• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Ask me about swords.

TheokinsJ

Troubadour
I suppose this is a very specific question, but I was wondering the other day about how to quench steel, as in, what do you use? I'd like to think I know a bit about swords and smithing and all that- but I've heard mixed opinions about how you can quench a blade. I know that most modern blacksmiths use oil, and water is the next best thing after that... but I was wondering what about snow?

I looked back on an earlier draft of my WIP and found a scene where a blacksmith quenches a sword is snow- and I've heard conflicting opinions about whether that is an appropriate blacksmithing technique- I've heard some people say that snow is too cold and that the burning hot metal might crack- that the quenching liquid/solution must be room-temperature. So, just looking to clear up, is snow too cold for quenching an iron-hot blade, or was it a legitimate technique used by blacksmiths?
 

Bortasz

Troubadour
I suppose this is a very specific question, but I was wondering the other day about how to quench steel, as in, what do you use? I'd like to think I know a bit about swords and smithing and all that- but I've heard mixed opinions about how you can quench a blade. I know that most modern blacksmiths use oil, and water is the next best thing after that... but I was wondering what about snow?

I looked back on an earlier draft of my WIP and found a scene where a blacksmith quenches a sword is snow- and I've heard conflicting opinions about whether that is an appropriate blacksmithing technique- I've heard some people say that snow is too cold and that the burning hot metal might crack- that the quenching liquid/solution must be room-temperature. So, just looking to clear up, is snow too cold for quenching an iron-hot blade, or was it a legitimate technique used by blacksmiths?

Quenching in Oil is the best Quenching.

Quenching in snow is... well problematic. Not only for the "Does it have right temperate?" reason.
Imagine you put red hot metal rod in to the snow. What happen? The snow around rod melt. Not good.
You now put red hot metal rod in to bucket of water. What happen? Nice sound effect and water constantly touch the rod. Rod is now cooler.
Quenching in snow is in practical.
 

Malik

Auror
You assuming that somewhere in history somebody invent swords.
With is false.

Nobody invent swords. They perfected knife. Make them longer for better reach.

From a practical and martial perspective, there is very little difference between inventing and perfecting.

If the axe was superior, we wouldn't have kept using the sword. That's how engineering works; substandard designs fall out of use.

The axe remained in use, but the sword was developed anyway, even in axe-using cultures. Therefore the sword had to fill a role that the axe couldn't.

Another way to look at it is this: the elite, people with for all intents and purposes unlimited income, chose the sword as their weapon generation after generation. They could have had any weapon, ever, custom-made for them by the best smiths in the world -- and its uses taught to them by masters since they were old enough to talk -- in order to keep them alive and make them successful in battle. Success in battle enabled them to hold on to their riches.

If the axe was the better weapon, rich people would have axes on their walls. Kings and knights would be ordained with axes instead of swords.

I would never argue the axe's functionality; I carry a tomahawk along with my M4. But in the long game, at least on this planet, the sword won.
 
Last edited:

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I feel that it's worth noting, the sword survived as a weapon into the age of gunpowder. But, that's because gunpowder killed off armor, which killed off other armor piercing weapons. It's not clear to me exactly what role the sword played before then.

And fencing is a sport. It's not soldiery. It's not relevant. Rich people protected themselves by surrounding themselves with poor people. And Knights, who were rich-ish, used a lot more than swords.
 

Guy

Inkling
I feel that it's worth noting, the sword survived as a weapon into the age of gunpowder. But, that's because gunpowder killed off armor, which killed off other armor piercing weapons. It's not clear to me exactly what role the sword played before then.
Largely for prestige/symbolism. Swords are still part of military dress uniforms for that reason.
 

Guy

Inkling
I don't have a source, but why else would we have developed an entirely new weapon if the axe was perfectly effective? The axe has to have its weak spots that the sword fills, otherwise no one would have taken the time to invent and perfect the sword.
True. I never said the axe was perfect, just that swords were not the superior weapons. Different weapons are designed to fulfill different roles.
The Lady of the Lake would be handing out axes to determine the next king.
Like I said, I think a lot of the mystique of the sword comes from the fact that it was the first antipersonnel device that was designed from the very start for that role. Another reason would be it took a lot more craftsmanship to make a sword than an axe. I think these two factors (and likely others) are what imbued swords with a good deal of symbolism and prestige. The development of one weapon design following another doesn't necessarily mean the newest design was overall superior. It might have been designed for a very specific purpose, like an estoc. I think symbolism played a very significant role in the development of certain swords, namely rapiers and small swords. They were later designs, but that doesn't mean they were superior to war swords. It meant they fulfilled a specific role, which I think was more social than practical. I wrote a thesis on it. From knights to courtiers : the development of civilian swords and Renaissance Englishmen (Book, 2010) [WorldCat.org]
Another example: I suspect the development of cruciform hilts had at least as much to do with religious symbolism as it did with practicality. They didn't crop up until the tenth century. Swords were in use for millennia prior to that, but they didn't have cruciform hilts. You generally don't see them on non-European swords, either. They worked fine without them, so the development wasn't likely to be driven for purely utilitarian reasons.
I think the symbolism and tradition surrounding swords the main reason they were around for so long. They were retained long after they had outlived their usefulness.
Another way to look at it is this: the elite, people with for all intents and purposes unlimited income, chose the sword as their weapon generation after generation. They could have had any weapon, ever, custom-made for them by the best smiths in the world -- and its uses taught to them by masters since they were old enough to talk -- in order to keep them alive and make them successful in battle. Success in battle enabled them to hold on to their riches.
Elites did not have unlimited income. Debt was a very common problem for them. They had to outfit themselves and often lost that expensive equipment in tournaments (winners often got the loser's equipment as a prize). Knights generally preferred to capture knights in battle to killing them because the captured knight would have to pay ransom for his release. They were also expected to entertain their fellows and they had to do it properly - cheapness was frowned upon. Due to these factors, they couldn't always afford the best equipment. And they did use other weapons in addition to swords, and their use was also taught by masters. There was chivalric combat using pole axes. Then, of course, there was the ubiquitous lance. Swords are good weapons - when it comes to ancient weapons, the longsword is hands down my first love - but swords became associated with elites for the reasons I mentioned above.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if we could narrow down the sword/axe question a bit:

The basic choice is between a sword's finesse (and reach) and an axe's power. (Plus, swords seem more dependent on quality (thus cost) and skill to bring out their strengths than axes do.)

But, which times does an axe's power matter? I keep thinking of
  • Unarmored foes. If you get a solid hit against basic flesh, you don't need an axe to make the fight pretty much over. (A lot of katana fantasies seem to be based on this.)
  • Malik's article The Great Sword of War, that for 1100-1350 AD, against some of the best-known armor types of the middle ages, the best sword would still produce what he summarizes as "BAM. You’re done.” Not by cutting through the armor, but the kind of concussion or dislocation that still knocks them flat.

So those are two situations --bad armor and good sword-- where a sword has all the power you need, and more speed to get that hit. That would make an axe better for the cases between those, where the best sword available (or your skill with it) hadn't caught up to the armor you're facing.
 
Last edited:

Bortasz

Troubadour
From a practical and martial perspective, there is very little difference between inventing and perfecting.

If the axe was superior, we wouldn't have kept using the sword. That's how engineering works; substandard designs fall out of use.

The axe remained in use, but the sword was developed anyway, even in axe-using cultures. Therefore the sword had to fill a role that the axe couldn't.

Another way to look at it is this: the elite, people with for all intents and purposes unlimited income, chose the sword as their weapon generation after generation. They could have had any weapon, ever, custom-made for them by the best smiths in the world -- and its uses taught to them by masters since they were old enough to talk -- in order to keep them alive and make them successful in battle. Success in battle enabled them to hold on to their riches.

If the axe was the better weapon, rich people would have axes on their walls. Kings and knights would be ordained with axes instead of swords.

I would never argue the axe's functionality; I carry a tomahawk along with my M4. But in the long game, at least on this planet, the sword won.

People Invent the Wheel, by perfecting legs?
Inventing and Perfecting is two completely different thinks.

Sword was perfected knife.
When Axe was invented tool.
Claiming that perfecting and inventing is the same is just wrong.

About does Elite people Guy already write something.

Also pleas Pleas what's you point in general. Because It get lost.

If you asking what is Better Sword vs Axe answer is: It depend for what.
 
I'd largely agree. There were axes that could match or exceed a sword's reach, but for the most part I'd agree with you.

Also true.

Yeah, that sounds about right. Axes were better for dealing with shields. A big axe could wreck the shield, and pretty much any axe could be used to hook the shield and haul it aside.


Thanks. Ax-tually (yes, I had to), I can think of another advantage they have: increasing the odds once you do connect. We can picture how much a solid hit is likely to end a fight, but it's only "likely:" with adrenaline in the mix, almost anything but an instant kill could be shrugged off long enough for your enemy to still tear you apart. Damage overkill still helps to reduce the odds of that-- if you think you can still make a clumsier weapon hit.
 

Legendary Sidekick

The HAM'ster
Moderator
Here's Guy's post, which I had to delete because of a weird error with the quotes. Those who saw most of page 41 obscured by a giant quote bubble know what I'm talking about.



FROM GUY:

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by wordwalker
I wonder if we could narrow down the sword/axe question a bit:

The basic choice is between a sword's finesse (and reach) and an axe's power. (Plus, swords seem more dependent on quality (thus cost) and skill to bring out their strengths than axes do.)



I'd largely agree. There were axes that could match or exceed a sword's reach, but for the most part I'd agree with you.

But, which times does an axe's power matter? I keep thinking of

  • Unarmored foes. If you get a solid hit against basic flesh, you don't need an axe to make the fight pretty much over. (A lot of katana fantasies seem to be based on this.)



  • Also true.
  • Malik's article The Great Sword of War, that for 1100-1350 AD, against some of the best-known armor types of the middle ages, the best sword would still produce what he summarizes as "BAM. You’re done.” Not by cutting through the armor, but the kind of concussion or dislocation that still knocks them flat.
 
Last edited:

TheokinsJ

Troubadour
Another question- was pattern-welding a blade, a necessity? I'd always thought blades were pattern-welded simply for aesthetics and for decoration, but I've heard from several sources that pattern-welding was a way of actually removing impurities from the blade? Any truth to any of this?

(I suppose I'm specifically talking about the Dark-Age swords made by the Norse peoples in Scandanavia, where are a large number of the blades seem to be pattern-welded).
 

Bortasz

Troubadour
Another question- was pattern-welding a blade, a necessity? I'd always thought blades were pattern-welded simply for aesthetics and for decoration, but I've heard from several sources that pattern-welding was a way of actually removing impurities from the blade? Any truth to any of this?

(I suppose I'm specifically talking about the Dark-Age swords made by the Norse peoples in Scandanavia, where are a large number of the blades seem to be pattern-welded).

Do you mean something like this:
http://www.paul-binns-swords.co.uk/Images/Pattern_weld/blade_detail_1.jpg
 

Guy

Inkling
Another question- was pattern-welding a blade, a necessity? I'd always thought blades were pattern-welded simply for aesthetics and for decoration, but I've heard from several sources that pattern-welding was a way of actually removing impurities from the blade? Any truth to any of this?

(I suppose I'm specifically talking about the Dark-Age swords made by the Norse peoples in Scandanavia, where are a large number of the blades seem to be pattern-welded).
It was more a way of maximizing their resources. The first monosteel blades in Europe didn't appear until the tenth century. Prior to that they had to use mixtures of iron and steel. The core of the blade would be pattern welded and the steel edge welded to it. If done properly, it can also make for a tough blade. The iron and steel has to be forge welded, but there were usually gaps between the welds, called cold shuts. Too many cold shuts and the blade breaks, but if you have the right amount they act as shock absorbers. Nova had a really good documentary on the first all-steel blades in Europe and explained some of it. I think it was called Secrets of the Viking Sword.
 
Can anyone answer the "Katana Question"?

That is, if a katana is all about using superb metal quality to hold a sharper edge... how well does that edge really work against armor? How has it been different against mainland Asian armor versus samurai armor, and what tests have their been against something like heavier Western armor?

Or maybe the biggest, simplest question of all: is a katana much good against a shield? (Japan and fiction seem to be the only places a soldier shows up without those.)

From what I've learned on Scribes, I wouldn't be surprised if the "ultimate sword" turned out to be more the ultimate specialist in carving up light opponents, if even a well-made sharpness to the blade can't reach a well-armored foe the way a heavier, blunter sword can.

So, what's the evidence here?
 

Queshire

Auror
I was under the impression that the iron in Japan was generally of inferior quality so they had to fold the metal over and over and over again just to get rid of all the impurities.
 

Guy

Inkling
Can anyone answer the "Katana Question"?

That is, if a katana is all about using superb metal quality to hold a sharper edge... how well does that edge really work against armor? How has it been different against mainland Asian armor versus samurai armor, and what tests have their been against something like heavier Western armor?
It doesn't do well against armor for two reasons. One, it's designed primarily for cutting, and it's difficult to cut through armor. Much easier to pierce it, something katanas aren't very good at. Second, the reason katanas are so sharp is because the steel that comprises their edges is very hard. The problem with hard steel is that it's also brittle. When it encounters stiff resistance, it breaks. I read of a test of a katana against a steel helm. The helm was placed at about waist level and the swordsman held the katana so that it was lying along his back. This creates an ideal positioning that is almost never going to happen in battle. He brought the blade down onto the helm and made a tiny incision in it. Someone wearing it would've been unharmed. Katanas are great for slicing and dicing soft targets, but they aren't much against armor.
Or maybe the biggest, simplest question of all: is a katana much good against a shield? (Japan and fiction seem to be the only places a soldier shows up without those.)
Swords in general aren't, but I'd say shields would pose a bigger problem for Japanese swordsmen simply because they never dealt with them. I don't know why, but the shield was never widely used in Japan.
From what I've learned on Scribes, I wouldn't be surprised if the "ultimate sword" turned out to be more the ultimate specialist in carving up light opponents, if even a well-made sharpness to the blade can't reach a well-armored foe the way a heavier, blunter sword can.
In the west, a swordsman going up against someone in heavy armor used the point of his blade to pierce the gaps or weak spots in the armor. Japanese armor never advanced to the degree that western plate armor did. Japanese swordsmen aimed their cuts at places armor didn't cover well, like the arm pit or the inside of the elbow.
 
Let's see if I can offer you something interesting.

I'm planning on having my main characters use a dual bladed style, two separate styles actually. I'm quite sure that that decision was finalized after reading Musashi's book of five rings. (Musashi is the greatest swordsman in Japanese history, he wrote a book that essentially says that hard work leads to superiority)

Because of this source I naturally tend to see two katanas in my mind's eye. Although these blades have some qualities that are desirable in a sword such as a razor sharp front edge and a shock absorbing back edge, in the end they're made from inferior steel which makes them brittle. From the little research I've done, I've learnt that swords made from Damascus steel were superior in almost every account. Most importantly when it comes to flexibility.

So, is there a style (or are there styles) more suited for dual wielding than the Japanese longsword? For all clarity, I am talking about wielding two full length swords.

This is a bonus, I don't really expect an answer to this: if you are obsessed with swords, are you also obsessed with sword styles? I've never used a sword or anything like it, so I'm having trouble imagining what it's like to be in a swordfight, let alone a swordfight using two swords. That's not to say I can't imagine something, but I don't know how realistic my imagination is. Is there a resource that has detailed, step by step, first person accounts of swordplay? Or anything that would allow for the same depth of understanding?
 

Guy

Inkling
Musashi's two sword style was using katana and wakazashi. Using two katanas would be awkward. They're not heavy swords, but their point of balance is fairly far down the blade, which makes using them one-handed a bit awkward. Unlike western sword manuals, Japanese sword manuals don't really describe technique, so we don't really know what the specifics were of Musashi's style. He never said what they were.

There are numerous accounts of duels in Europe from the 16th century on. The style of swordplay is different from Japanese, but the mentality would've been the same. A couple of good sources are The Sword and the Centuries by Alfred Hutton and The Secret History of the Sword by J. Christoph Amberger. They're duels in Europe but, like I said, the mentality would've been the same for Japanese swordsmen fighting for their lives. The account of the duel between Sir Edward Sackville and Lord Bruce is a particularly vivid first person account of a duel. There are several accounts of Musashi's duels, as well. One of the notable things about them was how short they were - usually the other guy swung and missed, Musashi swung back and didn't and with that the duel was over.

Damascus steel doesn't really offer any performance advantages over a monosteel blade.
 
Last edited:
So there's no ideal sword for dual wielding? Also, I'm seeing a dual sword style as a general purpose style, not just for dueling. It's also a trained assassin using them.
 
Top