Ask me about swords.

[Anders Ämting]

Thanks again. And a few more questions. About the metal quality - it is supposed to be an important factor in the long run, isn't it? Is it really important in a single fight? If I have brand new sharp sword made of shitty steel am I really in disadvantage against a guy with the sword made of superduperawesome steel? Can he really cut through my sword?

Not really, no. Swords cutting through other swords basically never happens.

As far as I can understand, "bad steel" means uneven carbon content. That's probably more a problem for the blacksmith, but if you get a sword out of it, it may be more prone to damage or have a tendency to dull, or both. It could break from an impact if it had a hidden tempering flaw or stress fracture, but that doesn't mean the steel is to blame: Either you simply pushed the blade too hard, or the bladesmith messed up. That said, even good swords can snap in half without warning. It's very rare, but it does happen.

Mind, a sword breaking generally means it was fragile - that is too hard - which is a matter of hardening and tempering. On the other hand, if the heat-treat simply didn't take in some places due deficient carbon content, it's more likely to bend. And while a bent sword is bad, it's not nearly as bad as a broken sword.

At the end of the day, steel is steel. Iron ore doesn't really come in different degrees of quality when you dig it up. What matters the most is how it's processed afterwards, and how skilled the craftsman working it is.

Is the armor penetration decreasing a lot?

I don't think it's a matter of varying degrees of penetration. Rather, if you are trying to drive a very sharp point through a mail, for example, obviously you don't want it to bend or break.

Another question. Any comments about katar? It seems to me like a very nice weapon with a descent hand protection comparing to ordinary dagger but it seems like wasn't popular at all in Europe. Why?

Well, it's a bit of an odd weapon. Not as odd as the pata, but still kinda odd. Odd weapons, more often than not, require unconventional fighting styles. It's likely normal daggers were just easier to use and already easy enough to come by, and the katar design didn't offer enough advantages to have an influence.

As for hand protection, that normally isn't a factor for daggers as they are close combat stabbing weapons. The exceptions are things like the parrying daggers that accompanied the earlier rapier styles, and those often did have elaborate guards.

Anyway, very few oriental weapons actually became popular in Europe. A rare few might have turned out successful, but others never amounted to more than curiosities. Mostly people stuck to what they knew, and what worked best for the type of killing they were most likely to do.

Dear Anders SwordGuy,

In my world, there was an inter-planar war. The invading army was eventually defeated, but they left behind a lot of weapons and equipment made of a stronger metal than the iron typically used by the blacksmiths of Country X.

My questions: How would said blacksmiths learn to work this new metal? Could they do it at all? If so, would the quality drop due to inexperience?

Oh dear, that really depends on a lot of factors.

First of all, how difficult is it to aquire the metal in the first place? If it's the main material for all the weapons in that country it has to be pretty common, but do you simply mine it as ore? Or is it like say aluminium? That is, something that is very abundant chemically speaking but almost impossible to find in the elemental state, meaning you need certain degree of industrial technology to even produce it.

It gets even more complicated if this metal is an alloy. If so, how advanced? They would have to figure out which material component go into the alloy and in exactly what quantities.

Assuming they get that far, is it forged the same way as steel? Or must you cast it like bronze? If you forge it does it require specific forging techniques? Does it need to be heat-treated and if so, does it need to be heat-treated in a specific way?

If we just look at steel, there are a lot of different alloys and many of them require specific heat-treatment to bring out the best qualities of the material. It's entirely possible this metal isn't anything special at all, and the real secret is the method the bladesmiths of Country Z figured out to temper it.

And worst of all: if multiple of these factors are at play, and the people of X fail to figure out just one of them, it's probably not going to work.

So, depending on how different the process is from what the Xians are used to, reproducing the Zian weapon technology could range from fairly simple to practically impossible.

Then again, humans (I assume we're talking about humans) are very industrious and inventive when challenged. If they have a basic idea how this material is made, they can probably figure it out through trial and error, given enough time. It's also possible they find books or documents describing the process.

Heck, if they have enough forsight, they may even make sure to capture a few of Z's craftsmen and force the instructions out of them.

But it's also very possible to simply lose a technology forever. The method for producing the famous damascus/wootz steel was lost in the 18th century and to this day we don't actually know how the stuff was made. There are people who have made decent imitations and proposed theories for how to make wootz steel, but we don't actually know. It's effectively a lost art.

I think this is really up to how you want to play it. Anything that suits your story is probably possible.

If not, what would they likely do with a surplus of alien weaponry?

If they have a lot more weapons than they need or want, they might simply gather them up an sell them to Country Y, which is any wealthy neighbouring country they aren't currently at war with.

At the height of their sword production, it's said the Japanese sold some 100.000 swords to Ming Dynasty China. (Probably not very good ones, but hey, that's still an army's worth of swords.)

If the Blacksmiths of Country X were actually using iron, then these could be nothing more than weapons made from carbon steel. They would have vastly superior qualities in developing and retaining a cutting edge, durability, etc.

Eh. I think I mentioned this before at some point, but it's basically impossible to even get iron with no carbon in it, at least with conventional methods. And even if you could, pure iron is actually softer than aluminium and oxidizes very quickly, so it's not every useful.

What we think of as iron is technically just another type of carbon-iron alloy, just one with relatively little carbon in it. Anyway, as I understand it, people didn't actually switch from iron to steel at one point - rather they gradually found ways to improve their metalurgy and smithing techniques, resulting in gradually better steel weapons.

 

[craenor]

Iron ore doesn't really come in different degrees of quality when you dig it up.

Disclaimer, I only had a few minutes, so I didn't read your entire post. However, I did get stuck on this one point. The presence of certain micro-traces of other elements close to Iron on the periodic table, can definitely make a difference. In particular, the presence of traces of Vanadium, Molybdenum, Chromium, Niobium, and Manganese can make a big difference, especially for the better - as long as those trace percentages don't get too high.

Here's a decent (if a bit dense) article on the subject.

 

[wordwalker]

Here's a question: it's come up now and then that in the later plate-armored years knights switched to longswords, as the weapon that might penetrate that armor (or I guess break bones through it). How much was the shift to swords rather than to greataxes or hammers? If so, was it because swords' longer blades were less likely to glance off plate than axes', or just social (swords were always the more "noble" weapon so if you needed something big it was a chance to go sword again)?

 

[Shaun b.]

I'm not sure if this has been previously asked so forgive me if it has. How much better than Iron was steel for a blade? what are the major advancements? is it all about blade strength? weight? sharpness? I know that steel is better than iron because I am informed that it is. However I can't say how attractive a steel blade would be to a person that has only used iron.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I'm not sure if this has been previously asked so forgive me if it has. How much better than Iron was steel for a blade? what are the major advancements? is it all about blade strength? weight? sharpness? I know that steel is better than iron because I am informed that it is. However I can't say how attractive a steel blade would be to a person that has only used iron.

Steel is an alloy of iron. It's advantages are greater flexibility & greater hardness. Being harder, steel allows for a keener, more durable edge compared to iron. Flexibility is important in keeping blades from breaking or shattering. The metallurgy of steel can be altered with more or less carbon content. Higher amounts of carbon yield harder blades but the harder they are, the more brittle they become. The ability to manipulate components of steel is another of its advantages. In blade work, a smith could produce spring steel which is very flexible or a much harder steel depending on the application. In sword making, smiths temper the metal blade to reduce the brittle qualities of hard steel. The best blades are formed by using softer, flexible steel for the inner layers and folding the blade so that the outer layers are composed of harder, more carbon-rich steel. This technique produces blades capable of holding a razor edge while being flexible enough to avoid breakage.

 

[craenor]

Steel is an alloy of iron. It's advantages are greater flexibility & greater hardness. Being harder, steel allows for a keener, more durable edge compared to iron. Flexibility is important in keeping blades from breaking or shattering. The metallurgy of steel can be altered with more or less carbon content. Higher amounts of carbon yield harder blades but the harder they are, the more brittle they become. The ability to manipulate components of steel is another of its advantages. In blade work, a smith could produce spring steel which is very flexible or a much harder steel depending on the application. In sword making, smiths temper the metal blade to reduce the brittle qualities of hard steel. The best blades are formed by using softer, flexible steel for the inner layers and folding the blade so that the outer layers are composed of harder, more carbon-rich steel. This technique produces blades capable of holding a razor edge while being flexible enough to avoid breakage.

This is an excellent description. Well done. To this, the only thing that I would add is that some people confuse Stainless Steel with Steel. Stainless Steel is a type (or family of alloys) of steel that typically speaking have >10.5% Chromium. Also, they usually have very low carbon levels.

Because of the abundance of Chromium and lack of Carbon, stainless steels aren't "hard" enough to form and retain a proper cutting edge. However, even worse, the Chromium makes them brittle.

You'll sometimes find online sellers, convention sellers, or Ren faire types that will sell Stainless Steel swords that are "ready to use". Never try to cut anything with a stainless steel sword. The chances of it breaking and shards of sharpened metal flying around the room are quite high.

 

[Anders Ämting]

Okay, guys. Sorry for the delay but I had to do some research.

Disclaimer, I only had a few minutes, so I didn't read your entire post. However, I did get stuck on this one point. The presence of certain micro-traces of other elements close to Iron on the periodic table, can definitely make a difference. In particular, the presence of traces of Vanadium, Molybdenum, Chromium, Niobium, and Manganese can make a big difference, especially for the better - as long as those trace percentages don't get too high.

Here's a decent (if a bit dense) article on the subject.

I only skimmed that article but it seems to be mostly about wootz and the theoretical role mineral impurities may have served in making it. I'm not sure what that has to do with steel production in general.

However, I find I do have to revise my previous statement: Turns out there's something called "redshort" and "coldshort" iron, which is iron with too high trace amounts of sulphur and phosphorus respectively. Redshort is maelable when cold but becomes fragile when heated. Coldshort is the opposite: It can be shaped when heated but becomes brittle when cold. These problems would remain if the ore was turned into steel.

So apparently I was wrong: There is such a thing as "bad iron", in the context of weapon crafting.

Still, the point I was originally trying to make is that steel is something you actually have to manufacture, so the quality of steel would have been the responcibility of whoever operated the bloomery. And I imagine making defective steel on purpose would have been a good way to get in trouble with the local smithing guilds.

Here's a question: it's come up now and then that in the later plate-armored years knights switched to longswords, as the weapon that might penetrate that armor (or I guess break bones through it). How much was the shift to swords rather than to greataxes or hammers? If so, was it because swords' longer blades were less likely to glance off plate than axes', or just social (swords were always the more "noble" weapon so if you needed something big it was a chance to go sword again)?

Longswords aren't actually better at countering armor than regular swords. I'm pretty sure armor penetration had nothing to do with that. What matters is the specific shape of the blade - swords designed to counter armor have rigid and acute points that excel at stabbing and thrusting. These points could penetrate mail armor, and when plate armor was introduced they could stab between the joints of the steel plates. I think the rising popularity of longswords had more to do with shield becoming smaller an less important as better armor was developed. Once you could get rid of the shield, it freed up the off-hand so that two-handed swords were an option.

I highly doubt anyone wearing decent plate would have to worry about suffering broken bones from a swordsman - plate armor would disperse the force of the blow evenly across the plate, like a helmet or hard hat protects your head from blows only for your entire body. Thus, breaking your bones through your plate armor would basically require the armor to collapse inward. Swords are not especially heavy weapons and not designed to deliver that type of damage - especially not the highly specialized piercing swords. You need something like a warhammer or flanged mace to deliver sufficient impact damage, and indeed impact weapons did become more popular as plate armor technology advanced.

Axes are a slightly other matter, though - battle axes are cutting and chopping weapons and just like swords, they weren't nearly as heavy as modern people tend to think. I personally have my doubts they were especially useful again plate armor in and of themselves. They were very popular in the viking age, but seem to have kinda sorta fallen out of favour in the middle ages. The 15th century did see the development of the horseman's axe, at the hight of the plate armor's dominance, though they were often equiped with a spike or pick in addition to the cutting blade. We see the same principle in the formidable pole-axe which combined a warhammer, spike, axe and/or pick in various combinations into one long weapon. It seems impact weapons and piercing weapons were equally in favor at the time.

To answer your question in a more concise manner: I don't think it's right to talk about a "shift" in weapon usage. More like, improved armor technology led to a lot of changes including new sword designs, new weapon designs in general, and a certain trend towards using impact weapons. But it's not like everyone sat down and decided swords were old news and that they should switch over to maces or something. For that matter, not every warrior you met on the battlefield would actually wear plate armor. Far from it. Those things were crazy expensive.

I'm not sure if this has been previously asked so forgive me if it has. How much better than Iron was steel for a blade? what are the major advancements? is it all about blade strength? weight? sharpness? I know that steel is better than iron because I am informed that it is. However I can't say how attractive a steel blade would be to a person that has only used iron.

"Iron" in this context typically refers to wrought iron, which contains a very low carbon content. Though, note that this is still a steel alloy. The modern equivalent is mild steel or low-carbon steel.

These alloys cannot be hardened and tempered. Because of this, they are in themselves useless for making any kind of cutting implement as they are too soft to hold a good edge or stand up to the rigors of combat. You pretty much never make swords out of this stuff, or if you do they are purely decorative.

However, wrought iron would commonly have been used in lamination swords, especially in the iron age - the main body of the blade would have been made from wrought iron whereas the edges were made from the more expensive carbon steel. This served two purposes - it saved you some valuable steel and produced a more forgiving blade, as the softer wrought iron would bend rather than break. This approach became less desirable as steel technology improved, however, and dependable monosteel blades could be produced with less work.

Because of the abundance of Chromium and lack of Carbon, stainless steels aren't "hard" enough to form and retain a proper cutting edge. However, even worse, the Chromium makes them brittle.

Actually, this is incorrect. Stainless can absolutely keep an excellent cutting edge. In fact, if you go to you kitchen right now and pick up any one of your knives, I can pretty much guarantee you it's made out of stainless. Basically all modern cutlery is. That's why you don't have to clean and oil your chef's knife after each use.

The problem with stainless steel is that it's fairly fragile. It works fine for shorter blades like knives, but in a longer sword blade it just doesn't have the strenght to stand up to any hard impacts. For that matter, it's too hard to be forged, so any stainless blade must be made through stock removal. That's not at all a problem today, when stock removal blades are far cheaper than forged ones, but it was basically unheard of before the industrial revolution.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Actually, this is incorrect. Stainless can absolutely keep an excellent cutting edge. In fact, if you go to you kitchen right now and pick up any one of your knives, I can pretty much guarantee you it's made out of stainless. Basically all modern cutlery is. That's why you don't have to clean and oil your chef's knife after each use.

The problem with stainless steel is that it's fairly fragile. It works fine for shorter blades like knives, but in a longer sword blade it just doesn't have the strenght to stand up to any hard impacts. For that matter, it's too hard to be forged, so any stainless blade must be made through stock removal. That's not at all a problem today, when stock removal blades are far cheaper than forged ones, but it was basically unheard of before the industrial revolution.

I agree. The major differences between stainless steel and carbon steel, for making short blades like knives, is a trade off in edge keeping ability vs. corrosion resistance. Stainless blades are preferred today for most applications as they tend to hold an edge well enough and most people would prefer a low-to-no-maintenance knife. For those that demand the sharpest of edges and a superior ability to hold that edge, carbon steel fits the bill better. However, carbon steel must have regular maintenance(cleaned & oiled) or the blade will corrode, rust, and pit.
Sources - a long family heritage of steel mill workers, experience making my own knives from tool grade steel, my last name is Smith

 

[Anders Ämting]

Well, there are different grades of stainless steel, just like there are different grades of carbon steel. Some surgical scalpel blades are made out of stainless, so it's not like sharpness is always a problem.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Agreed. Although, I wasn't really referring to sharpness as much as edge holding capabilities due to the hardness of carbon steel.

 

[craenor]

Actually, this is incorrect. Stainless can absolutely keep an excellent cutting edge. In fact, if you go to you kitchen right now and pick up any one of your knives, I can pretty much guarantee you it's made out of stainless. Basically all modern cutlery is. That's why you don't have to clean and oil your chef's knife after each use.

The problem with stainless steel is that it's fairly fragile. It works fine for shorter blades like knives, but in a longer sword blade it just doesn't have the strenght to stand up to any hard impacts. For that matter, it's too hard to be forged, so any stainless blade must be made through stock removal. That's not at all a problem today, when stock removal blades are far cheaper than forged ones, but it was basically unheard of before the industrial revolution.

A properly made sword relies on a particular balance of toughness and hardness. It has to be tough enough to deform and bend significantly without breaking. However, it has to be hard enough to retain a sharp edge.

With stainless steel, in a blade the size of a sword blade (so disregarding knives here), there is no toughness/hardness sweet spot. It works for knives, because knife blades are shorter. They do not have to flex as much as a sword blade does. That's just a factor of scale.

If it's hard enough to be sharpened to a fine, reasonable retainable edge, then it's too brittle for actual use (it'll snap when you hit something with it).

If it's ductile and strong enough (tough enough) to endure the rigors of actual use, then it's too soft to retain a decent edge and probably too soft to retain the proper shape when used.

Carbon Steel, unlike Stainless Steel, does have that toughess/hardness sweet spot. A skilled smith can forge a sword that is able to retain a good cutting edge (hardness) while being strong enough (toughness) to endure actual use.

In other words, in Stainless Steel you get one or the other - hardness or toughness. In Carbon steel, you get both.

More often than not, the companies that make Stainless Steel swords (sometimes referred to as Wall Hangers), they tend towards hard, brittle swords, capable of being sharpened to an edge.

These swords are very dangerous. They will break when you hit something with them. Perhaps not the first time or the fifth time, but they will break.

 

[Inquisitor]

Perhaps not the first time or the fifth time, but they will break.

The professionalism and control of that presenter is stunning.

This article on kitchen knife steel seems to my non-authoratative eyes to give an incredible overview of the current state of blade steel, including discussions of elements that provide a given benefit (like vanadium being beneficial for abrasion resistance)

 

[craenor]

This article on kitchen knife steel seems to my non-authoratative eyes...

This is a fantastic website. Thanks.

While it doesn't really cover swords, it breaks down many of the steels used for knives (and the qualities of those steels), and it also breaks down some of the more common sword steels with contrasting qualities for those.

Here is what it has to say about 5160 Spring Steel (a commonly-used steel for forging swords):

A steel popular with forgers, it is popular now for a variety of knife styles, but usually bigger blades that need more toughness. It is essentially a simple spring steel with chromium added for hardenability. It has good wear resistance, but is known especially for its outstanding toughness. This steel performs well over a wide range of hardnesses, showing great toughness when hardened in the low 50s Rc for swords, and hardened up near the 60s for knives needing more edge holding.

The hardness numbers this blurb refers to are hardness as measured by the Rockwell "C" Metal Hardness Scale.

 

[Anders Ämting]

A properly made sword relies on a particular balance of toughness and hardness. It has to be tough enough to deform and bend significantly without breaking. However, it has to be hard enough to retain a sharp edge.

With stainless steel, in a blade the size of a sword blade (so disregarding knives here), there is no toughness/hardness sweet spot. It works for knives, because knife blades are shorter. They do not have to flex as much as a sword blade does. That's just a factor of scale.

If it's hard enough to be sharpened to a fine, reasonable retainable edge, then it's too brittle for actual use (it'll snap when you hit something with it).

If it's ductile and strong enough (tough enough) to endure the rigors of actual use, then it's too soft to retain a decent edge and probably too soft to retain the proper shape when used.

Carbon Steel, unlike Stainless Steel, does have that toughess/hardness sweet spot. A skilled smith can forge a sword that is able to retain a good cutting edge (hardness) while being strong enough (toughness) to endure actual use.

In other words, in Stainless Steel you get one or the other - hardness or toughness. In Carbon steel, you get both.

More often than not, the companies that make Stainless Steel swords (sometimes referred to as Wall Hangers), they tend towards hard, brittle swords, capable of being sharpened to an edge.

These swords are very dangerous. They will break when you hit something with them. Perhaps not the first time or the fifth time, but they will break.

Yes, thank you, I know what a wallhanger is. You may recall, I'm basically obsessed with sword-related trivia.

 

[craenor]

Yes, thank you, I know what a wallhanger is. You may recall, I'm basically obsessed with sword-related trivia.

Apologies if my response seemed at all condescending. I was trying to reply to you while providing enough detail and information for the lay person who may read this thread next.

 

[Ankari]

Hello everyone,

I stumbled on this short series of videos that studies medieval pattern wielding. I thought many of those interested in swords could find this useful.

[video=youtube_share;vyUkYJeZtW4]http://youtu.be/vyUkYJeZtW4[/video]

 

[Anders Ämting]

Apologies if my response seemed at all condescending. I was trying to reply to you while providing enough detail and information for the lay person who may read this thread next.

Well, I'm not actually offended or anything. Though, I am starting to think we may need a separate Ask Me About Metalurgy thread, because while I know a bit about steel, I'm really more comfortable answering questions about the actual weapons.

Hello everyone,

I stumbled on this short series of videos that studies medieval pattern wielding. I thought many of those interested in swords could find this useful.

I was meaning to post those in their own thread, actually, but I guess I never got around to it. There are, I think, three more part to that. Good stuff.

 

[craenor]

Sorry if this is a repost, but I just came across this fantastic Nova episode on the crafting of an Ulfberht-style Viking Sword.

Secrets of the Viking Sword (2012) full - YouTube

Richard Furrer is the smith doing the crafting. However, they also mention that Kevin Cashen is assisting him (mostly off camera). I just wanted to throw a shout-out to Kevin Cashen, because his blades are truly amazing. I've always wanted a Kevin Cashen Sword.

 

[Androxine Vortex]

I want to properly portray my characters in battle scenes and due to video games and movies, I am tempted to just have my characters swing their swords wildly around and their foes lay dead on the ground. Sadly, I know this probably wouldn't be credible

So just how did people back then fight with swords? Did they use a lot of thrusts and jabs trying to get in between gaps in armor? How effective was swinging a sword and having it clash against an enemey's armor? What were good techniques that warriors used to bring down their opponent?

 

[craenor]

Here's a good article from John Clements: Swordfighting: Not What You Think It Is

He's an expert on historically accurate medieval martial fighting, as opposed to cinematic versions of the same.

In essence, it's hard to answer your question without knowing the level of technology in your world. The level of armor technology dictates the design of swords. The design of swords, and their employment against armored opponents, dictate the styles that must be used.