Solingen steel
 

Last year, during my forum thread regarding English blades, Fernando kindly posted this forum thread link (22) for me to learn about modern studies of Wootz (sic).
This thread is truly fascinating… and illuminating, and I would recommend anyone interested in blade metallurgy to find the time to study it.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3377
On reading this most excellent thread (I needed a lot of time to thoroughly absorb so much technical information from some eminent metallurgists – and a Smith) I have reached a conclusion regarding Solingen and Toledo blades:
The metal commonly known as Wootz (named in the 1700s and originally and more accurately called 'Pu-loha' or purified iron) is a 'Crucible' steel, had 'sometimes' superior blade making qualities when supposedly compared to Solingen and Toledo 'forged steel' which technically should be inferior yet actually produced the very best sword-blades.
However, I've a question: I know Toledo used Celtiberian billet-welding techniques, but what special techniques were employed by the Solingen smiths to consistently mass- produce such superb blades? Or is it still a secret?
It has been generally accepted that the Germans learned their skills during the Christian crusades, but 'Damascus' Wootz was a crucible steel, so is that what the Solingen smiths were producing?
It is curious I have never asked this question before and yet it is such an important issue… hmm!
Thank-you Fernando.

:cool:

Great questions. What time period are you specifically interested in? Steel production of course changed over time. If you are speaking more about medieval blade production I can answer some of your question. As far as I know the Solingen smiths were not using any type of crucible steel. The starting product would have been bloomery iron/steel which would have been refined to remove slag and consolidate. Japanese blades are another example of exceptional quality blades (not always, but often) made from bloomery smelted iron. The keys to their success lies in their attention to detail while selecting the ore, controlling the bloomery fire, selecting the pieces from the bloom with the right carbon, precise folding to remove slag, and careful treatment of the steel and control of the process for every step after. I imagine that the Solingen smiths were similar masters of the processes they chose to use to take the iron from ore to finished product. They of course had a different type of construction and temper in mind for the end result than Japanese smiths did, but a good result would still require a similar level of care and knowledge.

For some history on iron production in Europe I would recommend "THE KNIGHT AND THE BLAST FURNACE, A History of the Metallurgy of Armour in the Middle Ages & the Early Modern Period" by Alan Williams. It's a good read for anyone interested in metallurgy and steel production history.

Solingen steel
 

Thank-you efrahjalt.
I initially, and mistakenly, assumed that as the Solingen smiths took such great interest in the Damascus smithing techniques, which were supposedly acquired from the science of wootz manufacture, that this was responsible for their successes..
Yet it seems that Damascus wootz was not always crucible steel and it also seems that even true wootz blades were brittle.
I further realised that the treatment of the raw material in the forge played an absolutely crucial role in the outcome, regardless of the quality of the stock.
I then discovered that quality blade-smithing has been achieved in Solingen for over 2 thousand years.
Finally, I found that the iron-ore in the Wupper Valley environs has a high Manganese content which may well be partially responsible for the good results achieved.
So, the story about Germany stealing Damascus secrets and raising the bar of blade-smithing may be erroneous, if not entirely, then at least substantially.
Thank-you for your input: it further focuses my understanding of the Solingen craft.
I do know that their system of speciality guilds was crucial in achieving such consistently good results and that may well have enabled them to maintain high standards of quality over vast outputs.
But, I still don't know why we British never achieved decent results for so long.

I don't doubt that they attempted to back engineer it. The question is how successful (if at all) were they. Maybe just in playing around with it. they figured out some things for themselves. Or maybe just the presence of it in the form of imported blades inspired smiths to up their game. Because we do eventually see the interchange of blades reversed (a lot of Indian swords eventually having German and other European blades, modified to fit their hilts).

hard work
 

Shotley Bridge (my forte) could produce 34 blades a day (more if they took Sunday off - which I am sure they did) with only one forging shop: Oley was the only forger there, but he obviously had family helping; even so, that is a monumental achievement.
Reference the Cotesworth MSS: he purchased 1,600 dozen blades (19,200) in 557 days at a cost of £932 between November 1710 and August 1712.
The Tower actually needed more, so Cotesworth also bought blades from an English smith named John Saunthorp (can;t find any reference to him) at a shilling a dozen cheaper; complaints rapidly rolled in, with the description "...they stand like lead..."
Mr Oley of Newcastle was regarded by all as the finest blade-smith in the country throughout the 1700s.
I find it difficult to believe that he could produce such numbers and maintain quality, but he did. His family dated back to the 14thC in the Wupper Valley.
How did he do it?

Solingen/Germany/Toledo research
 

Can anyone point me in the direction of metallurgical research done to ascertain the reasons why Solingen/Germany produced such consistently superior blades?

Equally, can anyone explain why Toledo needed to reinforce their bladesmiths with Solingen craftsmen back in 1587?

A pity that i lost the email address of German Dueñas Beraiz, an expert in this Toledan sword smiths area. I have tried to redirect the question thRough the ToLedo Military Museum, where he is connected but, i am not so optimism over success.
Meanwhile i took the liberty to send you by email some lose notes on the endless process of Toledo forging ... and not only; written by the said German Dueñas Beraiz.

Keep safe.


.

Toledo notes
 

Thank-you Fernando, I will read with interest.

a pleasant surprise
 

In opposition to museums often 'forgeting' to answer our questions, this time a quick response arrived ...


"Buenas tardes, me disculpen las molestias.
Sucede que perdí la dirección de correo electrónico del Sr. Germán Dueñas Beraiz, y les pido por favor que dirijan este correo a ese señor "

Good afternoon, i apologize for the inconvenience.
It happens that i lost the email address of Mr. Germán Dueñas Beraiz, and I ask you to please address this email to that Gentleman.



" Respecto a los espaderos de Toledo, alguien en mi foro de armas antiguas ha citado una información de que, hacia 1587, Toledo consideró necesario reforzar el número de sus espaderos con artesanos llegados de Solingen.
Piensa el Sr. Beraiz que esto realmente sucedió … y en el contexto mencionado ? “

Regarding the swordsmiths of Toledo, someone in my antique weapons forum has cited information that, around 1587, Toledo considered it necessary to reinforce the number of its swordsmiths with artisans from Solingen.
Does Mr. Beraiz think that this really happened… and in the mentioned context ?

En relación a su consulta decir que no existe constancia documental de la presencia de espaderos procedentes de Solingen en los talleres toledanos de finales del XVI. Resulta muy improbable su presencia teniendo en cuenta el sistema de producción artesanal de los espaderos toledanos, que artesanos extranjeros trabajaran en Toledo en las fechas citadas.

In relation to your query, to say that there is no documentary evidence of the presence of swordsmiths from Solingen in the Toledo workshops at the end of the 16th century. It results highly unlikely, taking into account the artisanal production system of Toledo swordsmiths, that foreign craftsmen worked in Toledo on the dates mentioned.


(Mister Beraiz is the Chief Curator of the Arms Department in the Toledo Army Museum)

Toledo and Germans
 

Thank-you Fernando.
I have found it unwise to trust everything in Bezdek's research absolutely but these are the details he gives based on Solingen parish and guild records; these are the departure dates:

1547: Andreas Munsten zu Elberfeld; 1565: Ceiles Lobach; 1580: Heinrich Kohl; 1600: Hans Ohlig; 1620: Clemens Dinger the Elder.

Munsten was an armourer (?)
Lobach is listed as produing swept and cup hilt rapiers.
Kohl was a hilt maker.
Dinger and Ohlig were grinders.

Now you may filter yourself !
Mind you, this could be a question of approach; that some Solingen smiths decided to migrate to Spain (Toledo) as a personal option, it is not that it was Toledo guild (no factory yet, right ?) that contract them to reinforce their ranks.
In fact, the table built by Palomares includes a Andrès Munestèn (position #8), as having worked both in Toledo and Calatayiud; we know that his brother Peter migrated to Hownslow.

See notes by Wendelin Boeheim (Leipsig 1890).


.

Toledo
 

Yes, Fernando, it seems more appropriate to mark these men as moving out of their own volition rather than being sent-for.
ps
call me Keith.

Alright ... Keith :cool:.

Let me then 'punish' you with a couple further notes on the Toledo/Solingen saga...

One is about German Dueñas Beraiz pointing out the flaws in the Palomares table, namely on the names and origin of Toledo smiths ...

More flagrant is the case of the German swordsmith Andreas Munsten, (No. 8) who, after saying that he also worked in Calatayud, he locates him in Toledo, Castilianizing his name by that of Andres Munesten. This error perhaps stems from the fact that this swordsmith from Solingen made blades copying the typologies, motifs and letters that appear on the Toledo blades.


The other is about the considerations written in an article by Esperanza Ruiz, ESPADEROS TOLEDANOS,

IV - An Industry that is lost.
The 17th century was a decadent century for Toledo. The departure of the court, the demographic decline, the expulsion of the Moorish and other causes will be the ruin of the Toledan industries. The silk looms are reduced and the swordsmiths do not suffer any less from its consequences.
The thriving Toledo sword industry is about to disappear. The swordsmiths that in the 16th century were grouped in one of the richest and most flourishing guilds, began a rapid decline in the middle of the 17th century and one of the many causes was to allow the entry of swords from Germany, very abundant and cheap.
Master swordsmiths and officers are forced by circumstance to carve knives, scissors, and razors.


.

Here come those Germans again
 

So, are we perhaps looking at the importation of certain skills to revitalise the industry?
As business declined, we would see more and more craftsmen retiring and no new apprenticeships being offered, hence a loss of skills. You will note the variety of skills across the five immigrants mentioned; perhaps this explains it.
This happened here on Tyneside: as the shipbuilding industry declined, trades and skills were being lost. Experience was fading away and it was not long before we had to import experienced and skilled workers to instruct the new apprentices.

Note that the Toledan decline took place mid 17th century, whereas Munster (and maybe others) moved to Spain still during their flourishing period.

NB
 

Noted, Fernando, this seemingly disputes my theory.
I also note that we have run out of input on this subject.
It seems odd that the means to become the biggest and best supplier of swords to the world remains secret.
Perhaps it is/was attention to detail in the forging processes - attention to detail has always been something the Germans have excelled-at - but that does not explain why we had to wait for Gill in Birmingham before we could rival their quality. It also begs the question: who showed Gill how to do it right?