True Combat Value of Wootz

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

a) A two handed sword is ill suited for mounted combat because it is preferable to leave one hand free to hold the reins with which to control the horse - Also the long handle gets in the way and its general shape is ill suited to the retention of the sword - It is significant that in the rest of Asia, the Middle East and Europe the single hand sword prevailed for mounted warfare;

Tachi isn't a two-handed sword, Katana is. Find out the difference and you'll realize where you're wrong here.

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

b) Europeans were quick to adopt the curved sabre of the Middle East for light cavalry work, towards the end of the 18th century. By that time they were well acquainted with the Japanese sword, yet ignored it for military usage. Had it been a good weapon for mounted combat, am sure that it would not have been so overlooked - And by that time nobody understood cavalry, both heavy and light, better than the Europeans;

Because at that time the Katana had begun a dueling sword. Here we're in Edo time, no more wars to fight, rather duels. Hence the scarce fitting of the Katana to actual western needs.

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

c) when Japan modernized during the Meiji restoration European sabres and cavalry methods were adopted. Indeed, all Asian nations that modernized took similar steps. This was due to very compelling reasons.

The very compelling reasons were that a dueling Katana that reigned
for the 250 years of the Edojidai wasn't suited for modern battlefield cavalry
tactis. You're comparing a sword "freezed" for centuries to a modern army.
In this way is obvious that even armor and helmets were no more useful even if they were carried till a few decades before.
BTW you lack to quote that many swords in the so-called "Kyugunto" mounting (the western-style you refer to) had ancestral blade inside.
Is more a matter of mounting rather then blade shape.
It's easy to find asking any average collector out there or taking a look at
Fuller and Gregory's "Military swords of Japan 1868-1945" ISBN 0 85368 796 X

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

. Re understanding cavalry: I am sure that within the limited context of their own insular and feudal style of waging war, up to the Tokugawas, the Japanese understood the usefulness of cavalry to a degree- However, in a wider context, they lagged far behind other nations - There is far more to cavalry than being able to ride; For one, it has been observed that they lacked a true war horse and the terrain of Japan did not encourage mounted warfare, as say the vast expanses of Central Asia.

Rough terrain and lack of space for horsebreeding.
These are the reasons they didn't apply vast cavalry charges as we're used to think about. This is not lack of understanding, this is lack of needs.

I agree we're out of topic and warmly suggest you to open another thread on
the matter if you want to discuss further this very interesting matter.

[ariel]

If I understand correctly, we can summarize that:
1. Wootz is esthetically more attractive than the mass-produces European steel blades.
2. Only small proportion of "Eastern" blades were of exceedingly high quality and many, manufactured not by reknown masters, were of dubious quality.
3.European technology allowed mass production of high-quality steel. The overall performance characteristics of European blades were either close enough or similar to the best wootz blades. Advantages of wootz in some areas were compensated by the advantages of European steel in other areas. Overall, European technology allowed arming large groups of soldiers with reliable equipment of uniformly-proven quality, a task that was unattainable in less techological societies.
4. Local preferences, prestige issues, personal "quirks" etc were important in dictating the choice in some cases, and this occured both among the "Natives" as well as among the " Europeans".
Is it fair?

[tsubame1]

Not a bad conclusion Ariel, but we should consider timeframe.
Noone here has fixed a timeframe of reference.
IMHO some of your conclusions can be considered quiet fair talking about later times, say XVIII c. >, not as an overall rule.
Around the XVI/XVII c. Milan had a very good production of blades, many
being later labeled as "Toledo" ones, but I can't talk for the major cities of the middle east and India. If the mogul were able to equipe an entire army with guns in which the barrel was made of wootz, I assume that a sort of industrial capability was there too. We're thinking with present-day standards
in which materials are cheap and skilled labour expensive, whether in the centuries I quoted, and more in the timeframe before, it was the reverse.
I think that skilled labour for steelmaking wasn't an issue to the Mogul or the persians. As the real difference in the quality of a sword is the maker and not the steel, I'm not so sure that an industrial mass-production is really a point to fix superiority of western steel over wootz.
To be thruly honest, I don't think that there are steels superior to others.
Only smiths. Well, within certain limits fixed by common sense of course.

[Tim Simmons]

Well you cannot make a silk purse out of a pigs ear

[Chris Evans]

Originally Posted by tsubame1

Tachi isn't a two-handed sword, Katana is. Find out the difference and you'll realize where you're wrong here..

In all the serious literature that I have seen, the distinction between the Tachi and the katana is about how they were worn/slung and not about hilt length. Tachi edge down, katana edge up. And I have never seen a tachi or katana with a one hand hilt nor any suggestion to this effect.

From Wikipedia:

The tachi (??) is a Japanese sword, often said to be more curved and slightly longer than the katana. However Gilbertson, Oscar Ratti, and Adele Westbrook state that a sword is called a tachi when hung from the obi with the edge down, and the same sword becomes a katana when hung edge up thrust through the girdle. The Tachi style was eventually discarded in favor of the Katana. The daito (long swords) that pre-date the katana average about 78cm in blade length, next to the katana average of around 70cm. As opposed to the traditional manner of wearing the katana, the tachi was worn hung from the belt with the cutting-edge down, and usually used by cavalry. Deviations from the average length of tachi have the prefixes ko- for "short" and o- for "great" attached. For instance, tachi that were shoto and closer in size to a wakizashi were called "kodachi". The longest tachi (considered a 15th century odachi) in existence is more than 3.7 meters in total length (2.2m blade) but believed to be ceremonial. During the year 1600, many old tachi were cut down into Katana. The majority of surviving tachi blades now are o-suriage, so it is rare to see an original signed ubu tachi.

Form The Connoisseurs Book Of Japanese Swords by Kokan Nagayama:

Tachi: This is a curved sword with a blade longer than 60cm. It was worn suspended from the belt with the blade edge facing the ground. Later some blades originally produced as tachi were converted into katana by shortening the tang (or the portion of the blade that extends below the hamachi) This process inevitably caused any signature to be lost. Blades longer than 90cm are known as o-dachi (long tachi) while those 60cm or shorter are known as ko-dachi (short tachi)......Katana: Have blades longer than 60cm and are worn through the belt with the cutting edge facing upwards

I could give a number of other citations from respected authorities, but for lack of space will refrain from doing so. However, I'll add that the only Japanese native long-sword that I am aware of that was used with one hand (according to some sources) was the uchigatana, which appeared late in the Muromachi period. It complemented the Tachi when fighting afoot and is considered the precursor of the katana, as was worn edge up.

That the double handed grip was a handicap was recognized by the legendary Musashi in 1645 when he wrote"...It is encumbering to hold a sword with both hands when you are on horseback..."(Book of Five Rings). Note that Musashi was trying to correct the then prevailing practices, perhaps being influenced by Europeans

.

"Kyugunto" mounting (the western-style you refer to) had ancestral blade inside. Is more a matter of mounting rather then blade shape.
It's easy to find asking any average collector out there or taking a look at
Fuller and Gregory's "Military swords of Japan 1868-1945" ISBN 0 85368 796 X ..

It will do us well to remember that the Tokugawas curtailed the maximum length of blades so as to prevent warfare and most long tachis were cut down to fit in with the peace time requirements. By the Meiji restoration most katanas were of the order of 70cm, considered to be the standard length. So if we examine the bulk of those strange swords, with a knuckle-bow attached to their longish hilts, we will find a rather short blade - Totally unsuited for mounted use.

Additionally, the tang of the Japanese blade follows the curvature of the blade and makes it impossible to fit a downward drooping hilt, as was generally considered desirable in a cavalry weapon by that era. The downward drooping hilt is essential when using the point as when the arm is extended the curved blade's point is aligned with the axis of the arm.

..

Rough terrain and lack of space for horsebreeding.
These are the reasons they didn't apply vast cavalry charges as we're used to think about. This is not lack of understanding, this is lack of needs...

To my mind lack of needs equates with lack of application, which equates with lack of experience and thus of understanding.

agree we're out of topic and warmly suggest you to open another thread onthe matter if you want to discuss further this very interesting matter.

Happy to oblige by PM, unless other forumites want to join in, in which case we will open a fresh thread.

Cheers
Chris

[S.Al-Anizi]

Guys, please open up another thread for a japanese showdown, not here

[tsubame1]

You're right Carter. Sorry for inconveniences caused.

Deleted to open another thread :

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...5127#post35127

[Ann Feuerbach]

From S. AL-Anizi: Not necessarily Ann, in pre-islamic arabian poetry, swords and their 'firind' are always being described and emphasized upon. Wootz is a very older thing than many people think it is. The more I read, the more it seems that wootz blades were quite common since pre-islam in the near east. Either being imported from india, or even locally produced in Yemen or even Damascus, although its very hard to prove that.

You are quite right. The earliest known crucible steel blade is from the 1st century AD (Taxila) and the 2nd and 3rd known earliest blades are from the Russian Caucausus, indicating that they were well in use before the coming of Islam. In my discussion, I was referring to the influx of swords during the 16th-17th centuries.


From Rivkin: any islamic country subscribing to the pact of Umar or its variations must ban non-muslims from pocessions of any weapons. It is a rather important part of fikh and dhimmi/muslim relationship.

Thank you I did not know what the correct term was. Yes, I am well aware of the ban of non-muslims having weapons during some periods of time (and place). However, sometimes (depending on the time and place) non-muslims were in the military (as mercinarys, slaves etc). I have forgotten the reference.

On another related note, apparently some blades were not used for battle so its performance was not a factor...such as one of the Prophets blades al-Qadib. It was made for companionship and defense only, but not for battle.

[S.Al-Anizi]

Thank you I did not know what the correct term was. Yes, I am well aware of the ban of non-muslims having weapons during some periods of time (and place). However, sometimes (depending on the time and place) non-muslims were in the military (as mercinarys, slaves etc). I have forgotten the reference

.

As in the Ummayad emirate of al-andalus, the palace guard, the 'saqaliba' (slavs), were christians in the service of the emir, and *I think* were allowed to carry weapons.

[Chris Evans]

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

[Rivkin]

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.

[Andrew]

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.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach

From S. AL-Anizi: Not necessarily Ann, in pre-islamic arabian poetry, swords and their 'firind' are always being described and emphasized upon. Wootz is a very older thing than many people think it is. The more I read, the more it seems that wootz blades were quite common since pre-islam in the near east. Either being imported from india, or even locally produced in Yemen or even Damascus, although its very hard to prove that.

You are quite right. The earliest known crucible steel blade is from the 1st century AD (Taxila) and the 2nd and 3rd known earliest blades are from the Russian Caucausus, indicating that they were well in use before the coming of Islam. In my discussion, I was referring to the influx of swords during the 16th-17th centuries.


From Rivkin: any islamic country subscribing to the pact of Umar or its variations must ban non-muslims from pocessions of any weapons. It is a rather important part of fikh and dhimmi/muslim relationship.

Thank you I did not know what the correct term was. Yes, I am well aware of the ban of non-muslims having weapons during some periods of time (and place). However, sometimes (depending on the time and place) non-muslims were in the military (as mercinarys, slaves etc). I have forgotten the reference.

On another related note, apparently some blades were not used for battle so its performance was not a factor...such as one of the Prophets blades al-Qadib. It was made for companionship and defense only, but not for battle.

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

[Ann Feuerbach]

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.

[Ann Feuerbach]

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.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach

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.

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?

[S.Al-Anizi]

Originally Posted by tsubame1

You're right Carter. Sorry for inconveniences caused.

Deleted to open another thread :

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...5127#post35127

No no not at all Carlos, I was getting quite interested in your conversation, you and Chris, ive always found Japanese swords quite controversial I just felt that deserved a sole thread for it, and I would gladly contribute to that thread if something pops up