I agree with you. But what can you expect from such a sword? For it to be able to ‘cut other swords to pieces’ as another poster suggests above? No. Steel is steel and it has it’s limits. The best you could possibly expect is perhaps slightly better structural integrity. Perhaps a sword that pushes flexibility and sharp edge to the extremes of the material. But again, how ‘better’ would this sword be than once created by a master craftsmen of the medieval ages? I don’t think the difference would be as wide as you claim it would be.
Well certainly taking out the average sword from the average fighting man then you may be right that the sword quality might not be quite as good as I mentioned. But we’re talking the best that could be had at the time and the best that could be had now, no? A nobleman in the middle ages WOULD have sword possesing the qualities I mentioned - flexibility, weight, balance, and sharpness already stretch the limits of steel.
I’m not familiar with Angel Sword. And I do tend to read up on swordsmiths so I feel ashamed I did however take a quick peek and the first thing I noted was a twei-hander sword wighing almost 7 lbs! This might have been just a display piece but it does nto appear that, that blade atleast is any representaiton of the actual swords of the time.
Ok, were you just quoting the seller’s slogan before, or is your weapon truly battle ready?
Also, what you say about the posibility of current metallurgical procedures making a much better sword goes against everythign I have learned and read form people who know much more than I.
The fact that you’re actually asking why flexibility is important in a blade, leads me to believe you do not know much about swords, what they are expected to do and handle in real life situations.
I found this so far, but will continue to look for a cite on my position, and when I do will post again
I was told once that there’s a stone in south America that weighs "X"tons and is balanced on top of another stone so that it can rotate and if we used all our technology we couldn’t reproduce that. This was given as an example of how we have lost some mechanical engineering skills. Does anyone know if this is true?
So you looked at one single sword they offer and have determined…what, exactly? It has no bearing on my sword I used as an example. So colour me confused.
What “slogan” was I quoting? I said it could bend 90 degrees, because I can do it myself to show people as a demonstration. I say it weighs less than 2 pounds because…shockingly, I weighed it. Actually, it’s about 2 pounds, so my bad. I have no idea what definition constitutes “battle ready”, as I hear that moniker all the time at Ren Fests and it means exactly nothing. I know it was made from a truck leaf spring because I talked to the smith who made it.
What are you talking about here with respect to a slogan?
OK, lets try to make some WAGs on Physical Metallurgy.
What primary metallurgical properties does a sword need to be a master sword? It seems to me that it needs:
Tensile strength (so it doesn’t break).
Toughness (so it is crack-resistant).
Surface hardness (ability to keep an edge).
You can throw in corrosion resistance if you want. And I’m going to assume that flexibility of some sort (see later) is a given, based on the materials involved.
In which of these categories would a Damascus steel sword be of superior metallurgy than a modern BAT weapon? From the very good cite offered earlier in this thread (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9809/Verhoeven-9809.html), it seems that Rockwell Hardness ranges from about 23 to 37 for swords they tested. That’s a wide range and a small sample size, but nowhere near the 50-59 Rockwell that a 440C steel sword would have.
According to “D. T. Peterson, H. H. Baker and J. D. Verhoeven. Damascus Steel, Characterization of One Damascus Steel Sword // Materials Characterization, 1990, v. 24, p. 355-374”, the tensile strength of a genuine Wootz Damascus steel is given as being 1100 MPa +/- 50 MPa, while another reference lists tensile strengths of Welded Damascus steels as being from 822 to 853 MPa. Compare this with 440C steel having a (non-annealed) tensile strength from 1790 MPa to 2030 MPa (http://www.azom.com/Details.asp?ArticleID=1024)
Should we compare toughness? That’s a bit harder (no pun intended). The 440C steel has a Charpy impact test value of about 22 J/cm2. Longitudinal toughness has been reported as high as (about, by reference, no exact value) 34 J/cm2 for 440C ( http://www.karambit.com/masters_karambit.asp ), but transverse toughness quite a bit lower - 3.4 J/cm2 by my calculation. The Damascus steel had a Charpy value of 20.2 to 36.9 J/cm2 in the reference above. Although it is not listed in the reference whether it is transverse or longitudinal toughness that they are measuring, based on other toughness values given of other common steels, such as simple 1070 (0.7%C-Fe) at 44 J/cm2. Note that another steel grade, 0.7%C-1.6%Cr-2%Mn-0.7%W-0.65%Mo-0.2%V-Fe, is given as having a toughness of 157. But that’s comparing red apples to green apples at best, so we can’t really count that. Note that even 1070 has a tensile strength of about 1180 MPa.
Now mind you, materials science is no longer my specialty, so I may have done a unit conversion wrong or misinterpreted the Chary results. But at least I know why yield strength is being shown higher than tensile in most cases…
I…see. So that’s how this is going to go - you think I don’t know anything about swords, and yet you offer up no facts, opinion, anecdote, or experience as to why I might be mistaken on the subject of the extreme flexibility that you claim for Damascus swords. Please explain to me in detail exactly why being able to bend a sword 90 degrees (or to even half that extreme) is beneficial in combat.
That “cite” is really a person’s essay on how crappy mass-produced Ren Fest swords are. It does not address metallurgy or performance of Damascus swords, nor does it address the comparison of the BAT of the past versus the present, nor does it define any manner or method by which the two could be compared. In effect, it criticizes the poor, movie and fantasy-based designs that are impractical and tells how the design in terms of form was much better in the past. I have no argument with that cite, but it does not address the topic at hand. Likely, the thing you picked up on was this quote from the article:
I never said that; I said:
Flexibility can imply toughness, but they are not the same thing. Flexibility in a historical fighting sword typically meant that the sword had an ability to be used and abused in combat without fear of crack formation and propagation resulting in shattering/breakage of the weapon - it is not a hard, brittle weapon. And I imagine that some flexibility must exist in an impact weapon in order to allow the forces to even out during impact, but extreme fishing-rod type flexibility really seems like not only overkill, it seems that it might end up making fighting more difficult, due to the blade flexing during moves.
But unlike most Suburban Basement Ninjas (band name?), I don’t use my sword in “real life situations”, so I wouldn’t know.
I took a look at a couple of more. What I concluded was that Angel swords in fact do not make historically accurate weapons, but display pieces. Atleast of the 10 weapons I’ve seen on their website. They may have another section I haven’t navigated to yet. Anyway, you are right, it says nothing about your particular blade.
You said it was a quality blade, and then mention it was cheaply made. I wanted to know if you had in fact tested the resiliency of the blade, or if you were reading from the website. You tested the blade’s flexibility however
The problem here is not that we could make steel harder, but rather that swords require a certain degree of both flexibility and hardness. As far as I know (please correct me if I’m wrong) but this is a give or take situaiton. The harder the steel, the more brittle.
The reason swords require great flexibility would be apparent to you if you practised any form of historical fencing martial art.
Ok, so I guess how this is going to go. I’m a student of a martial art form and suddenly I’m a ‘basement ninja’. Whatver the heck that is (It would make a good band name though).
Relax, we’re both trying to get at the bottom of this, aren’t we?
My blade is also nearly 20 years old. They may have changed a tremendous amount since then.
I’m sorry, I’m having trouble finding anywhere that I said it was a “quality blade”. I think there has been a severe misinterpretation here. What you said in the post up above was this:
and what I followed with was this:
In fact, not only did I not claim it was a “quality blade”, I mentioned that it shared some of the same characteristics as what you said a quality sword would have, yet was made from a truck leaf spring.
Are we just not communicating here? Please tell me if I messed up.
I’m confused - did you see the specs I put forth? I’m saying that relative to Damascus swords, the 440C steels tested had much better hardness, much better tensile strength, and had roughly equivalent toughness. Thus, they did have their cake and eat it too. Bearing in mind, of course, that the variation in quality of “Damascus steels” (note the quotes now) was likely very wide, and thus due to the small sample size, as well as the age of the items tested, there could be numerous sources of error. However - given the magnitude of the difference, would an Engineer expect the error to be greater than the difference within a statistical certainty? I don’t know, but my personal WAG is “no”.
And again you tell me it should be “apparent”, but cannot tell me why. Anyone else want to tell me why? Anyone? Bueller?
I didn’t call you a “Basement Ninja” (or a “Suburban Basement Ninja”, for that matter). I’m sorry if you felt I was applying that term to you. It was a throwaway term that seemed to apply to the hyperbole of people using swords in “real life situations”. I’ll hazard that you have not, in fact, used your sword (if you own one) on real armor, flesh, and bone, and thus have not observed the behaviour of the steel in a “real life situation” either.
I only want you to examine my statements on metal properties and tell me exactly why flexibility alone, disregarding toughness, was important. Since you will not look to see what I am saying in terms of the relationship between hardness, toughness, and strength of modern verus tested “ancient” steels, and you will not explain to me why flexibility is important, then I don’t see what the point is of continuing discussing this.
You say you are a student of a martial art form, but will not explain to me in detail about the role of flexibility. I say I am a “student” (teacher, actually, as it happens) of science and engineering and HAVE told you of the role of physical metallurgy.
Alright, I’ll start by saying that flexibility is required in the kind of gioco stretto (close quarters) armored fencing fencing matches I have been involved in. During this type of armored combat not only does your sword serve it’s usual function of thrusting and cutting but also as a leverage tool against your opponent. If the blade is not extremely flexible you risk damaging or even braking the blade when performing such maneuvers. And these maneuvers WERE performed by medieval swordsman (historical writings document this) thus one can safely say that the weapons of the time were capable of such flexibility otherwise such maneuvers would not have been taught.
Secondly a swordsman who has been run through with a thrust is not going to stand still! He is going to move, and the blade will bend considerably within the body of the target. Flexibility will also come into play during parries which happen at the flat of the blade.
A very hard blade is not likely to survive a medieval battle. And such a blade would likely prove to be a liabilityin the battlefield.
Another question I would pose to you is: If we CAN make a sword that is as ‘great’ as you claim, why haven’t we?
I’ve handled expensive replicas ranging in the hundreds of dollars ($400 to $700) and yet you can appreciate a TRUE sword of old simply by testing it’s feel, balance, and resiliency.
OK, that sounds fair. But is it the flexibility that is key here, or the resistance to fracture when used in the leverage situation? I mean, trying to visualize it here, must the sword “spring back”, thus meaning you must have a springy-ness - or is it enough that one can use the leverage of the sword without fear of it breaking?
It may sound like a trivial distinction, but I hope you can see what I’m asking.
OK, that’s granted as well. But I wonder if the same distinction I make above applies.
Please try a thought experiment with me. Say you have a sword which is unbreakable. Absolutely unbreakable - you could stick the tip in a wall and drive a truck into it and not snap it. But the sword is also perfectly rigid - it will not give or bend even a second of arc. OK?
Does such a hypothetical sword allow for proper fighting style? Would it be a good sword?
What I’m trying to separate here is the fine point of the mechanics of the fighting (which I’ve never said I know much about!) which is:
Is it the flexibility itself which is key as an independent variable, or else the resistance to fracture as an independent variable?
I don’t necessarily know that we haven’t. And it certainly can be done - I’ve given specifications for a specific grade of steel that appears to exceed Damascus steel (440C), I’ve told how I would manufacture it (via Bridgeport CNC mill), and even how I might surface harden it (titanium nitride vapour deposition).
I estimated the cost at one time of being about $70 for materials (including cutters) for the blade, and the person-time (mill-time) as being about 1-2 days. At a loaded expert machinists rate with 2.5 multiplier, we would have a labour cost of about $1000-$1500. Vapour deposition costs I don’t know of, but might be $500. Creating the hilt, pommel, finishing, etc. might take another $100 in materials and another 1-2 days. We might be looking at about $2000 in labour, $500 in contract services, and $200 or so in materials. Maybe more if any precious/valuable materials are used. So say $3000 for a sword made like I would make? (Of course, if I did it I don’t charge myself labour, obviously) I might consider really hard aircraft aluminium or alloyed beta titanium for the guard, and maybe somthing heavy like tungsten alloy for the pommel. It could cost a lot of money, though, and more 440C steel might also be acceptable.
Why don’t you see a sword like that for sale? Perhaps no demand? Don’t know where to look? No one selling them? I know for a fact a student at my school made a “fantasy longsword” by this method, although he used 1090 steel, and did not nitride the blade (no need to). It also didn’t seem to be a very realistic blade to me, but hey, it was his time and money. It actually took him a week to make the blade, but then he was only a student, not a full-fledged machinist.
The fact that you cannot order or buy or have handled such a blade does not mean that they cannot be made. $3000 might get you a relatively plain, unexciting-looking weapon with superior qualities. And if I made it, my labour rates would be double, so perhaps closer to $6000. I don’t see that as being in the disposable income budget of most people.
And DAMN IT! All this talk about swords is making me want to browse the estate and shop sales this weekend to look for a Bridgeport mill! Then I can make swords all night long…hmmm…sounds nice.
Well, I would love to see it. I haven’t yet though
And with that I’ll concede your point. I don;t know wnough about swordsmithing, the ancient techniques or modern metallurgy to dispute you, so I’ll say that you may be right. Perhaps we could make a better sword.
You know I’d pay the $6000 if you decide to take on this challenge! Who know’s you might even make a pretty penny yourself, considering that no one else is making these blades.
As for a completely rigid blade, no, that would not work. You need the blade to displace the force from impacts against armor or another blade. A completely rigid sword would likely hurt you since the force of the blow would travel directly to your hand (try swinging a hard metal pipe at something hard and you’ll see what I mean).
Actually, this is one of my pet areas of expertise. But, personally, I qualify it in this way: It has to be an art people (especially me) care about.
The hull of an Iowa class ship? Nah.
Here’s a few:
Theatrical Pickpocketing. Altho there are a few books on the subject, people who are expert at it, enough to make a living at it tell me the books barely cover 10% of what is needed. A lot is just practising over and over, and many many fine points are “lost”, if you will.
Stonemasonry: I was hired to consult with a company to make a set of books on stonemasonry. We consulted with 9 different masons. Not one agreed to be interviewed. All mentioned it was “hard won” knowledge and didn’t want to spill the beans. Odd, I thought. I mean, MASONS.
Again, not “lost” per se. But not the easiest to find out about either.
PS: Damascus isn’t lost, not by a longshot. Many expensive blades come with a Damascus option, including the fabulous Chris Reeve Sebenza
I recall years ago reading about the “lost arts” of Roman glass makers. Although modern artisans had the objects they could not work out how they were made for hundreds of years. I don’t know whether they recovered all the lost techniques.
I wonder what arts we have truly lost for all time? I mean to have truly lost them would be to not even know they existed in the first place. Obviously we can’t tell if there are any and what they were but there must have been loads of them (the Inca’s seem a likely candidate). Makes me feel kinda sad that knowledge may have been lost and no is even aware of it.
As a sidebar perhaps we’ve seen a end of a certain art - supersonic commercial flight. As Concorde has made it’s final flight (unless Richard Branson can get BA to give them to him) we may never see supersonic passenger planes in our skies again.
Must be one of the few times mankind has stepped back from advanced technology (although is it really advanced if other forms are more efficient? Whole other debate there).
Karnage: As for the SST, the art is not lost. It will probably never be lost. We’ve preserved the blueprints and the technical manuals and the diagrams and probably even the molds needed to make the Concorde (and, probably, the Russian SST that also never really got off the ground commercially), and we’ve learned enough about aerodynamics and materials design and everything else to be able to trivially design (if not actually construct) a new-generation SST at least as efficient as the Concorde. We may not want to, but we’ll be able to.
A Bridgeport mill is a 3-axis cutting machine which uses cutting bits to carve complex shapes out of metal (or other materials, but primarily metal). In theory, you can cut anything from a simple hole to carve a gear out of a solid block of metal.
Oh yeah - they cost about $7000 to $10,000 new, depending on accessories. So they’re not that expensive, but it’s certainly not going to waiting under the Christmas tree…
una persson: I’ll admit up front to being woefully ignorant about metallurgy and swordmaking, so I apologize in advance if this is a stupid question. You’ve talked about making a sword by (a) using the best quality steel available (which may very well exceed anything available to ancient swordmakers) and then (b) basically cutting it into shape, correct? What about producing a fine edge? I’ve always heard about how ancient swordmakers “folded over” the edge of the blade many hundreds of times to produce an exceedingly sharp and durable edge. I don’t know what the purpose of this is, or whether it’s even necessary with superior grade steel, but I’m just wondering if that is something that might be lacking with your sword.
There’s no such thing as a genuinely lost art – anything that has been done can be done again.
The methods for reading Incan knot cords (I think they were called quipu?) has been utterly lost. Well, yes, plenty of languages are no longer spoken, and there are some we haven’t been able to read, but the knot cords were a form of data storage that we’ve never been able to interpret. A shame, really.
I did however take a quick peek and the first thing I noted was a twei-hander sword wighing almost 7 lbs! This might have been just a display piece but it does nto appear that, that blade atleast is any representaiton of the actual swords of the time.