|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 8, 2016 7:33:43 GMT
Lancelot, I was joking, sorry. But we should not compare the best made nihonto with the worst made european swords in the whole history of swordmaking. How good were japanese swords at 500 BC, when celtic smiths made some good pattern welded swords, or 800 AD at the time of the ulfberhts? The TH and DH thing was more meant for today.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 8, 2016 7:40:27 GMT
In the 1500s, it close enough to the same metallurgy and construction methods. Kobuse lamination used in Japan and England, similar carbon content, both using bloomery steels, typical good swords hardened to HRC45-55. (The best katanas were harder, but that was the exceptional few.)
|
|
|
Post by Lancelot Chan on Oct 8, 2016 7:53:38 GMT
I've examined some antique Chinese swords from Ming dynasty to later on (like 10 pcs), with hardness test files. None of them hit 40 HRC anywhere, which fits the "medieval metallurgy report" articles.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 8, 2016 8:18:55 GMT
I played with a broken late Qing knife which had a hardened edge of about HRC60. I cut a section through it, starting from the spine, and all went well until I got close to the edge - the hard steel ripped all the teeth off my hacksaw blade. A good file would barely bite it. Really soft body, really hard edge. I didn't polish and etch the cut section (yet), so don't know if it was inserted-edge or DH monosteel.
There's a lot variation in edge hardness on old swords. Some are chippy-hard, and some are really soft. Sometimes you can guess from edge damage: big chips taken out = hard brittle steel, deep notches = soft steel.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 8, 2016 12:37:04 GMT
In myArmoury is an article of Craig Johnson about hardness in historical swords. From 9th century on you can find a hardness up to 58 Rc (edit: in parts of blades). Of course only in the better swords, but I think not every middle rank soldier in china or japan had comparable swords.
Afaik: DH is the natural result of quenching a blade with variable thickness, for nihonto this technique was optimized for hardest possible edge. Quenching steel was made since 1000-1300 BC, it was the only way of making iron/steel better than bronze. Modern heat treat for TH came up in the 16th cent. and was optimized for euros to be more springy. All kind of complex lamination is only helpfull with a not optimized quenching/heat treat and is also a sign for this. This is knowledge I only read, so it's possible I read something wrong.
|
|
nddave
Member
Posts: 4,051
Member is Online
|
Post by nddave on Oct 8, 2016 13:39:45 GMT
Sigh..... www.tameshigiri.ca/2014/01/21/razor-edged-3-comparing-metallurgy/take a look here. Euro Medieval swords do NOT have through hardening. They are crappy in metallurgy compare to modern metallurgy. So they DID bend a lot easier. Celtic swords used to have this problem facing Roman troops in their time. No, not because of usage difference or whatever. They DID bend way easier than their current version. So what did that article prove or do outside comparing pattern welded/folded steel of three different regions? That a 600 year old Nihonto was harder than a 1000 year old Viking sword? That a undisclosed "damascus" blade from "the middle east" was somewhere in the middle. Ok with that out of the way, I think you're missing three major factual points as to why European swords of the 15th-18th centuries were structurally more sound and durable than their Japanese counterparts of the same time. 1) The quality of ore used to produce steel. 2) The overall design (and design changes) of the European Sword (or better put swords) from the type XV thru to the Small Sword. 3) The impact heavy chain and full plate had on the evolution and constructive durability of the European sword. Ok again to point, I'm not saying European Swords are super unbreakable or never bent. What I'm saying is simply what history has shown us in regards to factual scientific evidence and historical documentation that had European swords not been the durable workhorses they were, adding in the industrial nature of the European continent, by process of elimination swords would have been eradicated as a war weapon due to not being durable enough to withstand the rigors of armored combat. Rather than see an eradication of the sword in Europe, we see an evolution of the design of the sword over the centuries. The most rapid in the late middle ages to renaissance. Add in the fact that European ore was in fact superior to Japanese ore, that the industrial nature of continental Europe had more trading between nations, importing and exporting swords and steel and its not hard to see why European swords would in fact be more durable and industrialy sound than their Japanese brethren. Again past the 15th century, the Nihonto didn't need to be battle ready or adaptable to the change of war. The European sword did and it shows again with it's steady design evolutions and focus as a weapon.
|
|
|
Post by Jussi Ekholm on Oct 8, 2016 15:38:46 GMT
Add in the fact that European ore was in fact superior to Japanese ore, that the industrial nature of continental Europe had more trading between nations, importing and exporting swords and steel and its not hard to see why European swords would in fact be more durable and industrialy sound than their Japanese brethren. Again past the 15th century, the Nihonto didn't need to be battle ready or adaptable to the change of war. The European sword did and it shows again with it's steady design evolutions and focus as a weapon. I have no daydreams about the Japanese sword being the ultimate weapon and I like both European and Japanese swords. However I must point out that one of the biggest evolutions in sword use in Japan happened during & past the 15th century. That evolution includes katana replacing the tachi, overall changes in warfare during the late 1400's and early 1500's and introduction of firearms in the latter part of 1500's. The evolution of warfare in Japan changed the weapon and armour that warriors wore and used. During the Edo period 1600-1868 swords, spears & firearms were stricly regulated to ensure that peace remains. Weapons in Japan did good job in killing people, same way they did in Europe. If they would not be decent enough in killing people they would have been optimized better. I personally tend to think up until around 1650's Japanese sword was very much intended for battlefield use. Once you start having generations that did not had experienced full blown warfare the demand for swords started to decline. And after early Edo period swordsmiths were lacking jobs and it was difficult to make a living as a swordsmith. In my personal view as a nihonto collector I would probably pick a cutting oriented or cut & thrust longsword for battlefield rather than a Japanese sword (well of course against plate I'd go with the thrusting types). I just think European longswords are better fitting weapons for me personally. (and yes if it would be financially possible for me I'd love to collect antique medieval swords as well )
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Oct 8, 2016 15:48:42 GMT
I've examined some antique Chinese swords from Ming dynasty to later on (like 10 pcs), with hardness test files. None of them hit 40 HRC anywhere, which fits the "medieval metallurgy report" articles. Oh no, your not supposed to have a differing opinion! The mass opinion that medieval swords are superior in every way is fact! Didn't you hear? /sarcasm If you are a fan of katana in any way, you gotta bow at the knee and surrender to the superiority of the European blade, because obviously every single katana fan thinks the katana is a steel cutting light sabre, cause none of us have ever seen the millions of YouTube videos "demystifying" the katana A DH edge is only an advantage when it's on a euro!
|
|
|
Post by scottw on Oct 8, 2016 16:05:24 GMT
I've examined some antique Chinese swords from Ming dynasty to later on (like 10 pcs), with hardness test files. None of them hit 40 HRC anywhere, which fits the "medieval metallurgy report" articles. Oh no, your not supposed to have a differing opinion! The mass opinion that medieval swords are superior in every way is fact! Didn't you hear? /sarcasm Regardless of what mass opinion is, I prefer the Japanese swords. They feel better to me. They make me want to wrap my shirt around my head and run through my neighborhood fighting crime. Dont judge me.
|
|
nddave
Member
Posts: 4,051
Member is Online
|
Post by nddave on Oct 8, 2016 18:33:35 GMT
I've examined some antique Chinese swords from Ming dynasty to later on (like 10 pcs), with hardness test files. None of them hit 40 HRC anywhere, which fits the "medieval metallurgy report" articles. Oh no, your not supposed to have a differing opinion! The mass opinion that medieval swords are superior in every way is fact! Didn't you hear? /sarcasm If you are a fan of katana in any way, you gotta bow at the knee and surrender to the superiority of the European blade, because obviously every single katana fan thinks the katana is a steel cutting light sabre, cause none of us have ever seen the millions of YouTube videos "demystifying" the katana A DH edge is only an advantage when it's on a euro! And this has anything to do with the facts I presented regarding the durability of European swords and how their consistent profile evolutions leaned towards benefiting durability? If you have something to bring to the debate do so rather than just make snide remarks.
|
|
nddave
Member
Posts: 4,051
Member is Online
|
Post by nddave on Oct 8, 2016 18:39:57 GMT
Add in the fact that European ore was in fact superior to Japanese ore, that the industrial nature of continental Europe had more trading between nations, importing and exporting swords and steel and its not hard to see why European swords would in fact be more durable and industrialy sound than their Japanese brethren. Again past the 15th century, the Nihonto didn't need to be battle ready or adaptable to the change of war. The European sword did and it shows again with it's steady design evolutions and focus as a weapon. I have no daydreams about the Japanese sword being the ultimate weapon and I like both European and Japanese swords. However I must point out that one of the biggest evolutions in sword use in Japan happened during & past the 15th century. That evolution includes katana replacing the tachi, overall changes in warfare during the late 1400's and early 1500's and introduction of firearms in the latter part of 1500's. The evolution of warfare in Japan changed the weapon and armour that warriors wore and used. During the Edo period 1600-1868 swords, spears & firearms were stricly regulated to ensure that peace remains. Weapons in Japan did good job in killing people, same way they did in Europe. If they would not be decent enough in killing people they would have been optimized better. I personally tend to think up until around 1650's Japanese sword was very much intended for battlefield use. Once you start having generations that did not had experienced full blown warfare the demand for swords started to decline. And after early Edo period swordsmiths were lacking jobs and it was difficult to make a living as a swordsmith. In my personal view as a nihonto collector I would probably pick a cutting oriented or cut & thrust longsword for battlefield rather than a Japanese sword (well of course against plate I'd go with the thrusting types). I just think European longswords are better fitting weapons for me personally. (and yes if it would be financially possible for me I'd love to collect antique medieval swords as well ) I'm a fan of both too, but as I mentioned in my first post they were both different weapons to the cultures that used them and their primary function on the battlefield differed at a time. One thing they both have in common though is their period purpose as a status symbol among the population, especially in the later periods. Seems were on the same page though.
|
|
|
Post by connorclarke on Oct 8, 2016 20:02:53 GMT
I've examined some antique Chinese swords from Ming dynasty to later on (like 10 pcs), with hardness test files. None of them hit 40 HRC anywhere, which fits the "medieval metallurgy report" articles. Oh no, your not supposed to have a differing opinion! The mass opinion that medieval swords are superior in every way is fact! Didn't you hear? /sarcasm If you are a fan of katana in any way, you gotta bow at the knee and surrender to the superiority of the European blade, because obviously every single katana fan thinks the katana is a steel cutting light sabre, cause none of us have ever seen the millions of YouTube videos "demystifying" the katana A DH edge is only an advantage when it's on a euro! 'YouTube' Lol.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Oct 8, 2016 20:36:37 GMT
Hang on here. I think the main point we have settled is that a spring-steel through hardened sword is superior (yes, that's a blanket term) to a DH blade. A vast generalization, yes, but true. Am I correct in this statement? So the questions remaining are: when did Europeans develop spring steel (and what is spring steel in the first place - is it the actual steel itself, or is it the heat treatment, or both?) and how did a actual antique European sword compare to an actual antique Japanese sword? Because as of today, a katana and a Euro sword made with the same material and heat treatment have almost the exact resistance to bending, chipping, and so on. For the historical comparison, I have a few quotes that may help... unfortunately, most of these European sources are from before 100 AD, while my Japanese source is from 1645. But hey, it's a start. So first we have a quote by Polybios, a Greek writer who lived in Rome for a time, and lived from 200 – 118 BC: "The order of battle used by the Roman army is very difficult to break through, since it allows every man to fight both individually and collectively; the effect is to offer a formation that can present a front in any direction, since the maniples that are nearest to the point where danger threatens wheels in order to meet it. The arms they carry both give protection and also instil great confidence into the men, because of the size of the shields and the strength of the swords, which can withstand repeated blows. All these factors make the Romans formidable antagonists in battle and very hard to overcome." So here we have a Roman Republic era sword being described a "strong" because it can withstand "repeated blows" - implying, perhaps, that this was out of the ordinary; in other words, an ordinary sword couldn't take repeated blows. At least, that's my thought on the quote (of course, the whole thing is moot if Polybios was talking about the shields instead of the swords, but it doesn't seem likely given the structure of the wording). This would make since, because the sword was very much a backup weapon in the Mediterranean world. However, the sword was more of a primary weapon for the more norther Europeans of the time: the Celts. Here's a quote from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age_sword) that talks about the numerous quote by ancient authors about Celtic swords bending: "Polybius (2.33) reports that the Gauls at the Battle of Telamon (224 BC) had inferior iron swords which bent at the first stroke and had to be straightened with the foot against the ground. Plutarch, in his life of Marcus Furius Camillus, likewise reports on the inferiority of Gaulish iron, making the same claim that their swords bent easily. These reports have puzzled some historians, since by that time the Celts had a centuries long tradition of iron workmanship.[2] In 1906 a scholar suggested that the Greek observers misunderstood ritual acts of sword-bending, which may have served to "decommission" the weapon.[3] Such bent swords have been found among deposits of objects presumably dedicated for sacred purposes. The speculation has been repeated since.[2] Radomir Pleiner, however, argues that "the metallographic evidence shows that Polybius was right up to a point. To judge from the swords examined in this survey, only one third could be described as conforming to the quality which he ascribed generally to Celtic swords. Even so, it is quite possible that even some of the better quality swords would have failed in battle."[3] Nevertheless, he argues that the classical sources are exaggerated. Plutarch's claim that Celtic swords would bend completely back is implausible, as only a slight bending would be likely.[3] Pleiner also notes that metallurgical analysis performed on Celtic swords suggests that they were only work hardened and only very few were quench hardened, even though they frequently contain enough carbon to be hardened (in particular the swords made from Noric steel). Quench hardening takes the full advantage of the potential hardness of the steel, but leaves it brittle, prone to breaking. Quite probably this is because tempering wasn't known. Tempering is heating the steel at a lower temperature after quenching to remove the brittleness, while keeping most of the hardness. There is other evidence of long-bladed swords bending during battle from later periods. The Icelandic Eyrbyggja saga,[4] describes a warrior straightening his twisted sword underfoot in a manner similar to Polybius's account: "whenever he struck a shield, his ornamented sword would bend, and he had to put his foot on it to straighten it out".[5][6] Peirce and Oakeshott in Swords of the Viking Age note that the potential for bending may have been built in to avoid shattering, writing that "a bending failure offers a better chance of survival for the sword's wielder than the breaking of the blade...there was a need to build a fail-safe into the construction of a sword to favor bending over breaking".[7]" Here's a thread from another forum discussing the same thing: myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=166864 Contrasting all that is a quote by some ancient author who I can't remember (it's in one of my books, just not sure which one - I'll see if I can dig it up) about a flex test the Celts used to test their swords: they would hold the sword by the hilt and by the end of the blade, then pull down, thus bending the sword over the top of their heads. Then they would let go: the sword was supposed to spring into the air, and not suffer from any bends. Now, this is all just quotes by authors who may or may not have know what they were talking about. But here's a quote by a Japanese man who had extensive knowledge and experience with swords; someone we're probably all familiar with: Miyamoto Mushashi. The Book of the Five Rings (or the Scroll of the Five Spheres, or Go No Rin Sho, whichever you prefer) has many techniques that deal with striking your opponent's sword during combat. However, in the beginning of The Scroll of Wind, Mushashi is talking about the different schools of swordsmanship and the problems he sees in them. He talks about a school that focuses on brute force, and one of the problems he says of this school is: "If you hit the other's sword with a great deal of force, your sword might break in two." There is apparently some discussion about whether if should be translated "your sword might break in two" or "your sword will have a tendency to lag behind." At any rate, there are plenty of techniques in the rest of the Book of Five Rings that deal with sword on sword contact. None of them speak about the sword breaking or bending. I do remember a technique that talks about "if you are in an enclosed area or your sword is not cutting well anymore (it's getting dull from edge on edge contact I assume), stab your opponent" and also a technique for breaking your opponent's sword with your foot, but I couldn't find either and I may be confusing techniques in my mind. Long and short of it all seems to be that there was no significant difference in toughness between ancient European swords and 17th century Japanese swords according to the writings - actually, it seems like the Japanese swords may have been tougher than ancient Euro swords. However, I have no Medieval European sources in there, and obviously the European quotes do not provide rock solid evidence, and all the quotes are just a small look at the whole picture. But do we have any examples of how European Medieval swords stood up to combat?
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 8, 2016 20:52:31 GMT
Ok with that out of the way, I think you're missing three major factual points as to why European swords of the 15th-18th centuries were structurally more sound and durable than their Japanese counterparts of the same time. 1) The quality of ore used to produce steel. Myth. The steel produced is perfectly good bloomery steel. Where this myth comes from is that the Japanese used iron sand as a major source of ore, and the iron content of the deposits is low. The deposits are a mix of particles of iron ore and regular sand. The iron ore grains are heavier, and you can separate them by washing the sand (by panning, or larger-scale washing). Once you have done that, you have excellent ore for feeding your bloomery furnace. While the iron content of the original sand is low, there is nothing low quality about the ore that goes into the furnace. Their alternative was to do hard rock mining to extract ore from the deposits the iron sand eroded from. They decided that washing a larger volume of sand was easier (and thus cheaper) than hard rock mining. The resulting steel, after consolidation of the bloom, and folding for removing slag, homogenising the steel, and lowering the carbon content to a suitable level, was basically 1070 with some slag inclusions (as you get with bloomery steel, including in Europe). 2) The overall design (and design changes) of the European Sword (or better put swords) from the type XV thru to the Small Sword. Designs were different. But "structurally more sound and durable than their Japanese counterparts of the same time" doesn't automatically follow. In the 16th century, there wasn't any metallurgical advantage either way. Maybe an economic advantage to Europe with the adoption of the blast-bloomery furnace; the Japanese solution was to build larger and larger bloomery furnaces (yields of steel and the carbon content of the steel from a large tatara look quite reasonable, so maybe no advantage). 3) The impact heavy chain and full plate had on the evolution and constructive durability of the European sword. Don't see why heavy chain would have a very different effect from heavy lamellar on sword evolution in terms of durability. Lamellar tends to be more gappy, so there's more motivation to keep using swords on armoured opponents. The Japanese used plenty of armour. Not European-style full plate, but plate + lamellar + mail. Might be why the Japanese didn't develop needle-pointed swords. Rather than see an eradication of the sword in Europe, we see an evolution of the design of the sword over the centuries. The most rapid in the late middle ages to renaissance. This is while the Japanese were fighting very intensively, and there were major changes in Japanese warfare. Among those changes, there were two "major" changes in Japanese swords: the switch from tachi to katana, and the switch from tanto to wakizashi as a companion weapon. These changes in swords were due to the change from cavalry-dominant warfare to infantry dominant warfare. While there was almost no change in swords, there was major change in weapons, from horseback archery and cavalry sabre (yumi and tachi) dominating to pike and musket dominating. Add in the fact that European ore was in fact superior to Japanese ore, that the industrial nature of continental Europe had more trading between nations, importing and exporting swords and steel and its not hard to see why European swords would in fact be more durable and industrialy sound than their Japanese brethren. Again past the 15th century, the Nihonto didn't need to be battle ready or adaptable to the change of war. The European sword did and it shows again with it's steady design evolutions and focus as a weapon. Make that late 17th century, and Japanese swords stop appearing on the battlefield. The 16th century was very war-intensive, and despite unification at the end of the 16th century, everybody was expecting further major warfare in the 1st 1/3 of the 17th century (and they got some, too. Add to the fossilisation of Japanese military technology (due to lack of major warfare) in c. 1640 the major changes in European warfare in the late 17th century, and improvements in European metallurgy from the 17th century onwards (which already added up to a minor revolution in metallurgy by around 1700, though the biggest changes came later), and you can make an excellent case for European swords after 1700 being more durable, weight for weight, and better adapted for the modern battlefield. Before 1650, there are differences in design, but it's hard to argue convincingly that either side has better swords. There were more specialised types of European swords, which were better at their specialised tasks, but that doesn't necessarily make them better swords overall. In terms of durability, the metallurgy is equivalent, and nothing about the geometry and construction of European swords suggests great superiority in terms of durability (often, less durability due to thinner blades). The Japanese iron industry grew a lot during the Edo Period, and this made very high carbon steel cheaper and more available. Combine that with lack of warfare and a desire for wide showy hamons, and the Japanese developed relatively fragile katanas (late Shinto swords). The Japanese recognised this as a problem, and changed back to more robust swords (Shinshinto). If you want to make European swords look more durable, compate late Shinshinto swords with European swords of 1750 or so. Plenty of metallurgical analysis of European swords in Williams, The Sword and the Crucible. (And a lot of the work in that book is available online, courtesy of the original research papers.)
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Oct 8, 2016 20:53:38 GMT
Some other thoughts: am I correct in assuming that the katana was less of a battlefield weapon and more of a personal protection weapon for unarmored combat (duels, street fights, etc.), comparable to the European rapier in function if not in form (or a handgun in modern times)? I believe that up until the 1400s the tachi was the main battle sword. Tachi is written like this: 太刀, while katana is just this: 刀; the difference being this character: 太, which, if I am correct, means "fat" or "thick" or "large; long", or something of the kind. I know the tachi is generally longer than the katana by a few inches, but is it thicker or heavier?
Another thought that comes to mind is the old story (almost positively untrue) of Saladin and Richard I of England (the Lionhearted) comparing their swords. Saladin tossed a silk handkerchief into the air and sliced it in two, while Richard chopped an iron bar in half with his blade. Neither sword could do what the other sword could; both were meant to do different things.
|
|
|
Post by scottw on Oct 8, 2016 21:25:09 GMT
What does any of this have to do with the OP's original question? Historic weapons are historic, the question concerns modern weapons. No offense, but the conversation has deviated from the subject. Historical weapons are historical.
|
|
|
Post by scottw on Oct 8, 2016 21:34:59 GMT
Thats not a response to the OP. Legacyofthesword. Its tje other responses.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 8, 2016 21:43:59 GMT
What does any of this have to do with the OP's original question? Historic weapons are historic, the question concerns modern weapons. No offense, but the conversation has deviated from the subject. Historical weapons are historical. That part was answered in the first reply (at least as far as good replicas are concerned - DH vs TH). After that, all that's left is to deviate.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 8, 2016 21:49:33 GMT
The op's question was answered with the first three posts. But we all love those katana vs. longsword discussions as long as there is no poo throwing at each other. We need more zombies!!!
|
|
|
Post by scottw on Oct 8, 2016 21:57:43 GMT
No gentlemen, it wasn't. I'll leave you to it though.
|
|