In real life that is, not in fantasies where a katana can cut down a tree in a stroke. Considering all the myth and folklore about swords, you get the impression that a really superb sword made by a true master was an order of magnitude better than something the village smith might have hammered out from an old plowshare. Is this impression justified or exaggerated? Maybe in a formal duel between two master swordsmen where a perfectly customized sword might make the difference, but for ordinary purposes?
IANAswordswoman, but my Dad fenced a bit, and I picked up a little here and there.
It is my understanding that the balance, weight, weight distribution of the sword as a whole, coupled with the density, integrity, and edge-holding capability of the material comprising the blade are the the primary factors of a superb weapon.
Not all swords are equal, either. Something that is designed to be wielded by two hands doesn’t have to be as precisely balanced as something that you can only use one-handed. Depending on the variety, a swordsmith can be sloppier with some factors compared to others.
I think the true artisans were able to maximize the perfection of multiple factors. You also had specialists operating within each variety who’s designs traded things such as defensive attributes (smaller, less-protective guards) for more speed or accuracy.
A well-balanced sword can be lethal with a simple roll of the wrist, given the right opportunity. Try the same move with an ill-balanced sword, and you could very well drop it.
A few things just off the top of my head I can think of that makes a well made sword better:
-
better metal or a better mixture of metals. This would allow it to be stronger and hold together more, rather than snapping at the hilt.
-
Balance. This by far would be the biggest difference between a well made sword and one that isn’t. A properly balanced sword decreases perceived weight and thus wrist fatigue, increases reaction time, speed of parries, etc.
High grade steel is surprisingly flexible. A good steel sword can be bent into a half-circle and still spring back straight, while cheaper steel will bend or break.
Was? Was? It is still true today - I’d much rather use a good rapier from Darkwood than a POS from Deepaka. Balance, quality of steel, these matter even when fighting with blunted weapons - how much more so if the edge is sharp?
I was thinking of back before modern metallurgy/chemistry allowed you to start from mill stock or precisely control trace element content. And before you could measure dimensions with micrometers. In other words, when it was just up to the blacksmith’s experience and intuition.
A sword is one of those things like a parachute, in that there’s no opportune time for a failure. Measured by objective criteria, there may not have been a vast difference between a mediocre sword and a great one – but when you consider the price of failure, the difference begins to seem very great indeed.
I have been playing with swords for a while now. Both practice weapons like the Darkwood products MrDibble mentioned, and sharp steel designed for cutting. I have held (and used) everything from an attempt at a sword from a knife maker (overpriced, way to heavy), to a blade mad by one of the best arround today.
The are several factors explaining the mystique of a masterwork sword. One of the most important is status. Because a know master could command high price due to reputation, those who could pay that price. Think about if I owned a ferrari. Most people might have no idea how the car performed, or how fast it really was. Still they would know by reputation that it had a reputation as an expensive, high performance car.
Most masters got that reputation for a reason. Toughness, flexability (if that is desirable, some types of swords were designed to be quite stiff), and ballance have been mentioned.
I have held what is considered a well made sword by a modern swordmaker. Compaired to less weel made swords, the feeeling of the sword being "alive' was very noticable. Despite weighing about the same as a lesser sword of the same type, the balance meant that it actually felt much lighter. In moving in a cut thee ballnce aided not only in the delivery of the cut, but in the recovery. It performed the cuts cleanly, and the edge held up to multiple cuts with multiple materials. Lesser swords, while if used on a human would kill them just as dead, performed all functions to a lesser degree. To a sworsman, there is a notable difference, and much like that car mentiond above, owing such a fine sword would imply that the person likely had sojme degree of proficiancy (hey, he owns a fast car, he must know how to drive it).The main difference would come in those attributes already mentioned: balance, performance (which is determined by blade geometry, metal composition, method and quality of assembly, and a few other qualities, and is measured by the intended purpose of the particular blade), and durability.
It is unlikely that a sword, unless of truly bad quality or due to a very unlucky flaw, would fail in any single duel, judicial combat, or similar encounter. In this case the balance and performance of a superior blade will provide some measure of advantage, I wouldn’t begin to even try to quantify it, however. In this case, my money would still be on the better swordsmen (and so should yours).
Durability is probably the next most important quality. A sword that will last you a campaign is worth a lot more than one that will last you a battle or two. A smith’s ability to create such a blade, one that will retain it’s edge well, that will flex properly, that is well balanced and performs well, that can be serviced and remain in good condition for a long time to come would be priced.
The best sword were the magical swords. They came to be known by their masters and craftsmanship. Myths arise from swords that were durable.