S.Al-Anizi,

I was muzing over your original question and in particular the replies given by Jeff Pringle and Gt Obach.

Of course one of the problems is that we we do not know, or at least we haven't defined, the lower limit of acceptable mechanical properties for a war sword. Nor have we established what significant advantages and in what context can be obtained by exceeding this lower limit. I suspect, that for a cavalry sword made from conventional martensitic steel, that is not likely to encounter heavy armour, a hardness of 45Rc is adequate, as long as it is not brittle.

Be that as it may, it will do us well to remember that pearlitic steels can be work hardened to a surprising degree, as exemplified by piano wire, which is usually made from hard drawn pearlitic 0.8% carbon steel. It is both very tough and hard. Now, going back to that paper by prof.Verhoeven's, A.H.Pendray's, and W.E.Dauksch's, I suspect that had they Brinell tested the blades they would have obtained a higher hardness reading, perhaps in the low to mid 40s and as well, I don't think that they tested top class swords. Additionally, the part of a sword where hardness counts the most is at the edge and that part cannot be tested by either the Rockwell or Brinell, but only by Vickers, which makes such a small indentation that with wootz it could be misleading,

I think that it would be a fair bet that the very best of the of the woots swords had much harder work hardened blades.

Just some thoughts
Chris

Ladies and Gentlemen,

1. Wootz and practicality: it is interesting that Mubarak-Shah in "Kitab adab al-harb va'shudzhaat" right after saying that indian wootz swords are the best, speaks about "abnach" - indian sword made from copper and silver and according to Mubarak being one of the prized indian swords and very beautiful.
So the beauty was important.
2. Non-mulsims in muslim armies - by memory there is a lot in hadith about Mohammed using jews in his raids until certain point (I remember how they come to him and ask whether his attack plan is from Allah or of his invention and if it the latter they don't care about the spoils they wan't go). Concerning ummoyads - they did not really apply the law, they even had statues. Indeed the presence of semi-muslim ex-christians in muslim armies was overwhelming (mamluks, yanissarians, ghulam etc.), but at the same time the presence of openly christians was limited to episodes like early Osman army (lots of armenians and some western knights) and later - military advisors (usually in "modernizing" islamic armies).
3. Fencing with shamshirs - actually they did so, despite the lack of protection for the hand. Napoleon selected mamluks for his guard based on how horrible they hands looked, so I assume experienced fencers had many,many scars.
4. Concerning western vs. eastern swords - after looking through the literature I think everyone had his own preferances. Hudud al'alem for example liked european swords - he says that they bend much better than local. Mubarak-Shah liked indian swords like nothing else, yet I have read in one of the mamluk manuals (sorry, had it on my hard drive somewhere) that such swords should be hanged around women who can't give birth to boys, while the best swords are made in yemen and have golden dots.
For example Kolchin in his work "Black Mettalurgy and ironwork in ancient Russia" believes based on Ibn-Hordadbech, al-Mukaddasi and Abu Hamid that early "oriental" swords were brittle and too hard tempered had no buyers in Europe but where sold only to savages in the north who liked pretty and hard tempered metal (??) (whih is sort of suggested by abu-Hamid), while western swords were well prized in the East.

And you to try to figure out in this mess who is right and who is wrong, and what exactly do they mean.

5. I am sorry for repeating myself, but after reading all these literature I think that everyone has his own biases; victorians had their own, but everyone else seem to be also guilty as well, some are more and some are less.

Rivkin,

You are a marvelous source of information. Thanks for this interesting contribution.


I think that we should remember that until the appearance of national armies, late in the renaissance, only the nobility could afford expensive and comprehensive arms and armour - And for them beauty=status. The peasant foot soldiers were often armed with nothing else than slings and sticks (siege of Belgrade) . I imagine that for some of the orientals, this state of affairs lasted longer.

In fact, it has been observed that the remarkable success of the Turks and Mongols in Eastern Europe was in no small amount due to the inability of feudal societies to field large and consistently well equiped armies.

Do you know if and when and the Ottoman Turks introduced regulation pattern weapons?

Well, their wounds couldn't have been too serious as in those days they couldn't repair severed tendons and wire together broken hand bones. Incidentally, I once saw a Middle Eastern mail gauntlet that weighed, at my estimation, around 1.75Kgm, so they must have understood the need for better hand protection.

Cheers
Chris

This thread really grows, more and more interesting.

Chis:

Thank you for your praise.

Concerning "oriental" armies there are two opinions that one can find in most of contemporary literature:
In the "orientalist" period easterners where often seen as people whose purpose was to prolong the 7th century lifestyle as much as possible. They would spend their life walking around, beating themselves with chains, screaming "la allahu ilh Allah". Their weapons were inept, their tactics was savage. Typically this is attributed to the racism of victorian englishman, but one can sometimes find much harsher words in the works of ataturkists.
Then in 80's everything was reverted - christian were now seen as dirty people who burned the jews and lived in huts, while muslims became great philosophers who fought for poetry, tolerance and preservation of classical studies. Each and every invention of the western world was seen as stealing of something eastern - american constitution was seen as an inept copy of Cyrus' cylinder, universities a flawed imitation of great medreses and so on.

I think that one should read as less as possible recent literature and direct his/her attention to the original sources. You will find that "orientals" and "westerners" actually respected each other and were quite able to find numerous flaws (perceived or real) both in their own society/military and that of their opponents.
Here is my personal opinion:
There were numerous differencies between east and west - east had a poweful export of spices, opium, sugar, silk, precious stones and so on, while west was in general more poor. In the east the money spending and power was more concentrated in the hands of the military elite (as Macciavelli points out among turks one just has to be liked by the military). As a result eastern military was much more expensive than their western counterparts. Mail, decorated with gold, beautiful swords, numerous horses was a typical pocession of a warrior in the east, but far more scarce in the west. Easterners praised bow and horse above all and had little infantry, while it was the opposite in the west. Even in XIXth century a frenchman who would kill a mamluk typically would gather 2000-10000 franks worth of gold and weapons from the body, an outstanding sum. Easterners also had far better intelligence - they were used to Steppe warfare where cities would move overnight and the victory was achieved by knowing where your enemy is, while in the west everyone knew where is the castle and where is the bridge.
However while in the west the military balanced between local militia, professional nobleman and foregin mercenaries (Macciavelli "History of Florence" tries to illustrate the whole fragility of such balance), eventually resulting in a formation of an army which to some extent incorporated all these elements, imbued with not nessesary the best, but common training and tactics, in the east the situation was radically different. The history of the east is that of power of usually nomadic "savages" over settled communities. Iranic hordes destroyed Assyria, arab nomads devastated now "culturized" Iran, Turks replaced "culturized", but per Ibn-Khaldan now "lazy and decadent" arabs and caucasian "savage" tribes de facto replacing or at least partially substituting turks.
As a result islamic army consisting mostly of two parts - kochari, tribal nomads who were paid per operation and given the spoils and mamluks/ghulams/yanissarians who were taken mostly as slaves from "martial nations", i.e. turks, caucasians, later - balkans, given more or less standard training and formed their own, usually somewhat elite units. There was time during early mamluk reign or among mongols where islamic armies would be highly disciplined, but this typically did not last for too long being replaced by "tribalism", for example among mercenary units of different origin or commander.

There is a very good book by Ibrahim Muteferrik, "Usul al-fikam fi nizam al-umam", loosely translated as "the basics of nations", which tells about the inability of Ottoman army to reform - it is a long book so I will not quote but it tells that in old time arabs, turks, franks (i.e. westerners), hindus all would just bring the whole bunch of people who essentially never trained with each other before (since being taken from different lords or, in the east, tribes) split them roughly in three, put some officers over them and march onto each other. Now westerners have an army, i.e. units which train together with the same tactics, with well defined "line" and so on, but in the east besides yanicheri (ochagi) units the rest of the army is still tribal, with no perception of cohesiveness. He says that firearms are not as important as that these tribals are unreliable and see their tribal interests above all, live by plundering the settled people (btw a lot of areas in the middle east became nearly completely unpopulated by the end of XVIIIth century since the "tribals" lived by spoils, i.e. would kill all the cattle, burn cities and sell locals into slavery). The "tribals" are brave and vicious, they despise danger and therefore always charge the enemy, even if it is a stupid thing to do. They can not coordinate their forces and have no idea during the battle what other units are doing (interestingly the ancient persian army seems to suffer from the same flaw - some of their units could break Alexander's line but spent their time plundering his camp, while the rest would be slaughtered on the battlefield). He also says that in the army one should not rely on quality of armour or weapons, since the most needed things are discipline and organization.The book is filled with curses towards christians, but yet praises them for their thought and knowledge. It ends up with a typical late ottoman phrase that Osman family instead of studying sceinces spends time fueling ignorance and religious fanaticism.

Concerning "pattern" swords - one can find some uniformity in the weapons of eastern armies since very old time, however patterns per se is a "modernization" phenomena and mostly occur as a blind imitation of western weapons (i.e. XIXth century).

All related here is my personal opinion.

Ann,
I am intrigued:
In the recent book by Mr. Khorasani "Arms and Armor from Iran", you are cited on pp. 103-104 (your Ph.D. dissertation) as stating that the earliest crucible steel blade possibly comes from Luristan (Western Iran) and the next published object is a Sassanian sword of the 6-7th century.
Now, you are saying that the earliest came from Taxila ( Western India) and later ones from the Russian Caucasus ( what exact area?).
Am I missing something?
Have you changed your opinion based on recent info?
Were you misquoted in the book?
And, just for your info, here is the reference to the Pact of Umar that was mentioned by Rivkin:
http://www.domini.org/openbook/umar.htm

Well spotted. It is all correct, but needs clarification. The blade from Luristan has spheroidal cementite suggesting it is crucible steel, but the date is uncertain as they were looted and therefore lost all context and dating. The earliest excavated and well dated blade is from Taxila (1st century AD). The second and third earliest excavated are from the Russian Caucasus (3rd-4th century AD), the fourth earliest blade is from Sasanian period. The blades from Luristan and Sasanian Perisa are the two earliest known from IRAN, not the earliest in the world. :)

Oh, that you as well for the link to Umar. It is now properly placed in my database. Russian Caucausus...near Kislovodsk, I analyzed 35 blades, 4 were crucible steel, those two early ones are associated with the Alani culture, a 7th century one was found in association with a horse burial, and an 11th century one associated witht the Saultovo Mauaskaya culture (related to the Khazar Turks before the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols. There has also been crucible steel objects found in Kazakstan.

Interesting !
I thought Taxila findings are from a collection of burial places of some central asian tribes related to alans - is there a possible connection between them ?
If you are interested in Umar's pact, as far as I remember (and I hope there are people here who actually know fiqh, not pretend they do, like me), it is supposed to stem from a message of Mohammed to non-muslims of Yemen, non-muslims were not supposed to be left in Arabia, so it was the first place where the coexistance started. Understanding of Pact of Umar changed to some extent over time, especially nn the boundaries of umma, places like India or Spain (where Moghuls held rather unusual views and Spain is the place where Umayads and Almohads had diametrically opposite view on the issue). Shias have traditionally somewhat different view on the Pact since they are very careful concerning "impurity" laws.

That is not how it was reported in the book. I have an uneasy feeling about the misrepresentation of facts and mis-quoting of your data in the book: it was made to sound as if Iran was the cradle of crucible steel technology. Whoever has this book, please read the section I referred to and compare it to Ann's post here: am I the only one viewing it to be an intentional misquoting?

I thought you had a copy of this book Ariel ? :confused:

Yes, I do. That's where I got the information. I just want to have opinions of other readers.

"Feuerbach (2002b:229) believes that the earliest crucible steel blade possibly comes from Luristan. She cites Rehder and France-Lanord, saying that there are six blades attributed to Luristan that contain spheroidal cementite. She further (2002b:230) claims that the earliest crucible steel blade of a double-edged sword is dated to the first century A.D. The sword is composed of high carbon steel with spheroidial cementite. Additionally (2002b:230), the next published object made from crucible steel is a Sassanian sword, attributed to 6th or 7th century A.D. Iran, now exhibited in the British Museum. Feuerbach (2002b:230) explains is a double-edged blade with a pistol grip, an indentation in the hilt for an index finger, no guard, and a scabbard with a two-point suspension. She further states that under low magnification (x100), the sample demonstrates a mottled structure after etching in nital (the microstructure consists of globular cementite in a fine pearlite matrix). Feurerbach (2002b:231) is of the opinion that the fine pearlite matrix is an indication of semi-rapid final cooling. Another key aspect is that since the cementite is not alligned, the sword would not have had a damascus pattern."

This is the entire quote from Pg 103-104, the readers can judge for themselves.

All the Best
Jeff

It may have been more accurate if the phrase "in Iran" was placed in the text. However, as this was a book on the Arms and Armour from Iran, this may have been construced by a publisher as redundant, rather than misleading.

I always suspected that cutting a silk scarf had little to do with the quality of the steel and was a mere stunt of swordsmanship, one that could be done with almost any decent sabre-sword that was kept unusually sharp.

Well, J.M.Waite, an English professor of fencing, late 2nd Life Guards, and author of Sabre, Singlestick, and Sword Feats, in the late 19th century wrote:

Fold a veil neatly lengthwise and lay it on the edge of the sword, almost close to the hilt.

Place your feet together, with your sword hand resting on the bend of the left arm, the edge of your sword turned up. Take two quick steps to your front , beginning with your left foot and as you make the second, deliver an upward cut with a good edge, throwing the point of the sword high in the air, so that when the veil separates the two parts will have some distance to fall. A good effect will thus be produced.

At the finish of this cut......the arms should be brought straight.......

For this feat.... you require a special sword called a handkerchief cutter. It should have the edge of and be kept as sharp as a razor.

The edge should be ground and set towards the hand, and when sharpening or stropping it, you should rub from point to hilt.

If you look through a very powerful magnifying glass you will find the edge of a sword is serrated like a saw, but not so regularly; Therefor by having the teeth pointed towards the hilt, the edge more readily lays hold of the veil.

Haven't tried it, but someone here should :D


Cheers
Chris

Hi Chris

that is basically what i said at the beginning.... that cutting fabric only tells you about the type of edge.... there are many different types of edges... and all have their strong and weak points.. ... it would make sense that the arms were tailored to the targets they were meant to cut...... hollow grind for razors, flat for bowies, convex for choppers....just for example...

-- ofcourse this is not a static rule..... you can have a wide hollow grind and it will make a stong blade..... or really sharpen a convex edge and it will shave paper..

-- what about the sharpening technology...... it says something about that aswell..... you have to have decent abrasives..... or you simply cannot get a fine edge otherwise...

-- look at the top notch polish on Japanese blades..... if they didn't have access to such fine silicate stones.... it would be very hard to replicate this..... because you simply can't pop over to the local hardware and buy graded abrasive papers... it has to be quarried and graded...


sharp topic ;)

Greg

I have followed this thread with interest and found the metallury comments informative. However, I feel from my limited knowledge on the subject that a 'Occam's Razor' approach may be relavent (not sure if the 'Razor' is wootz...but I digress :) ).
In my mind there are so many variables to this debate...the quality of the steel, the differences of forging technigue and method, the design and thickness of the blade, edge formation (hollow ground, flat ground and so on)etc etc.....that it would be almost impossible to reach a conclusive answer.

But I know this to be true.....an old, battle weary sword MUST be a GOOD sword......It has survived all the testing it required, perhaps this is why they end up as 'heirloom' pieces.......'here son ..inherit my sword...which I know to be battle worthy and will not fail you in combat.'

Simplistic...I know.....but then again simplicity served 'Occam' well ;)

Well, my verbal IQ is rather close to zero, but here is the problem as I see it:
"Feuerbach (2002b:229) believes that the earliest crucible steel blade possibly comes from Luristan.... She further (2002b:230) claims that the earliest crucible steel blade of a double-edged sword is dated to the first century A.D."

Either in both cases "Iran" is assumed and than the earliest blade comes from first century A.D. Iran, or in both cases it should be understand as "the earliest" in principle, and then the birthplace of crucible steel is Luristan.

If Ann doesn't have a problem with how her work was characterized in the book, neither do I.

Let's move along, please, and get back on topic.

Dear Ann,
You must be a remarkably nice person and I admire your forebearance.
However:
1. Was the information on Taxila and Caucasian swords available in your dissertation cited in the book?
If the answer is no, I can understand that Mr. Khorasani honestly cited your source. If yes, I would have major problem defining his rendition of your material (under your name!) as anything but gross and willful misrepresentation.
2. I have problems to believe that the editors viewed a 2 word sequence "in Iran" to be crucial in editing a 780 page-long book full of redundant and repetitious information.
The origin of crucible steel is a major point of our discussion here and, certainly, of the Mr. Khorasani's book. It is important that we get to the bottom of his statement. As Rivkin cleverly noticed, no matter how you read his paragraph, the intended meaning does not change: he wants us to believe that crucible steel originated in Iran and uses you as a source of the information.
I am very disturbed.

I do not have a problem how her work was characterized in the book. I do have a problem, however, whether the content of her book was faithfully cited or misrepresented to the point that the origins of crucible steel were attributed to Iran rather than to proper inventors.
This bears direct influence on the topic of our current discussion on wootz.

This thread is not about the origins of crucible steel, nor is it about the book. Therefore, this discussion is off-topic.

Gt Obach,

You make very good and valid observations - I totally agree.

Discussions of this kind take us down some very interesting side issues. I found this thread most valuable and the various contributions made by the forumites of a high order.

Cheers
Chris

Hi katana,

You know, I always wondered if a sword survived that long, if it ever saw much combat, if any...... :confused:

Cheers
Chris

I am not sure you are right. The ones from Figiel's collection are pristine; they definitely never were drawn in anger. But most of mine are pretty worn, scarred, re-sharpened, broken here and there, nicked... They must have been tough old buggers!
Cheer up, man! There is a lot of old human DNA to be extracted from yours, too!

If, and I do mean IF, the blades from Luristan are indeed crucible steel, and IF they are as early as they are thought to be, then yes, they would be the earliest known crucible steel objects known. This does not Prove, Disprove, nor should it suggest any "origin" for the process. There was a great deal of trade going on and movements of people and empires. Only a well dated and well documented, early unquestionable crucible steel production site, might tell us where and when the process originated. Until that is found, be it in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Baluchistan, Uzbekistan, Iran or elsewhere, my mind remains open. India is the most likely place of origin, but I refuse to ASSUME that India is the place of origination of the process just because they were a major producer later on.

If we look at the published facts, apart from the objects found at Taxila (Pakistan, which geographically is Central Asia) all the earliest crucible steel object known (by that I mean published), are from OUTSIDE of India. This is probably just a feature of preservation and discovery, rather than reflecting what really happened in the past. But nevertheless, these are the facts!

Lets look at the textual "evidence":
PhD extract "During the first century AD Pliny (died 79 AD) wrote …“But of all the varieties of iron the palm goes to the Seres with their fabrics and skins. The second prize goes to Parthian iron; and indeed no other kinds of iron are forged from pure metal, as all the rest have a softer alloy welded with them” (Pliny, XXXIV translated by Rackham, 1995, 143-146). Bronson (1986) has argued that there is no evidence that the Seres were producing and exporting “wootz” to Rome. Those who discuss Pliny’s statement seem to only be concerned about who the Seres were, probably the Tamil Cheres of South India (Juleff, 1990). However, the rest of Pliny’s statement is perhaps even more telling. Regardless of who the Seres were, Pliny states that they, and the Parthians, are the only people to produce pure metal. " It is likly that this "pure metal" is crucible steel, as it is referred to as pure metal in later literature.Thus, this suggests that crucible steel was being produced in Iran (Parthia) from an early date.

Lets look at later ethnographic evidence:
PhD extract:
"It is important to recall Bronson’s observation that no first hand ethnographic reports from South India mention that the steel produces a Damascus pattern (Bronson, 1986, 39-40). In addition, the experiments performed by Wilkinson (1839, 389) on crucible steel ingots from Cutch, in Northern India on the India-Pakistan border, and from Salem, southern India, concluded that only the ingot from Cutch produced a good pattern, whereas the Salem sample had only a slight indication of a pattern. Therefore, the evidence from all archaeological, ethnographic, and replication experiments, indicates that crucible steel from South India/Sri Lanka, i.e. the areas associated with the terms wootz, produced crucible steel blades with either no pattern or a faint pattern only. Arguably, it is the coarse pattern, such as the Kara Khorasan pattern, that is most often associated with or characterizes “Damascus steel” (refer to Figures 97-100). As mentioned above, the archaeological evidence from Merv and Termez indicated that the microstructure of the ingots could have resulted in a coarse patterned blade. In addition, textual evidence (e.g. al-Beruni in Said, 1989, 219-220), and ethnographic reports (e.g. Abbott, 1884; Wilkinson, 1839, 38) all state that crucible steel blades with a good pattern were produced in Central Asia and Northern India, places where the term pulad (or related term) was used. Therefore, all the afore mentioned evidence indicates that crucible steel from Central Asia, which includes Northern India, could produced crucible steel blades with a coarse pattern, while the South Indian/Sri Lankan wootz ingots probably did not. This is contrary to the generally accepted opinion that Indian wootz steel was primarily used to produce “Damascus blades” (e.g. Verhoeven, 2001; Figiel, 1991, 7; Rostoker and Bronson, 1990, 130; Sachse, 1994, 67).

If we only go by what people assume they know, rather than the facts, we will not progress. We might as well be looking for the origin of Damascus steel in Syria!
:)

Thank you, very much, for the additional information, Ann. :)

Let's let this be the final word on this here, everyone.

Going back to the combat value of wootz swords.
Iranian chronicles report that Shah Ismail at Chaldaran split a fully armoured opponent from head to saddle with one stroke of his wootz shamshir: helmet, mail, the works. Also, he split in two several enemies cutting them across the body or diagonally. He was also reported to cut 7 chains securing Turkish heavy guns with the same sword.
Do you think these stories are true or exaggerations by the Ismail's court poets?
The Japanese performed cutting tests with their swords on human bodies, but those were naked. I find it difficult to believe that a sword, no matter how good, would be able to slice a full set of armour through-and-through or 1-2 cm thick steel chain links.

Hi Ariel,

I am one who believes that swords have a definite service life, after which they better be retired from active duty. Of course, if the blade saw little or no use, then it can be used indefinitely. My problem is not with old swords kept as family heorlooms, but as when supposedly used used for combat, from generation to generation. Internal flaws can grow with repeated loading on the blade.


Re your observations on armour cutting feats with wootz swords: Perhaps not entirely without substance, but probably exagerated - For what it is worth, the Japanese had stout armour cutting swords with which many of their cutting stunts were performed. These were often modified naginata (halberd) blades. I did see one such sword in Japan and it had a shoulder about twice as thick as that of an ordinary sword, that is, around 12mm and had an edge like a cold chisel. I have a reference, somewhere in my library, in which an experienced old samurai criticized a display of helmet splitting, by a colleague, arguing that he cheated buy using a naginata blade. Perhaps tsubame1 (carlo) can help us out here.

Cheers
Chris

No doubt, a combination of age and mileage will induce a lot of infirmities and I can only empathize :)
On the other hand, I would not be excited having a sword that spent its entire life in some armoury, cleaned and oiled at 3 months intervals.

I have a wakizashi that bears a signature of somebody from 13th(?) century. Probably, forged. It is so old, that it has about half of its original width left. I dread to think of all the mechanical stresses it went through. I would not dream offering it to somebody for a cutting test. But, if it had been polished and repolished so many times, it must have signified something to its many owners. It earned a comfortable retirement in a company of other, equally scarred, veterans.

And I bet that it is worth quite a bit! ;)

Cheers
Chris

Na-a-ah... I am sure no true Nihonto fanatic would want it.
I got it at a local gun and knife show in a pile of rusty bayonets and spent an equivalent of a sushi lunch on it. No sake.

Bladesmith Dan Maragni told me once that for a while, British Army blades were being very strenuously tested, every one, as they came into service, to assure quality. They passed the test but went on to fail in use. The severity of the testing had damaged them.

It is interesting when you have an opportunity to examine old blades, from the age of serious use, that have managed to survive above ground and dry. Very often there is evidence of deformity from use and its repair and rehoning. I gather nicks must be removed before the next use or the nick will be the starting point of failure when the blade is next put under load.

It is also interesting to consider what blades have survived in good numbers versus those once very common but now very scarce. Odd specialized specimens were possibly less likely to be "used up" or perhaps saved as a curiosity while some mainline medieval forms that continued in use for a very long time must have been pretty much exhausted as they are quite scarce in surviving material.

Hi Lee,

Possibly, but not necessarily. Swords can fail in any number of ways due to either a single overloading or cumulative wear and tear. Also the proof tests were by no means exact replicas of all the loads that could be expected in service. A good many failures occurred at the tang, when the blade encountered severe resistance, as when hit by another weapon; Very hard to proof test for - A common cause for failure at this point was a sharp corner, as opposed to a well rounded blend in, where the tang met the blade. A crack would start growing at the said corner. Pre assembly visual inspection would have been the better way to go. Also some tangs were ridiculously weak and would fail the moment that the hilt developed some play.

Also those proof tests were by no means all that thorough. I have a Brit sabre that has the proof stamp, yet the blade has a large forging flaw and have seen others obviously only nominally tested : They were so badly heat treated that they bent at the slightest flexing - Paid off inspectors?

I often wondered about this myself. Perhaps some blades lapsed into obsolescence due to the onset of better designs and as such were retired before badly damaged and ended up on the walls of the rich. Also what was retained in collections, probably reflected a predisposition towards what looked good, as opposed to the desire provide a historical record for later day hoplologists.

Cheers
Chris

Naginata is for sure a thicker blade then a Katana. Anyway,
Kabutowari (helmet-cutting), even if much less known then other forms of
fixing Wazamono rating (ability to cut) has been performed in old times and
a fist of times in modern days too, with swords. The most known is the one advertised here : http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html . This link provides further information about past Kabutowari tests as well.

Nonetheless this specific cutting test isn't IMHO enough historically accurate.
The blade IS NOT a NihonTo. Is a blade made by Paul Champagne, that's for sure an incredibly good blade, but has no value for a comparative test with NihonTo. More belivable is the previous test (which likely Obata Toshihiro has been inspired by) made by Terutaka Kawabata Sensei.

The following picture (not reported in that site) refers to the experiment made by (scroll down to Post-Meiji attempts in the link provided) Terutaka Kawabata Sensei with Yoshihara Yoshindo *unmounted* blade. This detail is of great importance and this is the reason I scanned the picture (Obata test was made the same way, without a proper made handle).
These tests are often referred to as unreliable due to the fact the neck of
the helmet's owner would absorbe a lot of energy (resulting, IMHO, in the breaking of the said neck BTW...), an opponent isn't a fixed target but a mobile one (of no pertinence, IMHO) and that the helmet was old and possibly already damaged. Even if the first statement can have some validity, as per the 3rd one the helmet was accurately choosen and of good quality (sic...) and the blade made the traditional way. The lack of mounting can only add to the ability of the cutters and, in a lesser way, to the quality of the blades. Being the helmet, for it's shape and paramount importance, likely the most resistant part of the armor, it can be, IMHO, safely assumed that *some* armors, might be the lesser or lighter ones, could be cut *in some places* (sleeves and other) by a sword (not necessarily a japanese one and no matter about the steel used).

As per swords durability : Oakeshott used to say "a sword has 3 battles or
3 hundred years in it, whichever come first".

Quiet exaggerate IMHO (at least for NihonTo that have 9 centuries battle-proof living examples...), but gives a good idea about a general rule : nothing is forever in this world and the swords that have survived till today either :

a) have seen few to no usage

b) have been used, even heavily, but were of very high quality

c) had an incredible amount of luck

d) an interesting mix of the previous three statements .

So, going back to the combat value of the woorz blades: do we think that the poetic descriptions of Shah Ismail's cutting feats ( see my earlier post) are compatible with real abilities of a very good wootz sword or are gross exaggerations?

Does he provides the geometry of the blade involved ?

Muhammad Mansur Mubarak-Shah in Qitab Adab al-Harb... is quite clear that "gorz (mace), chubak (similar to mace, i think in english it is called warhammer ?), hudzhikan (spear), bulkoteg (another type of mace) - weapon of those confident in their strength and is used against those dressed in ...(names of different types of armor) armor". He gives a few examples of the use of these weapons, telling that tabar can also be used against armored cavalrymen, but never does he speak about swords being used against them. It is obvious that sword can be used against armour; we see numerous references to someone cutting mail so badly it looked like that on David (by memory).
However, from manual it seems to be clear (to me) that sword in principle was not a primeral weapon against heavily armored soldiers: spear, mace-like weapons, even arrows were used against mail.
Now, to Shah Ismail - I would believe in him killing a man, but head to toe, then guns, then another two men - that sounds more like hashish talking. What's the original source for this, I suppose legend ?

And then he was defeated :D You even ask ariel?! ;)

This is obviously a legend. All cultures have similar accounts about the
swords they relied on.
Mace is likely the better weapon against heavy and even not so heavy armor
as chainmail proved to be very resistant even against arrows.
I think that the sword is in some way tied to mankind subconscious.
Even if the mace was so highly valued to begun the materialization of the King power in the sceptre, still is the sword that is used to give power to others and that is portraied in the tombs.
There were a variety of armors on the battlefield and legends always has a little truth in them, might be much lesser and more belivable events took place and were later made gigantic. Old advertising ?