|
Post by Svante Nilsson on Jun 26, 2014 12:27:13 GMT
Hello Forum citizens,
Svante has decided to open a window to the days of old for you. He tires of your bickering over some matters and has decided to help you best understand him and his ancestors.
Today's topic, the most controversial sharpness!
Big lengthy debates have been made about them, opinions have been spoken out of experience both big and small, and educated guesses, both right and wrong.
Instead of asking yourself if a sword was blunt, sharp, very sharp or razor sharp(see end of thread to know what i am refering to when i stat these different levels of sharpness), ask yourself a better questions, which was best at doing its job?
Now it gets tricky, because there are two parts to this question, the first one is simple, what defenses where there, and what sharpness could get past them and/or survive them. Steel breastplate? More surviving then getting past... Gambeson or jack? Very sharp to cut enough of it to transfer force. Iron helmet? Sharp to cut it and sword must survive it. When was razer sharp used? In very delicate swords with weak cutting geometry, such as later period swords.
The harder part of the question is how quickly can i can kill or knock unconscious an opponent with said sharpness. You see for a weapon to be effective it must either kill immediately the opponent (threw pain, a blow to the brain or heart) or render him incapable of continuing the fight.
A razor sharp sword unfortunately is terrible at the later. Sure you can cut clean an arm, but unfortunately in the heat of battle and due to the molecular sharpness of such an edge, nerve ending wont transfer the message to the brain, he will know he got his arm cut off, but he wont FEEL IT, and he can happily continue to fight until his blood vessels dilate and he finally bleeds out. The less sharp a sword is(careful the sword still needs to reach an artery to kill,and break skin to create the sort of pain we are looking for), the more pain the blow will generate, the edge will also tear blood vessels, making them bleed immediately rather then have it delayed.
Many written accounts can be found in various reports, ranging from 15th to 19th century war fare with swords that attest to this.
Some accounts go like this: Said man got 8 horrendous gashes across his torso, and continued to fight on for 30 mins until he finally bled out to death. (16th century account, regarding an English confrontation with Japanese)
Others: A man forcefully hit and TORE a gash into another mans torso with a powerful blow, the cut was not deep or wide, but the young man was knocked out and bleeding, when we came to his aid moments later he had perished... (19th century colonial wars, India)
I think we can all see there is a big deference in between 8 horrendous gashes, and 1 small, not so deep cut. One carries on happily ( or not ) for 30 mins, the other was dead within "moments".
Here is more food for thought, for those who cook and have cut themselves on razer sharp and barely sharp knives, which one was more painful? When did you feel the pain immediately or did it come later on? How long did it last after the cut? Which one healed faster and less painfully? and last but not least which one bled the most and how soon after the cut?
Feel free to discuss and spread the word of Svante!
I will add what i mean by different levels of sharpness:
Blunt: No edge geometry and/or the cutting planes no longer meet(incapable of passing the fingernail drag test). Sharp: Edge geometry present, anything from drag test capable to just under paper cutting sharpness. Very Sharp: Able to cut paper but not hair follicles. Razor Sharp: "Shaving sharp", can cut hair follicles, shave your beard and make you a damn fine sandwich(j/k).
|
|
Paul
Member
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,771
|
Post by Paul on Jun 27, 2014 11:56:03 GMT
Thanks for your post. I understand what you are saying about the different types and degrees of edges but I still like mine as sharp as possible
|
|
|
Post by Svante Nilsson on Jun 27, 2014 12:22:43 GMT
And that shows your a mentally healthy, completely normal member of today's society, wanting something to be as good as possible for YOUR intended use. In today's world sharper really is better.
Let me clarify my above post, am not saying this is how weapons should be sharpened today, especially since you wont (hopefully) face anybody in a violent confrontation and less still with a sharp weapon. But it is how weapons where sharpened in my day, when killing was needed, and your soul goal was to kill the other and survive as unscathed as possible.
Today i agree a sword should be as sharp as possible as long as the targets are bottles, noodles, tatami, rolled newspapers, wood dowels and bamboo. With modern belt grinders, sharpening a sword takes 3 min's, it should be incorporated into everybody's cutting routine to sharpen before or after a session, the sharpness will hold up easily the time of the session. Also since the grits are so high u will use up your sword slower when sharpening, lasting you a life time.
|
|
|
Post by Lancelot Chan on Jun 27, 2014 18:16:31 GMT
I agree with everything you said. Just 1 question:
How did you live so long?
|
|
|
Post by Svante Nilsson on Jun 27, 2014 23:32:06 GMT
Who says i'm alive?
|
|
|
Post by Alex.Moranz on Jun 28, 2014 1:38:14 GMT
This is an utterly awesome thread. Please continue to educate us lowly sword heathens, O wise and ancient man who is now dead and come back to us through the power of science and internet.
|
|
|
Post by Forrest Gump on Jun 28, 2014 5:25:10 GMT
Sharp is as sharp does.
|
|
|
Post by Onimusha on Jun 28, 2014 18:39:56 GMT
As ridiculous as that sounds, it's actually a good point. What is considered to be a sharp axe is not as sharp as a "sharp" knife. As tools go, "sharp" just means having a sufficient edge to do what the tool was made to do. If an axe was as sharp as a kitchen knife, the edge would roll. If the kitchen knife was as sharp as an axe, it would be useless.
With that being said, I don't know why one would bash away at steel armor with the blade of a sword. I could see why you wouldn't want a razor sharp edge, because you'll be grabbing the blade a lot.
I wonder who'll show up next. Rambo? Leutenant Dan maybe. I know, William Wallace!
|
|
TomK
Member
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,377
|
Post by TomK on Jun 28, 2014 21:45:54 GMT
You guys are thinking about sharpness all wrong, you are talking about edge angle and geometry, not sharpness. The angle of your edge determine how tough the edge is as well as suitable uses. An axe has a fairly wide angle but there's no reason for it to not be sharp, and I do mean sharp enough to scrape whiskers off my face. Do it right and leave the ange wide like it should be and you'll cut down a tree faster and with less effort than you thought possible. And no, the edge won't roll because it has the proper geometry for the job. Sharpness is just like focus on a camera, how crisp and well defined are your edges, that is sharpness. The angle of a straight razor is made to not only be easy to sharpen but also to allow you a comfortable angle for shaving.
|
|
SeanF
Member
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by SeanF on Jun 29, 2014 2:52:54 GMT
Here I was taking advice from Martial Artists who do actual tests and historical research when I could just be following someone posting anonymously on a sword collectors forum using a phony persona. :oops:
|
|
TomK
Member
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,377
|
Post by TomK on Jun 29, 2014 2:56:38 GMT
shame on you Sean, don't ever do that again.
|
|
|
Post by bigpete on Jun 29, 2014 3:08:04 GMT
Ha ha ha ha my thoughts precisely !
|
|
|
Post by aussie-rabbit on Jun 29, 2014 3:45:59 GMT
Absolutely correct, it also depends on the period, curvature, blade type and a host of other factors, however in any period a sword had a "sharp edge", many Edo period swords were classed by the number of bodies you could cleave through in one stroke.
The kilij likewise were renowned for the incredible sharpness of their edges.
Damascus swords — sharp enough to slice a falling piece of silk in half, strong enough to split stones without dulling - The blades used so-called wootz steel, smelted with a technique developed 2000 years ago in India, where craftsmen added wood and other organic debris to their furnaces. The resulting carbon-laced steel, hard but flexible, was soon celebrated across the ancient world.
|
|
|
Post by aussie-rabbit on Jun 29, 2014 3:50:57 GMT
May I suggest you research your topic - then place your period and location before echoing your lack of knowledge across the internet. :lol:
|
|
|
Post by Onimusha on Jun 29, 2014 5:12:47 GMT
Well, the Turks didn't do solid plate armor so much. They used a lot of light lamelar armor. They weren't bashing at solid plates. Damascus/wootz steel was better than previous steels, because it was very pure and homogeneous. The patterns are called "Dendrites", which are the result of the production process. Even iron or low-carbon steel than has been cast in a mold can develop them. If the ingot is forged at too high a temperature, the patterns will be lost, but the resulting blade will perform much the same. As for being sharp enough to cut a falling piece of silk, I'll assume you know that's an exaggeration.
With all that being said, I still don't know why anyone would bash at plate armor knowing full well that it does nothing but make a lot of noise and stress the blade.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Jun 29, 2014 5:49:53 GMT
Thank you, just what I wanted to say! Those of you who haven't seen it, check out Mike Edelson's sharpening vid. Same angle, same durability but a razor in the end.
|
|
|
Post by Lancelot Chan on Jun 29, 2014 7:14:44 GMT
In simple words: Edge geometry vs polish level on the edge. I always assume that the edge is highly polished. I don't even consider a not-so-polished edge as sharpened at all.
|
|
|
Post by Svante Nilsson on Jun 29, 2014 11:47:54 GMT
People are missing out on the point of the thread, and that is the pain felt by getting hit by different sharpness levels. And i am well aware of edge angle, edge polish and blade geometry and how they affect the blade. When i talk about sharpness i in-globe the 2 first angle and polish. The higher the angle, the more resistant to folding the edge will have, example: 50-40 degree angles ( total mind you ). The lower the angle, the "sharper" the edge will perform WITHOUT as much needed polish, or in other words it will perform the tests i stated without having to go so high up in grits (with a low enough angle you can cut paper with 80 grit) Back on topic: What do people want to use today, whatever angle helps there tool survive the rigor of use, and as high a polish as possible to make the job easier. What did people want back in my day: Since one of the added factors is to disable the enemy's with as little blows as possible, pain was something you would look into in your blade. So they would sharpen at a angle that made it so the edge would survive whatever it was going to hit, then they would polish it until it was sharp enough to penetrate, and they would stop right there so that that edge will be felt as much as possible by the enemy. There are more factors than this, and not every blade you encounter in a museum will tell you this exact story. Curved Scimitar blade of the 15th and 16th century North African Arab, featured a thin as paper edge geomatry, with a total edge angle of 0, and sharpened to a mirror polish. It is obvious they favored "extreme sharpness" what factors would lend somebody to want something so sharp? A few: -They had, most of the time, no armor in the desert due to heat. -They would regularly practice cutting on goats (no many people know this but a goat is a more realistic target then a pig when comparing to a human, this is something very interesting i learned not to long ago and have incorporated into my research). -They had rankings according to how well somebody would cut. -Wide spread fear of there ultra sharp swords was known. -They would fight on Camel in the desert, and the primary target was the neck! Ok easy to understand why 0 grind, ultra polished edge with thin as paper edge geometry was the most favored. Now what happened when they battled the Portuguese knights? Watch this video of a great friend and teacher of mine Dr.Rainer Daehnhardt: tvl.pt/2012/10/28/perspectivas-o ... aehnhardt/ You probably don't speak Portuguese so let me tell you what he says and watch the video to see it with your eyes: The helmet that is featured belongs to one of our kings, it tells a story of a battle against Arabs, on it is damage from Scimitar, swords and a grenade! The scimitar is the very thin lines they show with red marks on the video. When they where studied they revealed that when the Arabs would hit his helmet the edge would break and stay stuck in it ( there swords where made of Damascus steel and Damascus was found in the indentation of the swords blows ), the blade itself snapped ( probably due to being so thin )! What do we see in 18th century sabers? The very same 0 grind, obvious by the sharpening lines along the geometry of the blade, the difference is they do not have a mirror polish, in the 18th century swords where sharpened at 0 grind so they can perform with sharpness, but they where left with a very toothy edge to inflict more tearing damage on the target, increasing pain and hemorrhage. ( microscopic level, last thing i need is somebody thinking they fault with saw's ).
|
|
TomK
Member
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,377
|
Post by TomK on Jun 29, 2014 12:18:26 GMT
I'm having a hard time reading your posts man. the idea that you can't come in here and be genuine with us, that you have to presume to be a historical person and then have the audacity to say things like "What did people want back in my day: Since one of the added factors is to disable the enemy's with as little blows as possible, pain was something you would look into in your blade" which is not only arrogant and presumptuous but completely false, at least in so far as people who knew anything about real combat. sure there were rumors and superstition in an abundance that would flabbergast modern folk but the people who knew anything about real fighting knew this to be not the case. I don't say this because I was there, no, I say it because I know something about fighting in the modern world. In my 20 year military career while I did pretty much zero combat (aside from a few boat loads of pirate I helped subdue) I knew lots and lots of folks who had been in deadly earnest combat and who had killed men in action with guns, knives, and even tree branches in one case. in combat the body floods with adrenaline and endorphins to the point that most people never feel the wound that kills them until well after it happens. pain certainly never stops anyone in a fight more important than a schoolyard brawl.
also there is no such thing as a edge angle of 0. as long as you have two surfaces coming together, there is an angle greater than zero no matter how thin they are. at this point Mr. Svante, unless you can man up and speak to us as the person you are in reality, I'm done speaking to you. I refuse to carry on a conversation with a person who cannot even be honest about who he is. we may most of us use pseudonyms around here, but at least we are honest about who and what we are. it's your choice obviously, you can do as you please, but your pretension annoys me and I'm done with you.
|
|
|
Post by Svante Nilsson on Jun 29, 2014 12:33:38 GMT
I have already told the forum who i am in another post.
English is not my main language, what do you not understand in my post?
|
|