|
Post by gruggier on Aug 11, 2017 15:09:15 GMT
Hey all,
Wanted to start a discussion about this topic. I love "Viking Swords" I know there is a lot of history we know about the "Viking Sword". And know there is a lot of history we still don't know. I am definitely not an expert in this area but I find it so interesting. Hence the thread.
So the "viking" sword design is very much Frankish, and the Norse adopted the sword (i think). Did the Norse and their smiths use the crucible steel too? Did the Norse copy the Franks? I think and I have read that the Franks created some of the best swords during the 8th and 9th centuries using crucible steel and if I am not mistaken was illegal at the time for the Franks and the smiths to sell these blades. Did the Norse smiths and the Norsemen who obviously were trading all over EU, Middle East etc during that time use crucible steel also? I wonder the history of that.
I was watching the "+VLFBERH+T" documentary and its so cool how we know how crucible steel was made and then forged into a weapon and I am sure different type of weapons.
Lots of controversy too about what are real "+VLFBERH+T" and fakes of that time that have been found in rivers, graves, etc. So much info on google but also a lot of arguments.
Looking forward to some good info if you all find the time to respond. Thanks and take care....
|
|
|
Post by gruggier on Aug 11, 2017 15:20:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Verity on Aug 11, 2017 15:54:19 GMT
Nova's "Secrets of the Viking Sword" also go into length here. It is speculated that the Norse obtained the tornado furnace technology from the Middle East (Damascus anyone?) and brought the technique home and that resulted in the Uhlfbert.
I dunno... Link to documentary is here:
Bonus: Richard Furrer makes one using techniques of the time period
|
|
|
Post by gruggier on Aug 11, 2017 15:59:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gruggier on Aug 11, 2017 16:00:20 GMT
Nova's "Secrets of the Viking Sword" also go into length here. It is speculated that the Norse obtained the tornado furnace technology from the Middle East (Damascus anyone?) and brought the technique home and that resulted in the Uhlfbert. I dunno... Link to documentary is here: Bonus: Richard Furrer makes one using techniques of the time period I have seen this documentary. Its pretty good....
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 11, 2017 16:10:19 GMT
Afaik: Viking swords are germanic swords which developed from Roman spathae and later migration period swords. Ulfberhts probably were made in Rheinland in the Frankish kingdom or empire this time. It may have been forbidden to export them, but many things were then and are now forbidden. It's not sure whether they are/were made of crucible steel (the real ones) or by very good refining like the katana. The crucible steel technique could be transferred from arabia or arabic spain. Not all real ulfberhts are monosteel, some are pattern welded. Some are made from very good monosteel but definetly not crucible steel. In the christian Frankish empire swords usually weren't given into a grave, so you usually find them in pagan viking graves. If northmen would have made the blades, they would have inscripted runes. Most probably they bought or raided the blades and hilted them. The Nova documentary is fun, but only proved that a modern smith can make a crucible steel sword with old techniques. Newer research showed that parts of ulfberht sword hilts were made of lead, which could be located in Germany with its chemical fingerprint. But there still are many open questions.
A few weeks ago I visited the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nürnberg and saw two real Ulfberhts, my nose was 4" away from them, I think there are still some nose-printings on the glas from me. The blades are very thin, but unfortunately very corroded too.
|
|
|
Post by gruggier on Aug 11, 2017 16:35:24 GMT
Afaik: Viking swords are germanic swords which developed from Roman spathae and later migration period swords. Ulfberhts probably were made in Rheinland in the Frankish kingdom or empire this time. It may have been forbidden to export them, but many things were then and are now forbidden. It's not sure whether they are/were made of crucible steel (the real ones) or by very good refining like the katana. The crucible steel technique could be transferred from arabia or arabic spain. Not all real ulfberhts are monosteel, some are pattern welded. Some are made from very good monosteel but definetly not crucible steel. In the christian Frankish empire swords usually weren't given into a grave, so you usually find them in pagan viking graves. If northmen would have made the blades, they would have inscripted runes. Most probably they bought or raided the blades and hilted them. The Nova documentary is fun, but only proved that a modern smith can make a crucible steel sword with old techniques. Newer research showed that parts of ulfberht sword hilts were made of lead, which could be located in Germany with its chemical fingerprint. But there still are many open questions. A few weeks ago I visited the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nürnberg and saw two real Ulfberhts, my nose was 4" away from them, I think there are still some nose-printings on the glas from me. The blades are very thin, but unfortunately very corroded too. Thats amazing you had the opportunity to see the real swords up close!!!!!!!!!! Any pics you could share? Informative info thanks.... The documentary did leave me with many questions too... Some more info: www.ancient-origins.net/artifacts-ancient-technology/step-closer-mysterious-origin-viking-sword-ulfberht-002455
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Aug 11, 2017 16:52:08 GMT
From what I understand there's a real mix of quality in the ulfberhts. And the theories about composition tend to get out of control. From the experts I've known, blade quality was mixed in the dark ages but got progressively better until the development of better production methods in the high medieval. After that everybody and their brother's dog had a blade.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 11, 2017 22:26:11 GMT
Didn't made photos because there are so many good pictures in the net, here's one. Seems I was wrong, only the big one is an ulfberht says the source. I was impressed how thin the blades were, I think ca. 2 mm, perhaps a bit more not corroded. Absolutely not like the clunky fantasy viking swords from the movies. Nothing you would hammer into a shield rim..
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Aug 11, 2017 23:08:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 11, 2017 23:15:47 GMT
Yes, that's a really good source of information about swords and steel (that's also where my picture is from)
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Aug 12, 2017 1:53:43 GMT
The crucible steel technique could be transferred from arabia or arabic spain. I don't think that the evidence for transfer of the technique is good. Given that production of crucible steel swords stopped, it's more likely that the steel itself was imported, and when the trade routes were disrupted, the supply of steel stopped. If the steel was being made locally, production would (probably) have continued. The most likely source for the steel is Khorasan, in Central Asia, which is (a) known to have been a major producer and exporter of crucible steel, and (b) was connected by trade routes north of the Black Sea to northern Europe. There doesn't appear to be any good evidence for crucible steel production in Spain as early as the crucible steel Ulfberhts. Karlsson gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.php/gladius/article/view/72 says that it was being produced by the mid to late 12th century (though other later writers have claimed there isn't good evidence even then), but that's significantly later. Not all real ulfberhts are monosteel, some are pattern welded. The pattern-welded ones (probably) include the oldest, with the (probably) crucible steel swords being a later development. Some are made from very good monosteel but definetly not crucible steel. Williams doesn't note any good monosteel ones as definitely not crucible steel. he describes some of them as possibly not crucible steel. Given that very high carbon bloomery steel can be produced, the carbon content is not sufficient to identify steel as crucible, as discussed on www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/ which also discusses the limitations of identifying crucible steel on the basis of slag content. But OTOH, things like folding can't be used to identify a steel as definitely non-crucible. Is there a known-to-be good monosteel but with too much slag to be crucible steel Ulberht sword? Alan Williams on the metallurgy of Ulfberht swords: gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.php/gladius/article/view/218
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 12, 2017 6:00:06 GMT
It seems that Allan Williams did not list swords that exist (but are not ulfberhts), which show very good refined bloomery steel. The sword from the Essener Domschatzkammer f.e., but it was made a bit later in the 10th cent., it's made of welded steelbars and not monosteel, but very good refined steel. The problem in the moment is that there is no definite proof for any theory. But there are many hints that the swords at least were forged in the Frankish empire.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Aug 12, 2017 7:27:59 GMT
Re Essener Domschatzkammer sword: 1.1% is a very high carbon content. I can't find anything about slag content. A summary of the analysis of this sword (in Russian) is at www.tforum.info/forum//index.php?showtopic=20106&page=4#entry316122Williams mentions this sword in "The Sword and the Crucible". Williams' classification of swords into groups of supposedly decreasing quality (I: hypereutectoid monosteel, II: eutectoid monosteel, III: laminated with hardened steel edges, IV: laminated with unhardened steel edges, V: iron (<0.2% C)) undervalues group III, which can be better than I and II. For example, he describes a kobuse-laminated sword from the Mary Rose as "a mediocre weapon by any standards" apparently because it has laminated construction and the steel skin is "only" 2mm thick. Edges of about 54HRC. Mediocre? Why? The (probably) crucible steel Ulfberhts are over-rated. Good swords for the time, but hardly the super-swords they're made out to be. The contemporary (and probably earlier) pattern-welded Ulfberhts with hardened steel edges have harder edges, and are tougher and more crack-resistant. Also good swords, and perhaps better than the crucible steel swords. Francia is the strongest candidate for where the Ulfberhts were made (at least the uniformly-spelled versions). There are no good signs that the blades were imported from outside Europe, and good signs that at least some of them weren't.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 12, 2017 7:44:37 GMT
Ulfberhts are an interesting riddle but also a funny example of medieval trademark piracy with all the bad blades having inlays with wrong spelling. There are not many Leutfrit swords but windlass sells its "Leuterit".
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Aug 12, 2017 10:27:31 GMT
Williams is pretty much the only expert who believes in crucible steel theory. Most of others, including people who make their own bloomery home made steel and refine it support the theory that Vlfberhts that were supposedly crucible are actually really well refined native European ore steels. Edit: Forgot to add, no Vlfberhts were pattern welded, only their inlay is pattern welded. Oldest Vlfberhts (+VLfBERHT+) are piled construction, or piled with welded on edges and other traditional European constructions...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 11:00:54 GMT
What is a viking?
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 12, 2017 11:29:28 GMT
A Scandinavian who does vikining. The theory I like most is Peter Johnson's idea that ulfberht means wolf-bright (the reflecting eyes perhaps) and is a hint that the swords were made in the forges of Passau/Bavaria (!!! ), with their sign of the running wolf. Ulf is the old german word for wolf indeed and still a rare forename here. The berht - bright thing isn't clear.
|
|
|
Post by gruggier on Aug 12, 2017 11:53:32 GMT
I wonder if any of the early swords with the spike hilt were made of crucible steel. I am talking about the type X, Xa, XI similar to the Albion Reeve and the Gaddhjalt, both types possibly used by the 9th(maybe) and 10th century Norse, Anglo Saxon, etc...
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Aug 12, 2017 12:01:56 GMT
Williams is pretty much the only expert who believes in crucible steel theory. Most of others, including people who make their own bloomery home made steel and refine it support the theory that Vlfberhts that were supposedly crucible are actually really well refined native European ore steels. Edit: Forgot to add, no Vlfberhts were pattern welded, only their inlay is pattern welded. Oldest Vlfberhts (+VLfBERHT+) are piled construction, or piled with welded on edges and other traditional European constructions... I'm happy to call piled construction pattern-welded, and even more so for piled with welded steel edges. Simple pattern welding. (I'm not the only one - for SE Asian swords, piled is normally considered a type of pattern-welding.) Assuming that the "crucible steel" Ulberhts are in fact made from imported crucible steel answers a number of questions: why weren't optimum forging techniques used (unfamiliar imported material), why wasn't the steel reduced in carbon to a better level (unfamiliar imported material, and would greatly increase the labour required to make a sword from the steel), why only Ulfberhts (limited imports going to one locality where they were made), and the limited time over which they were made (disruption of trade routes). Assuming that they're not imported crucible steel leaves a few questions: 1. Why do we see so few (i.e., zero) non-Ulfberht swords made like this? Perhaps there are many, but lacking "Ulfberht" inlays, they haven't been examined in detail. 2. Why do we see so few (i.e., 4, including the Essener Domschatzkammer sword mentioned upthread) swords with edges of such steel welded onto a lower-carbon body? Again, might be deficient sampling. (We could add more if we include a bunch of earlier swords from the middle Volga, but that region was very connected to the Central Asian crucible steel production centres.) 3. Why was the steel in the very high carbon Ulfberhts left so high in carbon? Lower carbon would be better, or if the swords were made with welded-edge construction. Why make inferior swords, compared to what could be made with a little more work (lower carbon, assuming the steel is bloomery steel), or cheaper with less work (welded-edge)? Perhaps the swordsmiths were still a long way in the error stage of trial and error? Has the composition of any of the crucible steel Ulfberhts been analysed in sufficient detail to identify the source of the ore? That answers a different question from crucible steel or not - it answers the questions of imported or not. Crucible steel or not should be answerable from slag content and composition of the slag inclusions.
|
|