True Combat Value of Wootz

Rivkin · 18th October 2006, 12:26 AM

I can give my personal "take" on this - long time ago I have spoke with a iaito practicioner, who was known for his tameshigiri work. He told me that the best blade he had was some really old Kamakura tachi of a good maker (which is what usually considered sort of height of traditional japanese swordmaking). The second best was a mass-made gunto

.

When I look at the tests that were done in XIXth century to compare Solingen and wootz blades, like russian cavalry test, ending up with the one done with Moser swords... All of them have shown that there is a tiny percentage of wootz blades that is capable to exceed Solingen (by memory they compared hardness and some bending-related properties ?).

I would think that by the end of XVII-XVIIIth century wootz becomes probably overrated, what can be indicated by the growing popularity of western blades. At the same time there is really little one can objectively say on the issue - for example I have encountered that experienced soldiers who spent more than 5 years with a certain weapon tend to like it, while inexperienced soldiers tend to complain about its lack or precision, or maintance problems... Plus I would guess that wootz makers were to some kind elite among persian and indian swordsmiths.

joshualayne · 18th October 2006, 01:22 AM

Is it possible that the tests did not fully capture the field value of a wootz blade? I see pattern welded blades as being very similar to wootz (at least the highly folded examples, like nihonto) in the matrixed nature of the metal - I guess that question is whether that coarse physical matrix has any properties that are not embodied by a highly precise modern alloy (which is a molecular matrix, but would seem to have very different properties).

my meandering thoughts on wootz, other than the sheer beauty of the weapons made with it.

josh

ariel · 18th October 2006, 01:49 AM

My understanding is that the differential tempering of Japanese blades made them resistant to acute stress, such as blow by another sword. This was not the case with Persian/Indian wootz. Their system of swordplay emphasized a single drawcut (cavalry use) and minimal contact with other blades or hard objects. They were not designed to be "elastic" but hard and keen-edged. The European swordplay required multiple parrying and, thus, very resilient blades.
Modern steels were, of course, far better mechanically than wootz, but it would be unfair to compare them just like one cannot compare HK submachine guns with handmade Turkish guns. But.... which one was more beautiful and surrounded by legends?
Just for comparison, here are some of the official requirements for the Polish mass-produced cavalry saber pattern 1934:
1. When released from the height of 2 meters, the blade had to penetrate a 2 mm thick sheet of steel.
2. Cut steel bar 5 mm in diameter 5 consecutive times without being nicked.
3. No damage to the handle when the sword was hit flat against hard object
4. No deformation of the blade after repeat bending it 15 cm off the axis in both directions
5. No deformation of the scabbard supported at both ends after applying a 120 kg load in the middle.
As we can see, all of them are very practical and imitating real battlefield conditions.
Could it cut a silk handkerchief like famous Persian swords? Who knows and who cares? Few hussars were ever attacked by handkerchiefs.....

Jeff Pringle · 18th October 2006, 02:27 AM

Another 2 cents -
Wootz is made & heat treated to take advantage of the superior hardness & potential sharpness of the iron carbide particles, which are distributed in regular, plain old steel. Rockwell testers cannot measure the carbides (too small), only the matrix, which was left soft, as it is only there to carry the carbides to the target and didn't need to be hard in and of itself. That's why those swords measured so low.
Wootz was better than most the steels of that era, if not all, but was supplanted by steels that may have been almost as good, but were definitely much cheaper to produce.

Andrew · 18th October 2006, 02:54 AM

I'd like to hear Ann's take on this fascinating topic...

Chris Evans · 18th October 2006, 05:16 AM

Hi,

I was a bit reluctant to express an opinion, because, despite being a metallurgist, I never had the opportunity to test or work with wootz steel.

All the same, Jeff Pringle is right on the ball. Based on photographs of the microstructure of wootz swords, I think it is not very useful to talk about Rockwell hardness (tests too small an area). One could obtain a better indication with a Brinell hardness test, using a Tungsten carbide indenter ball. This so as to test a greater area, which would yield a better averaged hardness value.

I should mention that hardness test results, on their own do not mean all that much, and must be interpreted in a given context. With conventional steels it is used as a very useful indicator of various mechanical attributes. However, in the case of such an odd-ball material as wootz, I am not quite sure as to what useful information could be derived from hardness readings; These would not correlate with the swords behaviour in the same way as conventional steels would. In the end, to correctly appraise wootz metal swords, the tests would have to be designed to reflect the actual application, much as Arilel described for those military swords.

I am inclined to think that wootz swords were probably better than the rest in the old days, before modern molten steel making processes were developed - Old fashioned hammer refined steels were pretty variable in their quality due to the impurities that could not be removed - Wootz was melted in the process and thus inherently cleaner, as the said impurities would float to the surface. This said, I imagine that there were ample opportunities to re-contaminate the wootz steel during the forging process.

We should remember that in the old days, swordsmiths knew precious little about metallurgy and everything was done by trial and error, with the later being much less the exception than what we are inclined to think. I feel that a really good sword or piece of steel was more a stroke of luck, rather than the rule.

Here is a good article on wootz:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...even-9809.html

Cheers
Chris

S.Al-Anizi · 18th October 2006, 11:07 AM

Thanks all for the informative responses. Many interesting points shared.

Rivkin- is it possible for you to describe those tests?

I agree with you on the point that wootz might have been overrated and made mythical in the minds of some over the years, yet a well tempered european military saber blade might have been alot better.

Joshua, Jeff, and Chris- Ive been hearing a fair number of people say what you say, that the rockwell test isnt really well applied on wootz blades, and as a matrix they are actually much harder than 37HRC. What I am wondering is, how would a wootz blade, compare to lets say a french 1822 LC blade? Of the same curve and equal width and thickness? In parrying, edge retention, and cutting.

Alex- please do not drop anymore wootz blades

Andrew- Ive been waiting for Dr.Ann's reply eagerly too

Ariel- My view of japanese blades, is that they're esily bent, all they're good for, is keeping an edge, that would easily be chipped. If wootz blades were designed to be hard, then they wouldnt bend that easily am I right? According to Alex's experience, those are some very hard blades. I would be interested to see how a wootz blade would stand up against parrying a well made european blade. As to those testing conditions, those must have been some tough blades! I agree with you, whats the use of cutting silk handkerchiefs, who ever was attacked by a handkerchief!?

ALEX · 18th October 2006, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Just for comparison, here are some of the official requirements for the Polish mass-produced cavalry saber pattern 1934:
1. When released from the height of 2 meters, the blade had to penetrate a 2 mm thick sheet of steel.
..... Could it cut a silk handkerchief like famous Persian swords? Who knows and who cares? Few hussars were ever attacked by handkerchiefs.....

Al-Anizi,

The same thought was on my mind for long time...until I actually dropped one (and then another) wootz blade, both by accident, and not even close to 2 meters height, at most a mere half a meter. The first Indian wootz 19 C talwar blade snapped at the tip, the second - Persian 17 C blade broke right in the middle. I've been dropping many other, non-wootz blades, by accident, of course:-), and none were damaged. It tells the tale.
As Ariel cleverly mentioned, "who cares if it can cut a handkerchief". Well said, Ariel. My opinion - wootz is just a steel, it's magic is its beauty.

Please, do not drop wootz blades:-)

18th October 2006, 05:16 AM	#6
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	Hi, I was a bit reluctant to express an opinion, because, despite being a metallurgist, I never had the opportunity to test or work with wootz steel. All the same, Jeff Pringle is right on the ball. Based on photographs of the microstructure of wootz swords, I think it is not very useful to talk about Rockwell hardness (tests too small an area). One could obtain a better indication with a Brinell hardness test, using a Tungsten carbide indenter ball. This so as to test a greater area, which would yield a better averaged hardness value. I should mention that hardness test results, on their own do not mean all that much, and must be interpreted in a given context. With conventional steels it is used as a very useful indicator of various mechanical attributes. However, in the case of such an odd-ball material as wootz, I am not quite sure as to what useful information could be derived from hardness readings; These would not correlate with the swords behaviour in the same way as conventional steels would. In the end, to correctly appraise wootz metal swords, the tests would have to be designed to reflect the actual application, much as Arilel described for those military swords. I am inclined to think that wootz swords were probably better than the rest in the old days, before modern molten steel making processes were developed - Old fashioned hammer refined steels were pretty variable in their quality due to the impurities that could not be removed - Wootz was melted in the process and thus inherently cleaner, as the said impurities would float to the surface. This said, I imagine that there were ample opportunities to re-contaminate the wootz steel during the forging process. We should remember that in the old days, swordsmiths knew precious little about metallurgy and everything was done by trial and error, with the later being much less the exception than what we are inclined to think. I feel that a really good sword or piece of steel was more a stroke of luck, rather than the rule. Here is a good article on wootz: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...even-9809.html Cheers Chris Last edited by Chris Evans; 18th October 2006 at 09:24 AM.

18th October 2006, 12:26 AM	#1
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	I can give my personal "take" on this - long time ago I have spoke with a iaito practicioner, who was known for his tameshigiri work. He told me that the best blade he had was some really old Kamakura tachi of a good maker (which is what usually considered sort of height of traditional japanese swordmaking). The second best was a mass-made gunto . When I look at the tests that were done in XIXth century to compare Solingen and wootz blades, like russian cavalry test, ending up with the one done with Moser swords... All of them have shown that there is a tiny percentage of wootz blades that is capable to exceed Solingen (by memory they compared hardness and some bending-related properties ?). I would think that by the end of XVII-XVIIIth century wootz becomes probably overrated, what can be indicated by the growing popularity of western blades. At the same time there is really little one can objectively say on the issue - for example I have encountered that experienced soldiers who spent more than 5 years with a certain weapon tend to like it, while inexperienced soldiers tend to complain about its lack or precision, or maintance problems... Plus I would guess that wootz makers were to some kind elite among persian and indian swordsmiths.

18th October 2006, 01:22 AM	#2
joshualayne Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Half Moon Bay, CA Posts: 14	Is it possible that the tests did not fully capture the field value of a wootz blade? I see pattern welded blades as being very similar to wootz (at least the highly folded examples, like nihonto) in the matrixed nature of the metal - I guess that question is whether that coarse physical matrix has any properties that are not embodied by a highly precise modern alloy (which is a molecular matrix, but would seem to have very different properties). my meandering thoughts on wootz, other than the sheer beauty of the weapons made with it. josh

18th October 2006, 01:49 AM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	My understanding is that the differential tempering of Japanese blades made them resistant to acute stress, such as blow by another sword. This was not the case with Persian/Indian wootz. Their system of swordplay emphasized a single drawcut (cavalry use) and minimal contact with other blades or hard objects. They were not designed to be "elastic" but hard and keen-edged. The European swordplay required multiple parrying and, thus, very resilient blades. Modern steels were, of course, far better mechanically than wootz, but it would be unfair to compare them just like one cannot compare HK submachine guns with handmade Turkish guns. But.... which one was more beautiful and surrounded by legends? Just for comparison, here are some of the official requirements for the Polish mass-produced cavalry saber pattern 1934: 1. When released from the height of 2 meters, the blade had to penetrate a 2 mm thick sheet of steel. 2. Cut steel bar 5 mm in diameter 5 consecutive times without being nicked. 3. No damage to the handle when the sword was hit flat against hard object 4. No deformation of the blade after repeat bending it 15 cm off the axis in both directions 5. No deformation of the scabbard supported at both ends after applying a 120 kg load in the middle. As we can see, all of them are very practical and imitating real battlefield conditions. Could it cut a silk handkerchief like famous Persian swords? Who knows and who cares? Few hussars were ever attacked by handkerchiefs.....

18th October 2006, 02:27 AM	#4
Jeff Pringle Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 189	Another 2 cents - Wootz is made & heat treated to take advantage of the superior hardness & potential sharpness of the iron carbide particles, which are distributed in regular, plain old steel. Rockwell testers cannot measure the carbides (too small), only the matrix, which was left soft, as it is only there to carry the carbides to the target and didn't need to be hard in and of itself. That's why those swords measured so low. Wootz was better than most the steels of that era, if not all, but was supplanted by steels that may have been almost as good, but were definitely much cheaper to produce.

18th October 2006, 02:54 AM	#5
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	I'd like to hear Ann's take on this fascinating topic...

18th October 2006, 11:07 AM	#7
S.Al-Anizi Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Arabia Posts: 278	Thanks all for the informative responses. Many interesting points shared. Rivkin- is it possible for you to describe those tests? I agree with you on the point that wootz might have been overrated and made mythical in the minds of some over the years, yet a well tempered european military saber blade might have been alot better. Joshua, Jeff, and Chris- Ive been hearing a fair number of people say what you say, that the rockwell test isnt really well applied on wootz blades, and as a matrix they are actually much harder than 37HRC. What I am wondering is, how would a wootz blade, compare to lets say a french 1822 LC blade? Of the same curve and equal width and thickness? In parrying, edge retention, and cutting. Alex- please do not drop anymore wootz blades Andrew- Ive been waiting for Dr.Ann's reply eagerly too Ariel- My view of japanese blades, is that they're esily bent, all they're good for, is keeping an edge, that would easily be chipped. If wootz blades were designed to be hard, then they wouldnt bend that easily am I right? According to Alex's experience, those are some very hard blades. I would be interested to see how a wootz blade would stand up against parrying a well made european blade. As to those testing conditions, those must have been some tough blades! I agree with you, whats the use of cutting silk handkerchiefs, who ever was attacked by a handkerchief!?