Medieval sword quality?

[William Savage]

Hello all,

I've been gone for a while but now I'm back.

I have a professor who teaches material science, and in all the classes I have taken with him he has professed the greatness of the Japanese sword. He has said that it was "by far the best". I'm sure they were nice.

Can anyone educate me on the metallurgical properties of European swords of this era(latter middle ages, almost the renaissance I believe)

I'm an armor guy and I just can't believe that the French were wearing such a higher quality armor than the Japanese and fighting with such a lower quality sword.

Thanks.

[Sal Bertucci]

Tell him to contact Kevin Cashen (an actual bladesmith) if he wants a real education about about making swords.

What in specific did he say? I hope it wasn't any of that nonsense of "folded 2000 times...blah blah". That's the one I hear the most and it is just silly. The fact of the matter is that, onceyou get past a certain amount of folds, the ONLY purpose of doing more folds is you have to purify the ore you're using b/c you had CRAPPY ore to start with. Not to mention that the Vikings were doing comporable folding techniques to the Japanese earlier in history.

[Jonathan Newhall]

One of the most advanced swords discovered, according to Reclaiming the Blade (a film I'm sure most ARMAteers are familiar with), contained a several-strand iron core for flexibility, and was flanked by pattern-welded steel honed to quite the edge for hardness. It was basically a combination of the best possible qualities of all metals available to be forged at the time, surely created by one of the most advanced blacksmiths of the age and likely was a royal treasure for its incredible design passed down from king to king for hundreds of years and used constantly. That such a sword still exists at all tells us loads about its workmanship as well.


Those in Japan making Katanas did an amazing thing: they dedicated their time, usually up to a year, on making only a sparse handful of blades from what would be considered sub-par iron ore, and therefore sub-par steel. But the meticulous attention to detail and accuracy displayed CONSISTENTLY throughout the history of the Katana points to them having an end product, despite an inferior initial design, easily comparable to some of the best European swords. The mean skill of the swordsmith, perhaps, in Japan was greater, but there were amazing swordsmiths in both places, and certainly the one that made the better sword was probably not for all their skill, but because they had the materials to apply their skills to.




Both sets of swordsmiths made some amazing pieces in their eras; I wouldn't say one is inherently superior to the other, though one by necessity had to spend more time on the blade's material than the other. This shows perhaps a bit more dedication, but not necessarily more skill, and certainly not superior metallurgical technique. The Europeans didn't have thousand fold swords because they didn't have any need to fold the material so many times since the impurities simply weren't as prevalent, not for some lack of devotion, merely for pragmatism.

[Jaron Bernstein]

Hello all,

I've been gone for a while but now I'm back.

I have a professor who teaches material science, and in all the classes I have taken with him he has professed the greatness of the Japanese sword. He has said that it was "by far the best". I'm sure they were nice.

Can anyone educate me on the metallurgical properties of European swords of this era(latter middle ages, almost the renaissance I believe)

I'm an armor guy and I just can't believe that the French were wearing such a higher quality armor than the Japanese and fighting with such a lower quality sword.

Thanks.

I would second the idea to contact Kevin Cashen. He has done very detailed metalurgical studies on that topic.

[Stacy Clifford]

I'll also vote for contacting Kevin Cashen, he's one of very few swordsmiths who actually does scientific study on the metallurgy of swords. Also read these:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/How_Were_Swords_Made.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/nobest.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/hype.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/KevinCashenInterview.html

http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/PJ_interview.htm

http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/PaulC_ ... ew2006.htm

[William Savage]

Thanks guys, I just might contact this Cashen fellow.

Thanks again.

[Mike Sheffield]

Tell him to contact Kevin Cashen (an actual bladesmith) if he wants a real education about about making swords.

What in specific did he say? I hope it wasn't any of that nonsense of "folded 2000 times...blah blah". That's the one I hear the most and it is just silly. The fact of the matter is that, onceyou get past a certain amount of folds, the ONLY purpose of doing more folds is you have to purify the ore you're using b/c you had CRAPPY ore to start with. Not to mention that the Vikings were doing comporable folding techniques to the Japanese earlier in history.

Not necessarily crappy. With the way the Japanese make their steel (bloom steel) they get very uneven distribution of carbon, and the bloom has "holes" that have to filled in. By it's very nature you HAVE to fold it to make it useable, but that doesn't mean it is crappy. Hell many Occidental swords were made from blooms. The Norse smith were superior to the Japanese in terms for patterning steel...far in my opinion (Norse swords are my favorite) As for fold of the bloom, all you really need to do is fold it 12 to 14 times to get it where it needs to be. So yes the one gazillion fold crap is just that, crap. If you fold too many times all the carbon goes away and the steel is no longer hardenable, and is now useless for a blade.

Kevin Cashen is the MAN! My own answer would be neither were inferior to the other. All swords had their specific purposes, and they were made and heat treated for that purpose. Your teach is a little off I think...this coming from the Japanese stylist and amateur bladesmith HA.

[Chris Moritz]

It's useful to distinguish, the number of folds, a process; from the number of resultant layers, its result.

1 fold gives: 2 layers
2 : 4
3 : 8
4 : 16
5 : 32
6 : 64
7 : 128
8 : 256
9 : 512
10: 1024

The excellent science-and-civilization documentary, The Ascent Of Man, from the 70s, created by the physicist Jacob Brownoski, documents the method of folding a Japanese sword. (55 min program, segment begins at about 14 m 20 s.)

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Ascent-of-Man-4-The-Hidden-Structure

It may be worth viewing the entire episode, for its review of the history of copper alloyed into bronze, and of iron alloyed into steel, from the Hittites onward. According the Bronowski, the first steel (as distinct from iron) was from India, about 1000 BC. (edit sentence layout)

[Mike Sheffield]

It's useful to distinguish, the number of folds, a process; from the number of resultant layers, its result.

1 fold gives: 2 layers
2 : 4
3 : 8
4 : 16
5 : 32
6 : 64
7 : 128
8 : 256
9 : 512
10: 1024

This is very true. Just in case everyone thought I was trying to cause trouble by my last statement I will go into further detail. What the Japanese smiths used was magnetite which is found in the ore we mine today called taconite. Taconite is around 25% iron. Yet the steel we produce, any smith from "back in the day" would give their hammering arm for, from any country or culture. There is no need for us to fold. What I was trying to say is you can't always judge the end product based on the ore. Even the ore some of the western smiths smelted from was pretty bad. Bog iron is horribly impure. The best ore to start with is hematite, since it is 70% or higher iron. If I'm wrong on my numbers please correct me.