A question about swords

[pawsplay]

First of all, you could grip a sharp blade with the gaunlet. Second, a lot of people seem to be missing that there are structures on the lower part of the blade besides the edge. Many blades had a squarish "base" a foot long or so toward the bottom of the blade, for gripping, blocking, and preventing other weapons from sliding down the edge to the hilt. Particularly, flamberged weapons were rarely sharp all the way down. Other swords had long quillions, and the edge behind them was rarely sharp.

But the point and business end of a sword? Very sharp. The weight of the sword might be good for bashing, but classic "can opener" maneuvers like stabbing someone in the face two-handed, going for the armpit, or cutting the back of a knee required sharpness. Also, a good blow from a sword could cut off a finger, even an armored one, hence the use of mittens, clamshell gauntlets, and so forth.

Someone who just wanted weight would use a mace or maul; a greatsword's construction would be a complete waste to someone wanting a dull edge. An axe is both sturdier and a stronger wedge than a sword.

It's evident you can create a replica sword and put an edge on what you've got, and it's sharp. Why would a sword have a usable edge no one used?

Something you cannot do with a mace; once you've broken some links of mail, a sword or axe can go right for the meat. Mace wielders often resorted to pounding someone's own armor into them to create bleeding wounds.

It should be pretty evident why, as mail gave way to plate, greatswords gave way to maces, picks, flails, falchions, and dirks.

The "edgeless" swords you might find are late-era shortswords and rapiers, the ancestors of the epee. It's not that they didn't have a sharp edge on the sides of the blade, just that they were sharpened to the point for stabbing. Such a weapon couldn't cleave anything, only slash exposed flesh.

 

[Enkhidu]

First of all, you could grip a sharp blade with the gaunlet. Second, a lot of people seem to be missing that there are structures on the lower part of the blade besides the edge. Many blades had a squarish "base" a foot long or so toward the bottom of the blade, for gripping, blocking, and preventing other weapons from sliding down the edge to the hilt. Particularly, flamberged weapons were rarely sharp all the way down. Other swords had long quillions, and the edge behind them was rarely sharp.

But the point and business end of a sword? Very sharp. The weight of the sword might be good for bashing, but classic "can opener" maneuvers like stabbing someone in the face two-handed, going for the armpit, or cutting the back of a knee required sharpness. Also, a good blow from a sword could cut off a finger, even an armored one, hence the use of mittens, clamshell gauntlets, and so forth.

Someone who just wanted weight would use a mace or maul; a greatsword's construction would be a complete waste to someone wanting a dull edge. An axe is both sturdier and a stronger wedge than a sword.

It's evident you can create a replica sword and put an edge on what you've got, and it's sharp. Why would a sword have a usable edge no one used?

Something you cannot do with a mace; once you've broken some links of mail, a sword or axe can go right for the meat. Mace wielders often resorted to pounding someone's own armor into them to create bleeding wounds.

It should be pretty evident why, as mail gave way to plate, greatswords gave way to maces, picks, flails, falchions, and dirks.

The "edgeless" swords you might find are late-era shortswords and rapiers, the ancestors of the epee. It's not that they didn't have a sharp edge on the sides of the blade, just that they were sharpened to the point for stabbing. Such a weapon couldn't cleave anything, only slash exposed flesh.

Some bits of misinformation in the above:

Guantlets traditionally didn't protect the palm. The best you might hope for is thick leather the thickness of a modern leather work glove. Therefore, guantlets couldn't protect the fingers from a sharp edge. The sharpened point and business ends, therefore, tended to be simply the top 3rd of the blade.

Quillons were not simply meant to stop the hand from slipping upward on the weapon, but were instead used to protect the hand during blocks/parrys as swordplay grew more sophisticated. They weren't designed to stop cuts on the interior of the hand.

 

[Cedric]

Some of the common sword myths were brought up, but most of them have already been refuted by people who've gotten the details right. I'll add a few things...

Typical weight for a "heavy" two handed sword designed for battle use...5 lbs.

Typical weight for a "longsword" equivalent...3 lbs.

Short sword...2lbs

Heavier, western style swords are honed to a fine edge by a very skilled smith. The secret is to get the blade geometry along the cutting edge such that the edge isn't scalloped, lacking full support of the spine of the blade, if it is scalloped that will generate numerous nicks and cuts.

However, the sword can be quite sharp with the proper blade geometry.

As to "razor sharp" this was an "illusion" largely. For exhibition purposes a very skilled smith would raise tiny burrs along the cutting edge (very, very tiny), this would snag and catch on fabrics like silk and allow the swordsman to cut a silk kerchief in midair. Not because the sword was so sharp, but because their was a slight serration that the naked eye would only detect with very careful scrutiny.

Swords were not sharpened in such a manner for combat use.

The mythbusters episode was true in regards to a swords swiping at another sword that was held steady and cutting it in half...this would only happen if the cutting blade was of superior quality (notably so).

However, two swords swung at one another ...that's much more likely to cause a sword to break, because the angle the swordsman use could minmize the ability of one sword to flex, compared to the other. They didn't test that.

As to steel...

Modern pressure hardened stainless steel (like 17-4PH stainless steel) is perfectly well suited to any blade less than 8" in length.

For anything longer, carbon steel "must" be used if the sword, dagger, etc is going to see actual use. 5160 Spring steel is very popular for this.

I could go on and on and on though...but if people post more questions I'll answer them. I'm, by no means, an expert...but I'd consider myself a well read hobbyist with a background in metallurgy and materials.

Oh, on another note...Katana's are not "indestructible", and in general are not vastly superior to well made Western Swords. More ancient katana's exist in good condition today only because of the value a House placed on them in spiritual terms. Whereas, most western nobility who had an excellent sword...were buried with it.

Cedric

 

[kroh]

Throwing in two cents...

I study japanese and Philipino martial arts which include sword work. One thing that is commonplace in both cultures is that the sword was a secondary weapon, much like a pistol would be to a soldier in modern times. The Spear, Bow, Rifle and other such weapons (such as the Japanese Glaive{Naginata}) were used as primary as no one wanted to get that close. The sword culture as primary of Japan didn't evolve till well after their Warfare period due to the fact that the country was united and big battles rarely occoured.

The Philipinos also used the bow, spear, and other indigeiounous weapons (such as the blowgun or axes)first to keep the enemy at a distance but were fond of guerrilla tactics in small groups, thus the blade evolved as a special weapon in their culture.


Regards,
Walt

 

[Umbran]

Modern steel isn't a better metal, it's simply easier to make in large quantities.

What qualifies as "better" depends entirely upon the use to which the metal will be put.

If you want something you can hang on your wall with no maintenance whatsoever, stainless steel is the better metal - because it won't corrode. If you need something that will retain an edge under fairly controlled conditions and be tolerant of moisture (for, say, a hunting knife you use to gut and skin animals), stainless is still good. If you want something that is highly flexible, that will be used in uncontrolled conditions (like a battlefield sword), and that you can afford to have to take out and maintain frequently, stainless is a poor choice. Until you define the needs, you cannot define better or worse.

The same goes for sharpness - how sharp a blade needs to be depends upon it's use. In the kitchen, when you're trying to make neat and pretty fillets for guests coming to dinner, you want something very sharp. There is no need to make a battlefield cut nice and neat. You'd probably prefer a duller blade for that - it'll make more ragged cuts that are less likely to heal.

Remember, if you get it moving fast enough, with enough mass behind it to maintain momentum, a standard butterknife will cut through flesh. Anything else is gravy

 

[kigmatzomat]

I've got a few swords of the "beater" class (cheap enough and safe enough to use for combat practice if I want to) as well as a battleaxe. The last time I moved, I had this big wooden cabinet that I was chucking into the dumpster. For giggles, I gave it a couple of whacks with the unsharpened battle axe. A solid, one-handed swing punched more than a half-inch into the thick plywood. A hatchet of similar heft did a better job, nearly completely punching in, but also bound up quite severely. I figure a couple good whacks from that "dull" battleaxe would cave in armor or split bones in a thoroughly acceptable form of incapacitation. I've been tempted to sharpen the last 12" of my 2-handed sword but decided that the momentum at that point would be more than sufficient to incapacitate anyone should I be resorting to medieval self defense. And it means less chance of damaging my floors if someone drops my sword.

The use of a ricasso, an intentionally blunt section ahead of the cross guard, was common on many of the 2-handed swords. I've seen at least one re-interpretation of 2-handed sword training that involved using the sword as a multi-point weapon. E.g. make an overhand attack, if it fails, lift the sword blade down (changing your grip) to catch the top of the opponent's shield with the downward-facing crossguard (blocking counter attacks with the blade), then pulling the shield down and punching the pommel into their foe's face. 2-handed sword-as-spear tactics should also have been common, including setting for a charge.

I suspect that japanese armors might be sundered by the heavy western weaponry but that's just a hunch. Layered composites can be surprisingly strong.

 

[Someone]

If it's of any worth, a common occurrence in norse and icelandic sagas is when in a battle one side fights so long that swords become dull and shields shatter -I recall it being told with more colorful words, fairly similar through the different works.

Also I vaguely remember something about celtic swords actually bending, being made of just iron. But I'm not very sure of that, and certainly not of where did I hear or read it.

 

[Roadkill101]

A few years back I had a keen interest into acquiring a sword, one that was battle ready. In other words, as sword that would perform as those produced in medieval times. So I did some research on the web.
I looked into things pertaining to metullurgy, form and function of a sword. After having looked at various websites about swords and their aspects, I've come to learn a few things that seemed to keep popping up.
Form follows function. The shape, size, weight and balance of a sword all define how it can be used and against what it can be used for. More often than naught, form is a matter of the time period and what types of protection were used in the day. None of which was any real surprise to me, as I already understood this about weaponry in general.
This concept fails to carry on into RPG's unless the weaponry available is niche specific to more realistically recreate a time period within a campaign.
The materials used in the make up of a weapon will vastly affect what it's limitations are performance wise. In the case of manufacturing swords, it was a highly developed, specialized and controlled skill. The crafting of Western European swords is pretty much a lost art due to the secrecy involved in swordsmithing (there are few written records dating from antiquity).
Modern "re-creationist" swordsmith's use their knowledge to of modern metullargy to attempt to recreate such blades with what limited knowledge is available. Most of them charge a $1000 for a cheap, quick job, and can run as high as $8000 or more for a lovingly crafted piece of functioning art.
All swords need to be able to flex and return back to shape while maintaining balance, and in later time periods were more often than not made of steel as Iron is actually a brittle metal and usnuitable for swords. This was dependant on the carbon content and tempering of the blade.
In metallurgical terms swords usually ran between 60 to 70 points of carbon (something like 6%-7& IIRC, or maybe that's tenth of a percent). Swords from antiquity have been tested in labs to ascertain this, by various museums.
Steel is defined as Iron which contains carbon that has been reintroduced back in by the manufacturing process. The carbon content and introduction of other metals all determine the grade of modern steels. Because modern steel is manufactered in large quantities and through a different procees than used in medieval times, there is a bit of difference between any swords made modernly compared to those of antiquity, even if the modern piece was heated in a blacksmith's forge and then shaped and tempered by hand.
FYI the term Surgical Steel is a marketing ploy created by the marketing industry to sell you a product. Scalpels and what not actually come in a variety of steel grades, it's a matter of form and sharpness which makes them effective. "Stainless" basically means there is another metal in the mix which makes the steel resistant to corrosion and oxidization, but I know longer remember which metals are used for the Stainless alloys.
Thus a blade used against hardened metals (i.e. metallic armors) had an edge but were most likely only sharp enought to define the edge. By sharpening a blade you thin it out at the edges. The sharper it is the thinner it gets, which in turns makes it brittle. An impact or repeated impacts will shatter and fracture a sharp edge over time, even more quickly when used against a hardened surface, eventually compromising the blades integrity. Which would require the owner to take the weapon to a qualified swordsmith to make costly and time consuming repairs.
Said repair would basically consist of what amounts to folding a patch of steel over a serious nick (i.e one which can't be buffed out by a whetstone) and melding it into the blade. Then the blade would require retempering. An even more serious nick or gouge would most likely require the whole blade to be reforged.

 

[Drowbane]

I like swords

weee!

 

[Moon-Lancer]

anyone know about angel forgery. They have something called techno wootz damascus. I cant tell if its really a good thing or a cheap ploy, has anyone gotten one of thier swords. they are quite expensive so they must be good, or they would be out of bussness, but i would like to hear some testomony.

here is a link.

http://www.angelsword.com/steel.php

thier swords sound awsome, but i dont like the look of alot of them...