Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2008 15:14:01 GMT
Yes, there is a few names that come to mind from the past, but I don't want to be a mean, nasty @#$% and talk specificaly about certain people. I have not been active there in a some time too.
I don't know how much things have changed there, but once upon a time there was a myth that was being pushed that all mass produced swords were so weak that non would not survive any solid impact. Essential they had every sub $500 sword as a rat-tail. I did a lot of work to debunk that myth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2008 15:40:08 GMT
The other book I would recommend is "Knight and The Blast Furnace". I believe swords are referred to in the book, as well as hardening armour. Talks about relative steel qualities, quenching, case-hardening, etc.
Sometimes they just got lucky. Otherwise (as is the case with "Damascus" steel) they simply had naturally occuring elements that worked better. Some naturally had more carbon in it, allowing more hardening, etc. It took a while to figure out WHY it was happening, but you dont have to know why, simply buy from the guy who got lucky with his given land.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2008 15:52:47 GMT
Tsafa, It sounds to me like the interviewees were commenting on the quality of the steel used for the swords rather than the blades themselves. The pattern welding did not give the sword any mystical cutting properties, but did help to even out inconsistencies in the steel—much like the folding of steel for a Japanese sword. So the pattern welding did not make the sword better, but was necessary to make the steel usable. I could be way off on that--it is just my layperson’s take on what is being said.
I also do not think that historical swords are over-hyped. A number of makers and designers of modern replicas (“salesmen” as you call them) approach swords in a scholarly way, e.g. Peter Johnson and the folks at Arms & Armor. Peter Johnson has meticulously reproduced museum swords to exacting standards which requires hundreds if not thousands of hours handling and measuring originals. Chris Poor (owner of A&A) is the president of the Oakeshott Instuture, and Craig Johnson (also of A&A) is the Secretary—these are the people with whom Ewart Oakshott entrusted his collection of antique swords. I believe that Angus Trim and Michael “Tinker” Pierce have also gone out of their way to examine originals. Many production companies don’t bother with all of this and just flip to a page in a book and say, “We should make this one. The blade is X inches long and Oakeshott says it weighs X pounds. Let’s do this people.”
Experts can be found in many places. Yes, many very smart capable people can be found in universities and museums, but such people can be found outside of the academy as well. I can understand being skeptical of someone’s opinion because they have a product to sell, but that does not negate the work they have done for the arms and armor community, especially when very few people within academia are doing this work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2008 16:44:58 GMT
I doubt the truth of this will ever be completely know because the fact is in most cases the cream of the crop survives and the crap doesn't, it is either destroyed or recycled. As far as the lords of old only wanting to equip their men with the best, well that isn't exactly true in many cases equipping yourself was part of your duty, not your lords..and in the cases that they did equip their men, as in todays world the work often tended to go to the lowest bidder, after all these people were above all else buisness men and Politicians. At the battle of Agincourt the English had such a high percentage of archers not because Henry prefered them but because they were cheaper, it just happened to work out for him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2008 17:26:56 GMT
Time to kill another sword myth...
Sorry kids, there's no such thing as Santa Claus either.
Harpersgrace , I am confident that you are correct that most bad swords where quickly recycled into into something else. That would mean that we would have a disproportionate amount of good sword surviving then would be a true representation of the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2008 17:35:50 GMT
But what about battlefield finds? If good swords were excavated at the site of battles, shouldn't there be a larger number of bad swords found as well? Or at least sword fragments?
Tsafa, my computer at work doesn't have sound, so I'll have to wait until I get home to evaluate it. Thanks for finding it though.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 16, 2008 20:11:41 GMT
I sense a double standardf here.
Everyone in the academia world understands that drawstrength and quality of the bows excavated on the mary rose is a farce as we've got no idea what time and salt water has done. So why aren't we holding swords to that standard as well. From modern perspectives, all swords are corroded and rusted, weren't they?
This argument has already been disproven again adn again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2008 20:42:08 GMT
Exactly. The swords that we do have in good enough condition to accurately speculate on are mostly high end swords that were kept for a reason. They were not your average swords.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2008 20:53:51 GMT
What about swords that were/are preserved in armouries (e.g. Alexandria)? Not all swords carried by common soldiers are lost to us or are in excavated condition.
ADDED: Would consumers want to buy replicas of "low quality" untempered swords?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2008 21:22:09 GMT
Ah right! Sorry, I forgot about those.
All I'm trying to say is that there is no way to tell for sure with this argument. I will say that some swords were of high quality, and some were not. I cannot tell in what ratios these were.
However, I will say that many swords were probably softer then the reproductions done today. Steely iron was not as consistent as it was after the Bessemer Process was introduced. There is only so much a person can do with an inferior starting material. Some of the steel produced back then was probably as high of quality as some steels today, and they probably made excellent swords. But alot of the "steely iron" was not.
Edit:
Hehe, no. Which is why some people get notions that all swords were as good as the ones today. However, apparently Deepeeka and StrongBlade sell unhardened swords, and they seem to be doing alright.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2008 21:52:43 GMT
DI, Ok, I think we agree-- there were varying qualities in swords then as there are now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2008 22:16:14 GMT
Ok, I think we agree-- there were varying qualities in swords then as there are now. Jonathan Yep... I can agree with that. Would consumers want to buy replicas of "low quality" untempered swords? Not knowingly today.... not knowingly in the 9th and 10th century. "Buyer Beware" goes much further back then Vikings to Romans. I'm sure Greeks and Egyptians had their version of "Buyer Beware" too. I sense a double standardf here. Everyone in the academia world understands that drawstrength and quality of the bows excavated on the mary rose is a farce as we've got no idea what time and salt water has done. So why aren't we holding swords to that standard as well. From modern perspectives, all swords are corroded and rusted, weren't they? This argument has already been disproven again adn again. Ram, initially I very much doubted the Rose Mary Bows analysis that bows ranged 100 to 180 lbs. It took me a long time to figure out how that is possible. Then I learned to shoot medieval style using the full Lattisimuss Dorsi muscles. I can draw 120 to 130 lbs. Granted, I have better nutrition and training, but I'm only 5'8". In the 15th century I would only be drawing 90 lbs. A 6'3 "big" man would be able to draw 130 lbs. A larger 6'6" man might be able to approuch 180 lbs. Those would be the powerlifters of that era that freak people out with amazing strength. Put another way, you have guys today strong enough to deadlift 1,000 lbs. In the 15th cent with lower nutrition, they would be deadlifting 600 lbs. That is enough core strength to pull 180 lbs with some practice. The Rose Mary was a flag ship after all. I would expect the strongest men attached to it. Perhaps other vessels had weaker men. Then there are issues like underdrawing. You loose 6% or weight for every inch you underdraw. That 11 lbs per inch on 180 lbs. If pull it to you cheek instead of your ear, you will only draw 140 lbs. On a 150 lb bow its 9 lbs per inch. So drawing you your cheek will bring the weight down to 114 lbs. The experts who analyzed the Rose Mary bows, could not have know the drawlegths of the men using the bows. I have a video demonstrating the Medieval Style of drawing somewhere on the following webpage: mysite.verizon.net/tsafa1/longbow/longbow.htm
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 16, 2008 22:54:25 GMT
I never doubted the weight of the bows in general - I doubt the conclusions drawn on those particular bows
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 3:14:44 GMT
Some thoughts...
A bladesmith friend of mine once had a customer come back with a broken greatsword he had made, after three or so years of liveblade fighting, the tang gave up the ghost.
Now, consider this:
Most of your every-day soldiers back in the day likely used their swords a lot less than us moder enthusiasts do. First off, the sword has always been a sidearm, most soldiers would be using polearms, axes, maces, bows, crossbows, or guns before ever drawing their swords in battle. Even then, one would campaign a few years and then retire.
Odds are, a successful warrior would come to own more than one sword, they were status symbols, after all. Likely a lot of cheap, quickly made swords were in circulation that later got replaced, or their owners died in battle.
Realistically, campaigning for a few years would see a lot less abuse on a blade than a modern liveblade enthusiast who uses his weapon sometimes several times a week.
Food for thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 3:32:27 GMT
I would disagree with most of your points. Something like what you are describing would only be common after about 1400. Before that, the sword was the main weapon, and swords were passed down through families for several years. Swords were incredibly expensive, and very few people owned several.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 3:45:39 GMT
Swords were never the main weapon. Spears have dominated the battlefield since the dawn of time.
Swords were expensive, but it was not beyond a noble or a knight to own several, particularly with the amount of looting that took place after a battle.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 19, 2008 3:55:12 GMT
In the second half of the middle ages, sword became increasingly more common as their manufacture increased and they were passed down through families.
Are you serious? I suggest you look at the picture in my avatar, you may get some understanding as to how violent and jolting medieval war was. FWIW, those two gaping holes were caused by warhammers or mattocks, and those three metal protrusions are arrowheads.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 4:08:27 GMT
In the second half of the middle ages, sword became increasingly more common as their manufacture increased and they were passed down through families. Are you serious? I suggest you look at the picture in my avatar, you may get some understanding as to how violent and jolting medieval war was. FWIW, those two gaping holes were caused by warhammers or mattocks, and those three metal protrusions are arrowheads. You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the method in which these weapons were used was not destructive or violent. There are plenty of battle-damaged period items that prove that to be the absolute truth. What I'm saying is that these weapons were not subjected to the same stresses as frequently or consistently as some modern enthusiasts do. I'm talking here about the guys who perform liveblade exersizes once or twice a week.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 19, 2008 4:11:36 GMT
So bottles and tatami compare very well to metal and leather. Not as consistently maybe, but I can assure you, one day of campaign would put our "frequent" non damaging tests to shame. What's the worst the majority of us have ever put our swords through? We tend to treat them as hard earned cash and would never subject them to anything heavier than maybe a tree branch. Except Paul . The fact is, frequency does not compare to intensity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 5:41:57 GMT
So bottles and tatami compare very well to metal and leather. Not as consistently maybe, but I can assure you, one day of campaign would put our "frequent" non damaging tests to shame. What's the worst the majority of us have ever put our swords through? We tend to treat them as hard earned cash and would never subject them to anything heavier than maybe a tree branch. Except Paul . The fact is, frequency does not compare to intensity. You still missed my original point, I was comparing old-world swords used in combat vs. modern swords used in live-steel martial arts. The guys who actually don armor, and beat the living crap out of each other with steel weapons. Admittedly, they do often pull their blows at least somewhat. but that wasn't exactly my point. My original point was that swords were never meant to be timeless, and only will ever last through so many battles.
|
|