Pete Nash said:
This is no different from swords made throughout history. The majority of historical blades are pretty crap to be blunt about it. Wrong tempering temperatures, contaminated iron or steel, or rapidly mass produced with little care or attention to quality.
I agree. That has been my point through this thread. Most blades are junk. The reasons why are pretty consistent in any era. For one thing, most people can't afford to pay for top quality, secondly, a lot of people don't know enough about blades to be able to tell the difference, and then there is a desire to make some fast money.
The same holds true with most items produced today. Most people don't buy top of the line automobiles, computers, stereos, TV sets, or even pens. Weapons are really not any different.
Back when swords were state of the art weapons, only a relatively small percentage of the population could afford a high quality blade. Not considering that such blades sold for the equivalent of several years' income for the average person.
Although the majority of modern swords are only made for display, there are several companies who mass produce combat capable blades. Atop this are a good number of professional swordsmiths who still make blades by hand, although many use the benefits of technology to aid the resilience and endurance of their creations. Some can be found on the following web pages...
Look at http://www.thearma.org/essays.htm
and http://forums.swordforum.com/
Yeah, there are still some places that make good blades. I think the sites you linked to show just how "hit or miss" many of the medieval techniques were.
But not everyone who claims to be a "quality" smith produces good blades . If you are into collecting blades, you are probably well aware of this. Each year, quite a few people get taken, spending good money on so so blades that are passed off as something better.
Several of the master smiths have mentioned that many techniques have been lost, and that at times modern methods have actually resulted in inferior products. One example being steel maille armor. Many modern armorers make it out of steel, since steel is stronger than iron. But iron actually provides superior protection specifically because it is softer, and will deform rather than break. Likewise, the old technique for assembling maille, "bealing" is better than modern techniques. It is also very time consuming, and thus expensive.
THere are a few placves that make quality products, but Kintire's statment about how a modern katana would blow any ancient one out of the water doesn't hold. I'll bet on a well careed for 5-600 year old Katana over any $49.99 katna sold at the local kung fu shop.
I disagree.
There are plenty of smiths who
have continued the craft and advanced it with technology and scientific knowledge. The only way to test the superiority of a blade is to use it in anger, and would result in two sword edges being chewed up, no matter how 'superior' they are, and possibly one sword breaking... which in my honest opinion will not be the modern one as often as the antique.
I doubt it would be the modern one either. Not because the modern one is superior, but because good antique blades tend to be worn and used, or neglected. Things like metal fatigue start to play a factor too. I almost bought a nice 16th century katana awhile back for a relatively low price, mostly because the weapon had been used and shapened so much that most of the hard edge was gone and the softer inner steel was starting to show through. It was nice for it's history (all throughly researched as to smith, owners through the years, etc.) and for it's beauty. As a fighting blade, it was nearly useless.
But, put a top quality antinuqe blade when it was in in't prime against a modern blade, and I don't believe Kintire's statement that no ancient weapon could match a modern blade.
Alas, because of the rarity and irreplaceable nature of antique blades, all we can do is measure them with a Rockwell Hardness test and examine the crystalline structure of similar period blades which have broken.
Such tests have demonstrated that blade hardness (both edge and core) varies greatly between similar blades (i.e. no consistency), that steel purity is lower in historical blades (lots of inclusions which are focal points for breakage), and the crystalline structure is often irregular (causing stress weaknesses due to inconsistent tempering and quenching temperatures).
All three of these problems can now be overcome with modern technology. :wink:
You are sort of proving my argument about why ancient blades were not used to parry. Frankly the only way to be sure about a blade was to try it a few times in battle and see if the blade holds, not the sort of situation where a warrior wants to experiment. It makes a lot more sense to rely on the shield.
One problem with modern swordsmithing techniques is that they are not field tested. Look at firearms. Now firearms are modern weapons in every sense. New weapons are desgined by engineers and worked out to great detail. Yet, despite all the modern tools, techniques, and advanced degrees, it is virtually unhead of for amodern firearm to make it into production without having to iron out some "bugs" in the design. A modern combat sword would have the same sort of teething problems. Plus all the problems that stem from mass production. We'd probably have a recall! :wink:
Even most "modern" smithing techniques are not really that advanced. More the advatage of being able to measure and test for quality. It's not like anyone is spending lots of cash on sword R&D. If they were, I doubt that steel would still be used, but rather some sort of composite material.
