Postby Peter–Johnsson » Wed Feb 08, 2006 5:46 pm
It is difficult to reply to this as it is almost like being asked: "have you stopped beating your wife?".
Let me again say this: there is always reson to go over a design to see in what ways it can be made better.
I constantly do this, and I don´t know any of my valued colleagues in the US or Europe who do *not* do the same in the striving to develop their skills, understanding and the craft.
I absolutely do not want to "hide behind arguments", but rather I will try my best to add something to the discussion to provide perspective.
The truth remains however: swords put to hard use will likely get marks to tell from this: nicks in the edge or dulled, broken or bent tips. It does not happen every time. Ideally it should happen rarely, but the harder tests a sword is put to, and the more frequently it is pushed to its limit, the higher the risk of these things happening.
Also, as has been said a few times already: not all swords can be expected to do the same. They are specialized designs to achieve certain things better.
The resutling question is thus. what are the realistic expectations we can put on the sword?
The Ironic thing is that even this will vary with the skill of the individual user.
Whenever this topic of edges and sword resiliency comes up (and it is very fequent!) I try to convey the lesson that can be learned by looking at original swords:
They *normally* show marks of wear. This will happen to the *best* of swords after a while.
Some are heavily damaged: bent, deeply nicked, even twisted or broken.
Some are just slightly nicked in a few places but otherwise pristine.
Some are not showing the damage itself but are obviously resharpened in a way that the edges undulate instead of being straight. Other signs of resharpening is softening of lines and rounding of ridges. Points can be less acute and become spade shaped or bullet shaped.
This tells us that the use of swords will erode them away.
As long as the sword holds together and will get you ot of the fight alive, it has not failed. An edge can be resharpened, a bent blade straightened.
If the sword breaks, that is bad news. It might still not be the fault of the sword. It could have been facing overwhelming odds.
Please do not get me wrong. I do not argue that this is reason to be lax in trying to make the best sword ever possible. There will always be differences in the details of methods and materials between then and now, but it is still possible to do exactly like the masters of old and do the best we can with our craft.
I am not happy if the swords I make do not perform *at least* as good as historical originals. We have some test procedures surviving that were used to find out if blades were fit for military use. These tests need to some extent be adjusted for different blade types (a narrow and stiff thrusting blade can not be bent as far as a wide thin cutting blade). The tests involved bending and striking tests as well as tests on edge resiliency and sharpness. From these tests I have seen it is absolutely possible to make blades today that pass the quality tests of the famous toledo blade makers.
Trying to pinpoint an absolute breaking point for any weapon can be an interesting experiment. It will not develop much in the way of swordsmanship, but it will tell us what *not* to do with a sword. It is absolutely neccessary in the development of new designs and methods. Any maker of self respect will do this whenever new aspects/procedures are introduced and from time to time to see where things are in the workshop.
In a perfect world this would sem to be a guarantee against swords failing in use.
We do not live in a perfect world however....
There is not way for the maker knowing how any sword will be put to use. Even after many lenghty conversations one get surpriced with how the sword was *actually* used despite what the customer conveyed of his interests.
As a maker you can give some reccomendations and try to describe the nature of the weapon. This is *not* to "hide behind this impenetrable shield of "accurate historical use". It is providing important information to the customer. Every sword has its specific intended use. Every user will also have personal technique and varying degrees of skill and understanding. A target that is difficult for a beginner is routine for an experienced swordsman. From this we can learn that the result of cutting tests is not just about the sword being used and the target being cut. It is equally important how and by whom the test is made. That has as great impact on the test as anything else.
I can absolutely understand the interest and need to test how sharp swords deal and take damage in situations close to hard sharp use (as close we can get without actually dealing death to friends in full armour).
Tests being conducted to find the limits of the tools are telling. ...About everything and every one involved. Not just the sword.
We need to do these tests from time to time.
Unfortunately the end result is often an enthusiast who is disappointed in his expensive sword taking a nick in the edge or a bend in the point. The conclusion is often: there must be something wrong with this sword!
This is understandable, especially if the sword was a costly one and perhaps one that was even based on research on original swords. If the sword for some reason got nicked it is often named as "edge failiure".
We should be aware however that sharp edges *can* be nicked, but also that they can be resharpened. Not always and not every time, but it can happen. If the target was hard and massive and moved as the sword cut through it, the edge is put under unusual stress. The same result happens if the sword hit less than true. Most swordtypes and most edges will take a certain amount of "abuse". That is what they are built to do (even if some types are less fogiving than others). Edges still gets nicks This is not a dramatic thing in the working life of a sword. It will happen from time to time.
The maker will naturally do whatever he can to provide sturdy and lasting edges on the swords he make, but the wear on the sword will also depend on the user. If the sword is always tested to its limit, this will shorten its usefull life.
If the crispness of the sword is a concern, then target should be chosen with some care, not because the sword will automatically and critically fail under heavier use, but because there is a *risk* involved: the sword might need refurbishment/restoration of some kind after some time. Swords are like cars this way: careful manitenance and use will give them a longer using life.
Some users are quite happy to drive in a car that looks like a pile of mobile rust (myself included)others want their heirloom to be pristine.
One last point on edges (no pun intended): The shaping of edges vary. Within some boundaries, you will find thinner or more robust edges on swords of the same type. Generally the edges follow the rule that a tinner blade need amore obtusely shaped edge, while a thicker blade can have a much more sublte change in angle towards the cutting sharpness. Heavier swords normally haver more obtuse edges than lighter weapons. But there is still variation within therse parameters.
An edge that is shaped to survive contact on armour will be sharp, but shaped with a blunter angle. An edge that is put on a blade intended for very efficient cutting will be finer.
Contemporary swordsmen often expect to find some absolute standards to the edges on swords.
An authentic edge is wanted.
Then here is the question is: what *kind* of authentic edge is wanted/needed? What kind of targets is the swordsman intending to cut? What is the favoured cutting practice?
The distinctions of the edge are so confused that you cannot even say that war swords are always more obtuse and that civilian swords are alwyas acuter. This is the trend, yes, but it is not always so: Soldier weapons can be made with very fine and sharp edges. As fine as any modern kitchen knife. How then could such fine edges have been used without taking damage? well, they could not: They were nicked, but they did also cut with the flick of a wrist.
A "blunter" edge will demand more technique from its user: it will not cut as effortlessly, but it will remain unblemished for a long while, even after very harsh use. To cut deeply you need very good technique and/or very good hits.
The maker of swords today therefore has the possibility to make his customers disappointed whatever route he follows. If the swords are made to the example of the most sturdy of originals, most people will have difficulty making good(looking) cuts in soft media.
If the edges are made according to the example of those swords that had more acute sharpness, a modern swordsman might find that his sword will get nicks in the edge from time to time.
An important part of the skill of the swordsman is having a feeling for his tool: the sword.
-How best use this specific weapon?
-In what ways will it serve me most efficiently?
Perhaps this post became too long and rambling?
I just hope to convey something of the relative nature of all this.
It is very difficult to convey the nature of damage or wear in swords without it coming across as excuses for poor craftsmanship and low standards of quality.
But we still need an understanding of this, or the study of swordmanship will be befuddled with much misunderstanding.
The quality in a sword is not just the technical aspects of its materials, metallurgy or level of skill in its crafting: it is equally much how it can be used as a tactical weapon in specific situations of combat (and so its "quality" is very much depending on the skill of the individual swordsman).
We can learn much from the study of historical swords.
They will tell us about the nature of mass, dimensions, balance, edge geometry and effective sword types. The study of historical swords will also tell us how these swords survived and failed in their use.
The task for us then is to develop a deeper understanding for both the manufacture and use of these weapons.
Best
Peter
