Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2008 6:49:04 GMT
Ok, before I go into this, i'd like to add that i'm an amateur at all this. Hence, why i'm asking the question. It has no real bearing on anything, as I never intend to take a sword to anything more real than water bottles and cardboard, but i'm genuinely curious, and i've been thinking on it Also, custom swords don't count in relation to this question. I'm more talking about the manufactured swords (Hanwei, Windlass, Del Tin, Albion, Gen 2, VA, etc.), and the style of sword I have in mind are Viking age/any medieval european sword really. So on to my question... I was thinking about the durability of swords today, at least in terms of manufactured swords. Knowing that all blades back "in the day" were hand-forged, and manufactured swords today are well, manufactured...I wondered which would be stronger and more durable. I mean, we've come along way in terms of technology and metallurgy, so perhaps that equals it up on the side of the manufactured swords? But just how durable were real swords of that era? Would the same type of strikes that would damage a manufactured sword now-a-days damage a real hand-forged blade of the period, and if so, what would be the comparison in damage received? The same, or one worse than the other? What kind of an effect would striking a shield, or chainmail/helm have on the blades? I know they didn't parry with their swords, so I won't even consider asking that. I tried wording it as best as possible, so I hope it makes some sort of sense. I know it's alot, but i'm just curious, and thought this would be the best place to ask.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2008 7:11:38 GMT
AFAIK modern day swords(especially the 'beaters' made by manuf. like Gen2, Darksword and Atrim) have much much higher durability than even some of the best crafted blades of historic times. Purer metals, better alloy mixture, better tempering techniques all contribute to this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2008 10:44:15 GMT
I'm pretty sure that swords were parried with, given the prevalence of such techniques in the historic manuals... Regarding the durability of historic swords, I found this article to be very interesting: www.myarmoury.com/feature_bladehardness.htmlI can't remember where I read it, but I have seen the argument made for softer swords being able to be re-straightened on the battlefield, while harder blades are more difficult to re-straighten if bent (but also more difficult to bend in the first place!).
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Jun 15, 2008 17:32:58 GMT
and harder sword tend to break. really what you are asking is pretty broad. viking era to medieval ages covers a HUGE amount of time and territory in swords. on one end of the spectrum we have the ancient viking swords that were laminated with soft cores and hard edges to produce a sword some say not only rivals but is superior to the japanese katana and on the other end of the spectrum you have the late medieval "munition" swords which were as close to mass-production as you could get with the technology of the day. they had forges with dozens of journeyman pouring out the simplest, low quality swords at the fastest rate they could. these sword typically did not stand up to the riggors of combat too well and were basically a side arm for foot soldiers. a last resort that probably had to be replaced after use just a few times if not once. so. . . While I doubt today's manufactured swords or better than the old viking swords of legend (or middle eastern wootz but that's another topic) I would say they are certainly better than the munition grade swords and as good or better than the more common middle to high quality swords. this also assumes you have a good production sword. one that is not held together with threaded part for example. but yeah I think you could give most medieval knights a modern production sword of good quality and they'd be happy to use it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2008 20:08:22 GMT
They didn't parry with their swords? Care to elaborate? (i'm not really familiar with swordsmenship)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2008 0:53:33 GMT
Ian, in terms of steel quality I can certainly see where you're coming from... however from all the accounts I've read of people who have handled antiques one thing that consistently is mentioned is the superior balance and handling of these swords when compared to what we have available today. In the bottom quarter of this page under Facts and Myth-conceptions, there is a similar account (and I believe the replicas mentioned aren't the sub 300 production variety): www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htmIt seems to me that if you were relying on a weapon to protect yourself you'd want something that can be used to the greatest effect with your fighting style and worry about dings and chips later, especially when the technology wasn't there to get reliable homogeneous steel... or maybe like you mentioned, they were made softer so they didn't break.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2008 0:59:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Jun 16, 2008 1:01:59 GMT
vyapada, ahh handling is an entirely different story. I think you are most likely right about them not liking the way our modern swords handle. BUT I think that would be more due to the fact that people tended to be a lot smaller then due to the lack of advanced medicine and plentiful nutritious food like we have today and well genetics too we've grown bigger as the races mixed. I think that an historical sword in the hands of an historical man would be about the same, in perspective, to a modern sword in the hands of a modern man. but you are correct that if you hold historical and modern swords next to each other there would be an obvious size difference. I'm just saying the same is true with people. would be an interesting comparison I think
Steven- the bit in your quote box is what I was talking about in my viking sword example and why I said there were vast differences in quality
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2008 1:30:11 GMT
Ian, that is certainly an interesting point. There are certainly some very large and heavy antique swords (some are probably parade pieces though some seem not to be) so there would be variation, but as you say, overall we can probably tolerate heavier/beefier swords - and given that we don't need to fight for our lives with them, it probably doesn't matter too much to the average collector!
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Jun 16, 2008 2:26:39 GMT
hear, hear! If I have to defend my life with a sword then I figure somewhere along the line I have taken a serious wrong turn. or just gotten absurdly unlucky I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2008 3:16:19 GMT
hehe. that was a good real btw, thanks for the link.
|
|