Solingen steel

[urbanspaceman]

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.

[fernando]

[efrahjalt]

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.

[urbanspaceman]

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.

[Helleri]

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).

[urbanspaceman]

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?