|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Aug 12, 2017 12:16:44 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... The are certainly Ulfberht swords with spike-hilts. About 40% of them have the "crucible steel" spelling of Ulfberht.
|
|
|
Post by gruggier on Aug 12, 2017 12:52:10 GMT
Thank you for all the great info good Sir!
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Aug 12, 2017 22:28:09 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 7:28:39 GMT
A few weeks ago I visited the Germanisches National museum 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. I think this is what Andi looked like drooling over the swords....tataaa!
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,843
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 13, 2017 7:40:29 GMT
Yup, exactly this way!
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Aug 13, 2017 13:23:21 GMT
The big problem really is that we have too few tested examples. Williams as far as I know tested only Ulfberhts with various spellings. About why were "crucible" ulfberhts high carbon, we can't know, but smiths of the time often didn't understand the processes they did very well. Many pattern welded swords have soft iron edges welded around pattern welded core. Not steel edges as we would say it's logical. They understood some processes, but not all and some only partially. Logic is not a very good tool to deal with ancient smiths work. :D I know of at least one sword (forgot where it was found, but it was somewhere in Germany I think) that would have been interpreted as a crucible steel sword if not for one element in it found only in ore from that area in Germany. I'm not saying +VLFBERH+T smiths didn't use asian crucible steel, but Williams is pushing that theory with too few evidence. And the whole populistic show bulit around that theory makes me cautious. Especially the fact that both Williams and the TV show ignore the fact that first Ulfberhts with +VLFBERHT+ inlay were obviously original Ulfberhts as they are typologically the oldest.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,843
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 13, 2017 14:09:18 GMT
There are two different questions:
Was the steel imported from Asia? I've read that the absence of certain alloys speak against this.
Is there really no slag (= crucible steel) or is there some slag but not visible because of very good refining (bloomery steel). The letter seems possible, the Uni Kiel article shows the example of an axe.
Unfortunately one has to destroy all swords to clear this up with research.
Some parts of bloomery steel can have high carbon, but refining the steel burns carbon. The high to late medieval bloomeries were much bigger and the result was bigger blooms with less slag and better steel over all. But for the 9th cent. that's not known.
|
|
|
Post by gruggier on Aug 13, 2017 15:13:59 GMT
The big problem really is that we have too few tested examples. Williams as far as I know tested only Ulfberhts with various spellings. About why were "crucible" ulfberhts high carbon, we can't know, but smiths of the time often didn't understand the processes they did very well. Many pattern welded swords have soft iron edges welded around pattern welded core. Not steel edges as we would say it's logical. They understood some processes, but not all and some only partially. Logic is not a very good tool to deal with ancient smiths work. I know of at least one sword (forgot where it was found, but it was somewhere in Germany I think) that would have been interpreted as a crucible steel sword if not for one element in it found only in ore from that area in Germany. I'm not saying +VLFBERH+T smiths didn't use asian crucible steel, but Williams is pushing that theory with too few evidence. And the whole populistic show bulit around that theory makes me cautious. Especially the fact that both Williams and the TV show ignore the fact that first Ulfberhts with +VLFBERHT+ inlay were obviously original Ulfberhts as they are typologically the oldest. Such little info in this particular part of time and history. Sucks.....
|
|
|
Post by gruggier on Aug 13, 2017 18:48:19 GMT
There are two different questions: Was the steel imported from Asia? I've read that the absence of certain alloys speak against this. Is there really no slag (= crucible steel) or is there some slag but not visible because of very good refining (bloomery steel). The letter seems possible, the Uni Kiel article shows the example of an axe. Unfortunately one has to destroy all swords to clear this up with research. Some parts of bloomery steel can have high carbon, but refining the steel burns carbon. The high to late medieval bloomeries were much bigger and the result was bigger blooms with less slag and better steel over all. But for the 9th cent. that's not known. Do you think the same goes for the migration period swords also???
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,843
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 13, 2017 22:18:48 GMT
The migration period swords were bloomery steel, that is clear afaik.
|
|
|
Post by gruggier on Aug 14, 2017 3:27:57 GMT
The migration period swords were bloomery steel, that is clear afaik. You seem pretty knowledgeable thank you. Are you familiar with the Nordic Bronze Age, and the Vendel era?
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,843
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 14, 2017 4:19:53 GMT
Sorry, not really. I'm interested in history and steelmaking, but more related to Germany or esp. Bavaria.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Aug 14, 2017 4:40:05 GMT
Was the steel imported from Asia? I've read that the absence of certain alloys speak against this. I haven't seen the analysis on the Weser Ulfberht. Published, but I don't have access: www.ak-niedersachsen.de/nnu84.htmOne would also need analysis of candidate Asian steels. Unfortunately one has to destroy all swords to clear this up with research. Solution for measuring slag content: neutron imaging: doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.02.014
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,843
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 14, 2017 6:17:49 GMT
Thank you Timo, I'll look it up.
|
|
|
Post by gruggier on Sept 1, 2017 1:44:37 GMT
Nothing to do with Crucible steel but wanted to share and learn more from the experts and enthusiasts...
So i learned something new. Viking Era swords were also called Carolingian swords. When I googled Carolingian swords, lot of pics of 8th-9th century type swords popped up... Interesting. Lots to learn... Its a big field of weapons history.
I also learned The Merovingian swords seem to be the migrations swords... Must have been a interesting time when migration swords merged/crossed over to Viking era swords. You think that some of the migrations swords had passed down from families to lets say Normans???
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,843
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Sept 1, 2017 4:16:06 GMT
I think the biggest change from migration period swords to viking/carolingian time swords was the form of the hilt. During the late carolingian times/early viking times slowly began a change from pattern welded blades to monosteel blades. The steel production in the carolingian empire improved.
|
|
|
Post by gruggier on Sept 1, 2017 12:15:22 GMT
I am sure that as the steel improved, the warriors of that time obviously went for the better/improved weapon. Makes sense. I still wonder what the people of that time did with the migration swords...
AndiTheBarvarian Thank you so much for taking time to read my posts and answer my questions...
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,843
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Sept 1, 2017 12:20:29 GMT
I guess they used them as long as possible and sometimes simply put a new hilt on them. Rather than the steel itself the steel production improved, better bloomeries made bigger blooms and more with sufficient carbon content. I can imagine a smith of old thinking: "Wow, the first time in my life I have enough good steel for a whole blade and not only the edges, that's progress!"
|
|
|
Post by gruggier on Sept 1, 2017 12:23:14 GMT
Right!!! That is one possibility I never thought of! Smart! Replacing the hilt but keeping the (expensive) blade.
|
|