# Communities > Antique Arms & Armour Community > Middle-East, India & Africa (MEIA) >  Damascus Steel, Crusades and other Myths.

## Greg Volevach

Dear forumites!

There is a certain hype around Damascus steel since the Victorian Era, which perpetuates even today. But unlike Japanese sword myths, which get debunked by HEMA practitioners and other WMA folks, there is almost no effort in our popular culture to investigate the phenomenon of the legendary "damascus steel". which results in such sad things as historians and curators quoting outdated myths as if they were "historical fact".

One example: http://www.swordforum.com/forums/sho...aladin-s-sword

There is a consensus within popular culture that following things are historically correct. Those are of course known to be false to every serious sword afficionado, but they're still out there, taken as "fact".

In time of Crusades....
1. Damascus steel was far superior (harder, sharper, more flexible) than contemporary european steel.
2. Damascus swords cut european maille armor and swords with ease, that's why Crusades were lost.
3.  European Knights paid big money to get one of those super swords.
4. There is a historical account of a Crusader and a Saracen who tested their swords; Crusader managed to cut a iron mace with his two-hander, and the Saracen threw a silk scarf in the air and cut it in half with his damascus Scimitar.

All this is still quoted countless times around the Internet, and very few people usually doubt it.

*1). Damascus steel superiority.*
This one is the most pervasive ideas, which ironically lacks any historical proof within the Middle Ages. If we seek historical sources we encounter reports of Al-Kindi, Nasir ad Din ad-Tusi, Ibn-Miskawaiah, al-Biruni, they all reported excellent quality of european steel (Source: Hilda Roderick Ellis Davidson: The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England: Its Archaeology and Literature. Boydell & Brewer Inc; Reprint © 1998 (page 114-118) Ad-Tusi wrote that a Frankish sword in the first half of 13th century was worth of 1000 egyptian dinars, and al-Biruni even mentioned that "Oriental steel cannot withstand the cold of their [european] winters". Sounds not very 'superior' to me...
Hardness.
According to J.D. Verhoeven and Carlo Panseri, genuine Wootz blades are usually within 35-40 HRC, while european swords are around 50HRC (Source, also see books and papers of A. Williams). Due to high amounts of phosphorus found in genuine Wootz blades it is doubtful that they could be any harder and not become too brittle.
Sharpness.
Once again, there is no historical or metallurgical proof that Wootz steel is somehow sharper than refined or industrial steel. Even if a rough Wootz edge full of carbides would provide a "saw effect", it does not matter at all if used against iron or steel armor.
Flexibility.
According to Manfred Sachse's "Damascus Steel" modern steel was performing best among others, including Wootz. Tests made by Rick Furrer also do not indicate any "supersteel". Again, no credible historical evidence that Wootz/Damascus steel outperformed Frankish steel back in time.

*2). Cutting Swords n Armor with ease*
Any of those who are professional metalworkers know too well that cutting swords and armor is only a myth spread by Hollywood, Eastern movies and Samurai hype. No historical reports of Frankish maille being "cut like butter", but some reports where we can read that arrows stuck in Frankish maille, unable to penetrate (Bahā'al-Dīn, "The Life of Saladin" (Ch. CXVII), in What Befell Sultan Yusuf, by Abu el-Mehasan Yusef ibn-Rafi ibn-Temun el-Asadi). And fo course no accounts of european swords being cut in half.
Tests performed by Alan Williams in his "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" (p. 927) show that considerable energy (1/2*weight*speed²) is needed to defeat maille armor, sharpness as a factor isn't present at all. The best combination of speed and weight is needed, insane sharpness and tremendous weight are useless on their own in this particular case.

*3). Knights paid tons of gold for Damascus steel*
To me, no genuine Wootz blade is known from medieval Europe pre-15th century, but according to the myth there must be thousands of them in museums, collections and among archaeological finds. No one is actually known, which leds to the suspicion that Europeans were not importing any Oriental blades in 11-13th centuries.
Alan Williams discovered swords which are suppoisedly made from Persian crucible steel -- http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/inde...wnload/218/222
... but those swords are dated well before Crusades started, and are forged european style. Amounts of phosphorus are extremely low, hardness varied greatly but could reach up to 48 HRC, all this shows signs of european metalworking with supposedly oriental raw materials.
The sources also show no evidence that oriental swords were favored at all.

*4). Crusader and a Saracen testing their swords*
It can be said that this one is the very root of the Damascus Steel Myth. The story is actually not a historical account, _but a romantic novel "Talisman", wrote by the famous Victorian writer Walter Scott!_ In his novel, he made up a fictious meeting of Saladin and Richard I., where they demonstrated their not less fictious swords. There is no proof that both, Richard and Saladin, ever met each other in the Holy Land.
If we assume this meeting took place between 1189 and 1192, two handed swords and moon-like curved "Scimitars" are pure anachronisms! True two handed war swords didn't appeared before 1250, and Scimitars, as Scott imagined them, not until 16th century. Walter Scott describes Saladin's saber as a pattern welded blade, which is clearly not made from Wootz. Also Scott ignores the fact that Arabs, just like Europeans, used straight double edged swords up to 14th century if fighting heavily armored opponents. Here some examples:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11.../ISAS_27_1.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...rd_ISAS_pl.jpg

SUMMARY....

All we have is a romantic tale of Walter Scott, and the popular opinion that european weaponry was inferior and Oriental superior, induced by Victorian Era romanticism. But strangely, there are no credible historical evidence to support any of those claims. It's quite opposite - Arab sources valued Frankish steel as they did Indo-Persian Wootz, which leads to the conclusion that BOTH were of good quality. And - quite ironically - no historical evidence that Damascus ever was the most important metalworking centre of the East where "best swords" were made.

Since european weaponry of the 12th century was indeed light, sharp and efficient, just like Oriental, it apparently boils down to *pure romanticism and love for anything exotic which feeds the Damascus Steel Myth.* There is something which might helped to establish the myth - from 19th century cheap mass produced unsharpened sabres/swords were and are produced in huge amounts. On the contrary, oriental (and especially japanese) swords still had genuine sharpness, which led to the impression european blades are not sharp "by design".

In the end, I am still deeply astonished how a romantic novel written by a Victorian novelist, could be so widely accepted as "historical fact"...

EDIT: Once again I did a small research on Internet and found that hardly any site "informing" about Damascus steel and Crusades has spared the myth. They all confidently state how superior it was compared to european blades but offer no sources as usual. I even came across one site where a esoteric book was sited as source...


Best wishes

Greg Volevach

----------


## J.G. Hopkins

This post is copied from a thread in the General Forum, here.

----------


## Gene Wilkinson

My favourite story about wootz is that before a battle, the Islamic knights would look at the 'watered' patterns and be reassured that they represented the flowing waters of the rivers of paradise and be calmed and reassured that should they fall their place in paradise would be assured.
Somewhat similar to the romance view of the kneeling crusader praying holding his cruciform hilted sword before battle I guess.

----------


## Gene Wilkinson

I think that the Saladin and Richard story is pretty much accepted as being apocryphal.  :Wink:

----------

