|
Post by legacyofthesword on Jun 20, 2020 20:50:04 GMT
All good points, but there just isn't any way that swords were designed with the idea that they would only ever encounter meat and bone. Perhaps swords were expected to take some kind of damage when hitting wood or metal weapons and armor, but the fact remains that swords were still expected to hit metal and wood. Some of the more extreme testing (say hitting cinder blocks) could definitely count as abuse, but I don't think hitting metal and wood targets should. Though anyone hitting metal and wood should do so with the knowledge that they have a good chance of damaging or breaking their swords. They were also expected to be replaced after hitting the wrong objects. Were they though? Expecting to replace a sword after hitting someone's helmet or weapon doesn't sound right. We know for a fact that swords were intended to hit other swords at the very least (in the Medieval European fighting traditions, at least).
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jun 20, 2020 21:12:23 GMT
Fwiw, I have chopped 2by4s without problems (only a bit of loosening of the crossguard) with the sword used in this test...
...Japanese style swords might be another story though. Just a bit of prying in soft wood broke the very tip off my Hanwei Kouga, for example (still a great sword, I think).
|
|
|
Post by Robert in California on Jun 20, 2020 21:34:46 GMT
Don't forget, samurai swords can "cut machine gun barrels" and in the movies, cut stone (without damage). So us ordinary folks buy a sword and thinks samurai swords are not easily damaged. Nihonto's are not just now quite expensive, but cut the wrong stuff the right way, or the right stuff the wrong way, and damage to the sword is common.
On the other hand, the Japanese of old had professional test cutters to determine how good their blades were. Abusive cutting (wrong stuff right way) reveals much...so doing such with the much more affordable Chinese-made swords is logical and even reasonable.
RinC
(that said, fingerstone polishing a Longquan blade to dull a (ugh!) mirror polish tells one a lot about a blade)
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jun 21, 2020 1:43:20 GMT
I keep seeing the argument that swords are expected to encounter wood and metal in combat, and this shouldn't incur damage from cutting the same.
This is incredibly misguided.
Swords are expected to sometimes strike and bounce off shields, armor, and hafted weapons.
They are not expected to cut through them. There's a lot more force involved in trying to go through than stopping once you hit.
Soldiers weren't out there clobbering each other, full force, with their swords. Swords were levers, sharp levers, used to move things aside and get at the squishy bits behind/under the shield/armor.
Swords should not be expected to cut through anything other than living flesh and bone. In modern times we use targets of similar density, as mentioned already.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jun 21, 2020 1:45:52 GMT
So true! The antiques in museums I've seen have relative thin blades. Swordmanship in those times obviously was killing your opponent without smashing your sword into hard spots.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jun 21, 2020 2:32:01 GMT
I keep seeing the argument that swords are expected to encounter wood and metal in combat, and this shouldn't incur damage from cutting the same. This is incredibly misguided. Swords are expected to sometimes strike and bounce off shields, armor, and hafted weapons. They are not expected to cut through them. There's a lot more force involved in trying to go through than stopping once you hit. Soldiers weren't out there clobbering each other, full force, with their swords. Swords were levers, sharp levers, used to move things aside and get at the squishy bits behind/under the shield/armor. Swords should not be expected to cut through anything other than living flesh and bone. In modern times we use targets of similar density, as mentioned already. And even if there was a little damage by chipping an edge on a metal button, shield, other blade, you would hardly care so long as you won the fight. Just re sharpen, re-profile, or even replace blade (if too badly damaged) and live to fight another day. There seems a large middle ground between too fragile and too overbuilt to use, and history shows much of that middle ground.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jun 21, 2020 2:36:20 GMT
So true! The antiques in museums I've seen have relative thin blades. Swordmanship in those times obviously was killing your opponent without smashing your sword into hard spots. They were robust enough to get the job done without getting killed due to unwieldy weapon. If you had to fix or replace it at the end of the day, at least it got you to the celebratory beer you were chugging that night, with a functional sword a problem for the NEXT DAY. Drink
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jun 21, 2020 2:54:20 GMT
Yeah, while we tend to romanticize swords as high-class weapons of the elite, 99% or more were just tools. They were made well enough to do their job well, but if they were irreparably damaged, they were replaced.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Jun 21, 2020 5:17:11 GMT
I keep seeing the argument that swords are expected to encounter wood and metal in combat, and this shouldn't incur damage from cutting the same. This is incredibly misguided. Swords are expected to sometimes strike and bounce off shields, armor, and hafted weapons. They are not expected to cut through them. There's a lot more force involved in trying to go through than stopping once you hit. Soldiers weren't out there clobbering each other, full force, with their swords. Swords were levers, sharp levers, used to move things aside and get at the squishy bits behind/under the shield/armor. Swords should not be expected to cut through anything other than living flesh and bone. In modern times we use targets of similar density, as mentioned already. Yeah, there's definitely a difference between trying to cut through metal and wood and just hitting it. Big, heavy swings aren't usually a good idea in a fight, from what I understand.
|
|
|
Post by Lancelot Chan on Jun 21, 2020 7:38:25 GMT
They were also expected to be replaced after hitting the wrong objects. Were they though? Expecting to replace a sword after hitting someone's helmet or weapon doesn't sound right. We know for a fact that swords were intended to hit other swords at the very least (in the Medieval European fighting traditions, at least). Yes, they were, but not after hitting once. Yet they have to be replaced afterward. There's only so much width on the edge one can remove the nick from before the sword has to be retired. Approximately 1/3 of the total width. Otherwise why multiple swords on the horseback or the squire's carrying? In dueling there were plenty swords to replace with. You won't need a spare sword at all otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jun 21, 2020 9:05:45 GMT
A skull is a hard spot. A hip-bone. A helmet, too. Mail, shields, hit through a cavalry charge. No big swings? Not bigger than necessary, no. But of course they swung hard, it’s described in literature over and over again. Do you think they didn’t swing hard because of the chance of hitting armour? Or the other way around? Full suits of mail, big shields etc. You don’t get to pick your target to that level in the heat of combat. Swords had to be robust. Not as robust as a prying bar, but still robust. And they broke. Replace after heavy use.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jun 21, 2020 17:32:04 GMT
This thread makes me see the irony of swords, particularly with today’s swords in general. People complain about the handling and granted most on the market lack the distal taper and don’t handle as an antique. On the other hand with the way swords are abused thinner bladed swords will not hold up to the abuse they could very well receive. An antique is protected from such things to some extent due to its historical value, scarcity, and the price. CS for instance over engineers their swords and they’re known to be robust and in many cases that reflects in their poorer handling. On the other hand a sword from LK Chen is bad mouthed because it closely copied an original and it bent by cutting a tree limb. People seem to want it both ways, an indestructible sword with good handling. Me too, but... Perhaps people see too many movies that show swords impervious to damage as firearms that do not go dry. Ya, so much for Hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jun 21, 2020 18:19:44 GMT
I think that's pretty much it. There's an old adage, something about getting something either good, fast, or cheap, and only being able to pick two. Sure, in modern times, with modern technology, we could very easily make a sword that closely matches historic originals in all dimensions and handling, and is also incredibly tough and can withstand tremendous abuse, but I can promise you that sword will not be sold for $300, or even $1,000. One might expect a reasonable down-payment of $5,000... In the meantime, we really are still using the same stuff and the same methods as the days of yore. Only difference is we're mostly doing it a lot cheaper now...in many ways...
I just remembered a favorite bit from a manga, Black Lagoon, wherein a character who opposed firearms as weak and unreliable, for people who aren't strong enough to fight for themselves, dismissing them with a line something like "Bullets run out. Blade and body are forever." Later in the chapter, her knives are broken and she's pretty badly beaten up. Maybe even shot once or twice...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 18:44:14 GMT
This is an excellent thread, one of the most sober and illuminating discussions I have seen on this forum. I am bookmarking this.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,629
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Jun 21, 2020 20:01:33 GMT
It all comes down to material science. There are clear thresholds of what stresses iron and it's alloys can tolerate before failure (plastic deformation, fracture, et cetera). You could machine a sword to the White Arc jian's specifications using a modern "super steel," with computer controlled heat treatments dialed in and executed perfectly, but it might still take an edge roll or set from cutting tree branches. Some people need to adjust their expectations down to realistic levels.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jun 21, 2020 20:37:09 GMT
It all comes down to material science. There are clear thresholds of what stresses iron and it's alloys can tolerate before failure (plastic deformation, fracture, et cetera). You could machine a sword to the White Arc jian's specifications using a modern "super steel," with computer controlled heat treatments dialed in and executed perfectly, but it might still take an edge roll or set from cutting tree branches. Some people need to adjust their expectations down to realistic levels. Not only this but think of the price tag. I like things perhaps overbuilt but less expensive, as I may use for defense but not against similarly armed combatants, being I wouldn't imagine anyone showing up at my home with a properly weighted, tapered long sword for a fair duel.
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,091
|
Post by LeMal on Jun 22, 2020 3:26:50 GMT
This thread makes me see the irony of swords, particularly with today’s swords in general. People complain about the handling and granted most on the market lack the distal taper and don’t handle as an antique. On the other hand with the way swords are abused thinner bladed swords will not hold up to the abuse they could very well receive. An antique is protected from such things to some extent due to its historical value, scarcity, and the price. CS for instance over engineers their swords and they’re known to be robust and in many cases that reflects in their poorer handling. On the other hand a sword from LK Chen is bad mouthed because it closely copied an original and it bent by cutting a tree limb. People seem to want it both ways, an indestructible sword with good handling. Me too, but... Perhaps people see too many movies that show swords impervious to damage as firearms that do not go dry. Ya, so much for Hollywood. ^^This.^^ Even within historical examples, swords could vary considerably regarding tradeoffs for quick handling vs percussive power and sturdiness. And then we in modern times aren't even bound by historical martial applications anyway. So that variance is even a bit wider. (Not that even a "thin machete" or "sharpened crowbar" can't be used in historical types of martial applications. Machetes have been. And know what else is a "sharpened crowbar?" A mace. If it looks like a swird but handles like a mace, handle it like a mace. Duh.) As far as I'm concerned, there are only a few absolute dealbreakers. Too heavy, period, to be used effectively. Too light to be used effectively. And structurally unsound, it breaks if you use it in a way that is effective. There's still a lot of territory in between. And sure, I have MY own personal preferences, given the choices. But my preferences given the options are hardly some cosmic, objective truths.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Jun 22, 2020 11:17:01 GMT
It all comes down to material science. There are clear thresholds of what stresses iron and it's alloys can tolerate before failure (plastic deformation, fracture, et cetera). You could machine a sword to the White Arc jian's specifications using a modern "super steel," with computer controlled heat treatments dialed in and executed perfectly, but it might still take an edge roll or set from cutting tree branches. Some people need to adjust their expectations down to realistic levels. Not only this but think of the price tag. I like things perhaps overbuilt but less expensive, as I may use for defense but not against similarly armed combatants, being I wouldn't imagine anyone showing up at my home with a properly weighted, tapered long sword for a fair duel. Yes, to both of you! It's a balance between cost, function, and durability. The cost includes manufacturing, repair and replacement. The elites could afford a hand crafted sword of the highest quality, but those were rare. The average Joe soldier got a functional blade that was strong enough to survive on the battlefield, light enough to carry around everywhere when not fighting, and cheap enough that thousands could be made. Those swords were indeed tools. We do need to temper (pun intended) our expectations of swords. Is the sword meant to be decorative, or functional? In our modern way of thinking, we want to keep our swords nice and avoid damaging them. But a combat sword is expected to get chipped and maybe bent- as long as you survive the battle, the sword is disposable- it can be repaired or replaced like any other tool. No need to worry about chips. A chipped sword will still cut, and a dull sword can still be used to bash in a skull or pry open some armor. We need to distinguish "military" grade swords from our "pretty" swords.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,629
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Jun 22, 2020 12:05:36 GMT
RufusScorpius What you just pointed out does make me think of the Ship of Theseus concept. You have a sword passed from parent to child down through multiple generations of combatants. The blade gets damaged beyond repair, and is replaced. The grip cracks from age and use, the guard loses a quillon, et cetera, and these all are replaced in turn over the many generations. Where does the sword's identity lie? In the blade? In the guard? In the handle? In the pommel? When does the family heirloom sword stop being the same sword, or does it?
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Jun 22, 2020 14:33:49 GMT
RufusScorpius What you just pointed out does make me think of the Ship of Theseus concept. You have a sword passed from parent to child down through multiple generations of combatants. The blade gets damaged beyond repair, and is replaced. The grip cracks from age and use, the guard loses a quillon, et cetera, and these all are replaced in turn over the many generations. Where does the sword's identity lie? In the blade? In the guard? In the handle? In the pommel? When does the family heirloom sword stop being the same sword, or does it? C: All of the above. Great great grandpa broke the pommel in battle and replaced it. He gave the sword to his nephew who replaced the quillion with a custom piece. Then he handed it down to his daughter (not having a male heir) who was the Great Aunt of the uncle's cousin's brother, who changed the handgrip with bone from a slain enemy. She then gave it to her grandson who reshaped the edge to suit the contemporary style. The sword has the family history in the repairs/upgrades. It's not original, but it's unique. Each generation of owner put their own mark on it, so now it carries all of their hands. Or maybe I'm overthinking it.
|
|