a bit more on swords

From: Mikko Rintasaari <rintasaa_at_mail.student.oulu.fi>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:47:57 +0200


Peter:
:Cool, didn't know this. It does not surprise me that those swords were
:thrusting weapons, though. Weapon strength and the ability to hold an
:edge are less critical for stabbing devices.

Hammered bronze is actually quite hard and holds a good edge, but making a sword that has edges of hammered bronze with a flexible core is propably even harder than doing the same with steel. (mixing different kinds of bronze is apparently quite hard)
  There's also a very cool thing called silverbronze, that has some silver where there's usually just tin. It's quite expensive, but it holds a very keen edge. IMG this is a secret of the Yelornans.

:Obviously I exaggerated a bit, but remember that steelworking took
:millenia to master as well. Steel swordmaking didn't reach its peak
:until feudal Japan. While spear vs. katakana is an obvious choice, spear
:vs. primitive sword is closer to a toss-up.

Personally I don't worship the katana. Good damascus steel compares quite well. The best Viking weapons for instance are really, really good quality steel. But I agree still.

For a long time, changing from bronze to iron meant poorer quality weapons. When the chinise learned the secrets of iron, for hundreads of years the sword of the common soldier was of iron, and the expensive (good) ones vere of bronze. :)

        -Adept

I think I think... Therefore I think I am.


Powered by hypermail