Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2008 22:09:33 GMT
I think I read somewhere that a lot of swords in the middle ages were not tempered at all, as in it was simply not part of the process. I thought it sounded a little odd, and I cant find a source, but can anyone verify this? If I can find the source I will post it.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 14, 2008 22:28:55 GMT
It's contrary to all of the firsthand evidence of anyone who has documented medieval swords.
If I had to guess, I'd say the person making those remarks handled a cheap victorian era knockoff - which were infamously poor. All of the true examples I can think of off the top of my head have been tempered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2008 22:31:15 GMT
It's contrary to all of the firsthand evidence of anyone who has documented medieval swords. If I had to guess, I'd say the person making those remarks handled a cheap victorian era knockoff - which were infamously poor. All of the true examples I can think of off the top of my head have been tempered. I think it was on SFI or Myarmoury. Something of the sort. It likely was an ignorant comment, and I didnt stick around long enough for the lampooning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2008 0:34:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jeff K. ( Jak) on Jan 15, 2008 4:06:46 GMT
i believe some damacus blades made of wootz steel were un tempered, or cold forged or something. i dont know how durablu theyd be tho.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2008 22:01:49 GMT
It does not surprise me at all. Problem is that all the bad swords ended up being forged into horseshoes or door hinges. Most of the good ones ended up that way too. We really only have a very small sampling of historical swords. No statitition would be comfortable with any conclusion we make today based on such a small sample. I recall an interview with an expert at the (got to look this one up... brb)
Edit:
I found it. Here is quote of what I wanted to say. I wrote it myself in another thread a while back:
I think this is exactly what you are talking about Lukebailey.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 15, 2008 22:29:45 GMT
We've got plenty of "bad" swords. The original that the albion Landgraf is based from was said (by oakeshott, no less) was said to be of shockingly aweful handling.
The fact is, that type of statement can be used to back up any statement that challenges the norm. What about katanas? We've got a pretty darn small porportion of those, I guess we can all assume, then, that they were all poorly heat treated and the ones that remain are obviously of the higher end of the spectrum.
The fact is, the better part of all sword researchers are of the conclusion that viking swords were some of the best of their day. That opinion (which I hold as well) is not going to be dissuaded by simple banters from sources with no credibility.
As to the number of swords today - we've got countless thousands in public museums, and even more in private hands. Sure, the majority may not have survived, but a pretty large number did and we're constantly discovering more (buried at the bottom of streams, on BATTLEFIELDS - which, need I remind you, are were swords of all classes, rich and poor, were used - etc.). Tsafa, did you know that the unemployment rate in the United States is calculated by a sampling of a very few individuals and multiplied to find the real porportion? Would do you believe that "No statitition would be comfortable with any conclusion we make today based on such a small sample"? Maybe if only a couple hundred swords were in existance today, then I can agree, but the turth is - we've got plenty of them, far miore than most people realize.
Also, IMHO, bad swords would be incredibly rare. The blacksmith's life would depend on the quality of his work, else you'd have an angry knight after your instestines. And the very few poorly made swords would be been eaten up in battle and therfore, should be found in these battlefield swhich are constantly excavated.
|
|
slav
Member
Senior Forumite
Katsujin No Ken
Posts: 4,457
|
Post by slav on Jan 15, 2008 22:35:55 GMT
Another factor is that sometimes a discrepancy arises about what "tempering" actually is.
"Qhenching/hardening" and "tempering" are two different processes, but sometimes people erroneously refer to the quenching/hardening process as "tempering" the blade.
So, it is possible for someone to mistakenly interpret "un-tempered" to mean unquenched, soft steel; when actually the blade they are talking about may have indeed been quenched and hardened, but not subsequently tempered by heating the hardened blade slightly for a period of time after quenching.
This would definitely still make for a hard and sharp blade, but it would be brittle and prone to chipping and cracking.
|
|
slav
Member
Senior Forumite
Katsujin No Ken
Posts: 4,457
|
Post by slav on Jan 15, 2008 22:57:20 GMT
Ramm, I was thinking:
Few battles were fought solely by noble knights and warriors. In fact, I would imagine that the majority of most wars in ancient history were fought mainly by dispensable laypeople, hastily prepared and poorly equipped. (Of course history books rarely make note of this, and only focus on the important guys and their contingents.) With this in mind, the possibility of the production of many, many "bad swords" would be quite a real one, no?
In the case that--for the above reason--there did exist a lot of bad swords that, say, were poorly hardened, or not hardened/tempered at all, maybe not even made by proper smiths...then it would make sense that they are not found all that often among ancient excavation sites. Why? Because unhardened steel is exponentially softer, weaker, and more susceptible to corrosion than properly made swords. Meaning that most would have totally dissolved and been eaten by worms long ago, while the good swords still survive to this day (but even those are often in bad shape.)
In this way, both history and science may have slowly and inadvertently erased the existence of hoards of peasant fighters, equipped with bad swords. Kinda sad, really...cause if we had a war right now, I imagine that's what I would be.
Make sense? Just my common sense working here, as I have not studied the matter in the context of European history or sword tech.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2008 23:00:53 GMT
Well, I think the majority of peasent soldiers would not have fought with sword, they would have used billhooks and the like. But it is still a valid point.
However, I think a point should be raised. A lot of swords where not made with the reputation of a smith in mind: I think it was even Ramm who said that a lot of war swords were mass-produced by guilds. It would be possible, therefore, to get quite a few lemons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2008 23:44:38 GMT
Those same guilds were in constant competition with each other. Nobles wanted to outfit their retinues (including poor men at arms) with the best equipment possible. So many guilds were vying for contracts, which in turn would cause production efficiency and quality to tighten significantly.
Slavia, that is an interesting theory. Inferior swords would be more prone to rust, thus causing them to disintegrate? However, if the swords were merely quenched and flung into battle, instead of being tempered before hand, would they not be less susceptible to the effects of time and wear because of their hardness?
Hmm, seems like a question for our smiths.
Also, arguably, un-tempered swords would be more common then ones that had been annealed but not quenched, no? So why aren't there more?
Tsafa, can you give us the source of that quote? I'm interested in those findings.
Now, as for peasants fighting. They would most likely not be using swords. They were untrained in their use, and swords were expensive for commoners. They would most likely have used converted farm tools, or as Luke said, bills, pitchforks, war mallets, (think spiked wooden hammers) and threshing flails.
This argument has also been going on for a very long time, and unless some unequivocal evidence comes up to prove something, it's going to be going on for a long time to come.
Of course, this is just my limited knowledge of it.
|
|
slav
Member
Senior Forumite
Katsujin No Ken
Posts: 4,457
|
Post by slav on Jan 16, 2008 0:18:19 GMT
Yes, theoretically: quenched but un-tempered metal would probably last the longest, followed by properly tempered swords, followed by annealed sword[like-objects].
However, many un-tempered swords (if they even existed in numbers) would probably have been broken, or even shattered [QVC style] in battle, rendering them swords no longer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2008 2:42:46 GMT
My source was an expert with knowledge of metalurgy and access to a museum. That person used advanced machinery and other methods to draw a conclusion. They probably worked for the museum and would not have said anything to discredit the swords without good evidence. This was a person searching for facts.
The show was called "Secrets of Viking warriors". It was on Part 1. You can find it on Bit Torrent.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 16, 2008 3:09:17 GMT
You source is in conflict with every known learned soul on the subject.
Very true Luke, however they certainly were not he norm. All of the knowlege we have on the subject, both via texts as well as the handling of antiques, tell us that munitions grade swords far outstrip lower end companies' repros today.
|
|
slav
Member
Senior Forumite
Katsujin No Ken
Posts: 4,457
|
Post by slav on Jan 16, 2008 3:35:28 GMT
Ramm just curious, what method did the Vikings or other European smiths use to temper their blades? And how did they discover the benefits of tempering a blade after the quench?
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 16, 2008 3:44:00 GMT
Not my area of expertise.
I've never been too enthralled with the smithing process - I like the how "after the smithing" process ;D
But quenching and tempering have both been around in mainland europe by european tribes - The celts were famous for this.
|
|
slav
Member
Senior Forumite
Katsujin No Ken
Posts: 4,457
|
Post by slav on Jan 16, 2008 3:47:31 GMT
I always find it interesting that with no knowledge of mollecular science, primitive people still somehow discovered things like quenching and especially tempering. I mean, who would think to heat something red hot, dip it in water, and then warm it up again for a while?
Trial and error over decades, I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2008 5:43:19 GMT
I am leaning toward the opinion that historical swords have been much over-hyped in the last few years. Partly because we are biased as sword enthusiasts... and partly because of sword industry hype. Why are opinions being based on what people over at SFI or My Armory say? Who made them experts anyway!?!?!? SFI is crowded by a bunch of salesmen selling their goods at super high prices. They may know how to make a modern sword replica and sell it, but it does not make them historians nor archeologist's. Why on earth should I take their word as salesmen, over someone who works in a museum studying historical swords and is reputable enough to put on a National Geographic documentary.
Note: I had forgotten before that the show was National Geographic, I had to look it up. "Secrets of Viking Warriors".
I would be open to hearing an opinion based on another archeologist/metallurgist. I would even be cool if it is conflicting. I would just say they experts really don't know yet. I have no issue at all with that. I can not accept any contradictory opinion from someone just because they are in the business of selling modern sword replicas.
|
|
|
Post by salvatore on Jan 16, 2008 10:00:01 GMT
I always find it interesting that with no knowledge of mollecular science, primitive people still somehow discovered things like quenching and especially tempering. I mean, who would think to heat something red hot, dip it in water, and then warm it up again for a while? Trial and error over decades, I guess. Yeah really, I thought the application of clay and softer steel core in old tamahagane blades was amazing. It is incredible that smiths back then knew how to apply things around them in order to make a good blade. I heard a lot of odd myths about old quench methods. Have you ever heard of the application of lambs blood?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2008 12:52:42 GMT
I am leaning toward the opinion that historical swords have been much over-hyped in the last few years. Partly because we are biased as sword enthusiasts... and partly because of sword industry hype. Why are opinions being based on what people over at SFI or My Armory say? Who made them experts anyway!?!?!? SFI is crowded by a bunch of salesmen selling their goods at super high prices. They may know how to make a modern sword replica and sell it, but it does not make them historians nor archeologist's. Why on earth should I take their word as salesmen, over someone who works in a museum studying historical swords and is reputable enough to put on a National Geographic documentary. Note: I had forgotten before that the show was National Geographic, I had to look it up. "Secrets of Viking Warriors". I would be open to hearing an opinion based on another archeologist/metallurgist. I would even be cool if it is conflicting. I would just say they experts really don't know yet. I have no issue at all with that. I can not accept any contradictory opinion from someone just because they are in the business of selling modern sword replicas. Are you referring to someone in particular?
|
|