Before the renaissance, swords were not really a weapon that required much skill. It was just a big sharp piece of metal that you could poke or slash somebody with. Large-scale mass combat doesn’t allow much room for one-on-one dueling; it’s basically just a hack-fest. The army that was victorious was not the one with the best swordsmen, but the one with the best organization or the most people.
Most swords before the rapier were too big to wield with any real puissance. One-handed swords were usually used with a shield or bracers, which were just as important. I think for real skill, the best place to look would be olympic fencers. With modern training techniques and knowledge, the best of today have a real advantage. Other than that, the samurai sounds like a good bet.
Matt
Weapons of last resort? I hadn’t considered that, but other information seems to validate the point.
Before the more modern alloys were created, there were really only two types of sword–the tough sword which was also dull, and the sharp sword which was also brittle.
So, if you had to fight with nothing but a sword, you would be armed either with one that was dull or with one that could break on any strike.
As an aside, I think it’s interesting that a man who had trained his entire life, working and bleeding and striving until he became the greatest swordsman who ever lived, could be killed in two seconds by any one of today’s 9mm-toting punks…
So-called Damascus blades were made long ago (“before 500” (AD?), according to http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9809/Verhoeven-9809.html ). They were manufactured by layering iron (tough but too soft to hold an edge) with steel (hard but brittle), and repeatedly folding and hammering out the billet. The layers combine the qualities of the metals, and make nice patterns in the metal as well.
Bob the Random Expert
“If we don’t have the answer, we’ll make one up.”
We must just be talking EuroTrash Battles here. From what I understand, the making of a fine Samurai sword is a complex process that yielded a sword that was BOTH sharp AND touch, NOT brittle. God knows there were sharp, I sliced my thumb to the bone one, and didn't realize I had been cut for a few seconds. Yech.
I have always wondered, though. Samurai swords were known in the West for a long time....why didn't anyone try to make one like it? They are thinner, and lighter, but much stronger than yer average Ye Old Broadsworde. Was it a grade of metal that could only be made in Asia? Nah...that makes no sense. I know this is sort of a hijack of the thread, but he has his freaking homework done already. Anyone know why Europe wasn't filled with Faux Samurai swords??
Cartooniverse
If you want to kiss the sky, you’d better learn how to kneel.
You have a good point, RJK…layering the metals would work well for that.
Cartoon…I assume that the high quality swords, especially those of the Samurai, were quite expensive.
The average soldier probably wasn’t really all that skilled with the sword, so the higher-quality weapon wouldn’t have given him any real advantage…so why pay extra?
The relative quality of Samurai swords is somewhat overstated in the west. We really became familiar with them only in the 19th century, when western swordmaking was already a declining art, except for certain specialized purposes.
One curious result of the Renaissance-Faire phenomenon is that much better swords are available at reasonable prices nowadays than even 20 years ago. See www.starfireswords.com , for example.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
“<i>Anyone know why Europe wasn’t filled with Faux Samurai swords??</i>”
Armor. A light, sharp sword like a samurai sword is great for cutting up lightly armored or unarmored soldiers, but is less than ideal for hacking through shields, plate mail, steel helmets, etc. Should a light sword be able to cut through such things, it would probably get stuck easily and also lose the main quality which makes it desirable- its sharp edge. Also, to wield a samurai sword to any advantage, you would need to be wearing little or no armor, whereas if you are wearing a full suit of armor and can barely move, you can hack crudely with a big heavy sword and still be effective because of the weight of the sword.
not exactly an authoritative explanation, but I think those are the main ideas involved.
