" test becomes a standard perfomance test sometime around this date.

Now, after reading about 15 different middle eastern authors and western travelers on middle eastern warfare, I find interesting pattern: western swords, specifically those sold by supposedly vikings to the middle east are highly praised for their quality, something until XIIIth century. Then you start seeing things that suggest that they are of not highest quality (like an edict requiring prosecution of masters who make "frankish"-like swords, but selling them as "damascus", extensive praise for hindu swords, with also extensive reference to their beauty, and, sometimes - directly to their fighting qualities (even though it is often said that such swords are "hard" and good to cut this, and such swords are soft and they are better in cutting that) starts to be applied consistently.

Now, we know quite a few western swords from before XIVth century used in the Middle East (Alexandria arsenal may be not the best example). But I checked numerous accounts of traders to Safavid Persia - not a single one was importing swords.
But then in early XVIIIth century we see that western swords reappear again.

However it can all be explained not only by variations in western vs. eastern swords qualities but also by the dynamics of trade routs and differences between western and eastern use of swords (popularity of slashing etc.).

[RSWORD]

As this interesting discussion winds down, I only have one thing to add.

[Jeff D]

Originally Posted by RSWORD

As this interesting discussion winds down, I only have one thing to add.

Sweet Rick!
I will second that opinion

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,

I think that we gave this topic a pretty good airing, but by no means wrote the last word on the subject.

Someone brought this to my attention today:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...6bbef23a0311ac

Carbon nanotubes?

Help - We need to get hold of that paper.

Cheers
Chris

[Rivkin]

Well, my personal impression is somewhat mixed. The article in Nature starts bad - it talks a lot about crusaders, about mysterious blades their encountered, and then says oh, here we analyze such blade - from XVIIIth century. Then it continues to say that wootz (called damascus in the paper) have exhibited highly unusual super-qualities. As we discussed in this thread, this is somewhat questionable. There are some authors who liked it, some, like for example Tournie, whom Manoucher quotes on a different issue, believed that wootz weapons are simply very bad ones, and mechanical damascus is much better. Then it says that the secret of making wootz was "lost" in XVIIIth century, but yet somehow Kyrgyz and other smiths were able to work with Anosov in creating wootz blades in XIXth century. Geurk did make some wootz weaponry relatively late in XIXth century, albeit I think he did not make wootz.

Then we go into subject of carbon nanotubes. Ok, carbon nanotubes. It is obvious that carbon in wootz samples formed some sort of structure and it is obvious that this pattern would be formed on a nanoscale. I guess 50 year ago, before the word "nano" started to mean "grant money", no one would really care to specifically mention the nanoscale. What is new in this article is that it is formed a nanotube structure rather than diamond or graphite. This is what significant over here, and it is indeed an interesting discovery. Which again requires certain reiteration of the question "what is Wootz ?" For example Anosov, as fas as I remember, believed that wootz should consist chemically from carbon and iron, and all these stories about alloying are wrong. He is also quoted that every steel with a pattern would be called "bulat" (he did not use the word "wootz") by the people, even though some of it is mechanical, i.e. "artificial bulat", and some is "real bulat". So again we need to agree on what is wootz. For example Pendrey &Verhoeven & company believe that ".... The prior studies claiming to have either reproduced the genuine Damascus steel or explained the mechanism of pattern formation are reviewed. None of these studies have allowed modern blade smiths to reproduce the steel. The author and a blade smith, Alfred Pendray, has developed a process with which Pendray can produce blades that match the microstructures of the best museum quality genuine Damascus blades", meaning I guess that everyone else's wootz is fake. If they would mention which museums blades are "quality genuine Damascus blades", and which are definitely not, despite having visual pattern, this would make me more happy.

[Chris Evans]

Rivkin,

Where did you see the article? Do you have a link to it?

Cheers
Chris

[Rivkin]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Rivkin,

Where did you see the article? Do you have a link to it?

Cheers
Chris

I can send the pdf file of the article to everyone who emails me via the site(I don't have enough storage for private messages) his/her email.

Btw, have you seen Wadsworth's review article ?

[Ian]

Chris:

It's unclear to me what properties carbon nanotubes and nanowires might convey to steel. The authors suggest that such structures might explain the extaordinary cutting properties and strength of wootz versus other steels. Since we are having trouble here agreeing that wootz per se did have such special properties, I would put the discovery of these microstructures in wootz as interesting observations deserving further attention, but far from conclusive evidence that they convey special properties to wootz and not other steels. Do we know that these nanotubes and nanowires do not occur in other types of steel? Do we know that such strcutures convey greater strength and sharper cutting edge?

I suspect that wootz is not unique in regard to having these structures. Perhaps Dr Ann can help us here.

The article abstract is here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...s/444286a.html

You can purchase the full article online for $30 (I recommend the PDF version) here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/444286a.html. Or you can go to your local library, get the November 16, 2006 number of Nature, p. 286, and photocopy the article for pennies.

Ian.