Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

urbanspaceman · 17th August 2021, 01:49 PM

In response to the query about Solingen's superior output, here is a short explanation:
In the 16th century, the forging technique in Solingen was already quite advanced in its development and Wilhelm Weyersberg, the ancestor of one of the WKC founders, became mayor of the city of Solingen. During this period, the so called "Solingen method" was invented, which in effect was a division of labour between the guilds in town. Each guild specialized in one part of the sword making production process, e.g. the forging of blades, grinding or hardening. Each process was strictly separated and executed by different persons- no person performed more than one job. These persons specialized in their fields and became experts which then led to an extraordinary high level of blade and sword quality. Their knowledge was passed down from generation to generation and not shared with anyone outside of their particular gild. The only way to join one of these gilds was to be recommended by one of the current members and these positions were mainly filled by family members who were deemed to be trustworthy.
The book that got me started researching the history of the German swordmakers of Shotley Bridge is by David Richardson in 1973. He, and he alone, declares that the waters of the river Derwent, used for quenching, were/are 'radioactive' like the Tagus. This is a contentious statement, but one of very great interest. He does not indicate where he learned this fact; and during my 6+ years of research, I have never found any previous reference to it; a statement also made by subsequent researchers.
Concerning quenching, here is a paragraph from my book on Shotley Bridge swordmakers:
According to Dr. Helmut Nickel, curator of the Arms and Armour Division of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, legend had it that the best blades were quenched in ''dragon blood''. However, a little closer to reality – but only just – in a letter to the museum, a Pakistani gentleman told of a sword held in his family for many generations that was quenched by its Afghan makers in donkey urine. This concurs with some medieval blade-smiths over here who recommended the urine of redheaded boys; or, even more realistically, from ''three-year-old goats fed only ferns for three days''.
Were scientists to analyze these bodily fluids, they may well discover the presence of elements pertinent to metallurgy; then again, they may not have the time, nor inclination, to start breeding goats… or red headed boys!
Around 500bCe the Celtiberians (i.e. Celts from Iberia) were mixing hard and soft metals in the blade forging process. These swords were acquired by the Phoenicians and would eventually end up in Roman hands during the Punic wars.
At about the same time (it is so-far established) Wootz was being produced in Sri Lanka and Southern India.
A display case in Bamburgh Castle in Northumberland shows two fragments of sword blades: one using a twisted pattern-weld and the other a herringbone weld. Both these blades were compliments of Viking attacks. The Vikings copied techniques descended from the Celtiberians.
We could have learned from this science, but as far as I am aware, we didn't. That is my question: why?
The Germans took advantage of the Christian crusades to discover the techniques of the Damascus version of Wootz. We were there too but didn't do the same... why?
One point in mitigation is the property of the iron mined in the hills around Solingen and processed in Remscheid, which contained high amounts of Manganese and produced superior results to the iron mined around Shotley Bridge for example which was detrimentally high in sulphur.
For the most part, England used Bar Iron from Sweden, but had also used iron from other European locations until wars prohibited this.
Is it possible that the availability of good iron was out-weighed by the ready availability of fine blades: i.e. why import the raw material when you can import the finished product?
Incidentally, charcoal produces a higher temperature compared with coal; but Queen Elizabeth had restrained the destruction of our forests: the ratio of trees to quality iron was tragic.
The world history of iron and steel fills shelf after library shelf of literature and is only undertaken by time-rich, totally dedicated souls. I have more books on the iron and steel industry than I do on the sword industry and yet I barely scratch the surface.
All of the above is presented for scrutiny and correction where necessary.

17th August 2021, 01:49 PM	#9
urbanspaceman Member Join Date: Sep 2017 Location: Tyneside. North-East England Posts: 577	Myth, magic and metals In response to the query about Solingen's superior output, here is a short explanation: In the 16th century, the forging technique in Solingen was already quite advanced in its development and Wilhelm Weyersberg, the ancestor of one of the WKC founders, became mayor of the city of Solingen. During this period, the so called "Solingen method" was invented, which in effect was a division of labour between the guilds in town. Each guild specialized in one part of the sword making production process, e.g. the forging of blades, grinding or hardening. Each process was strictly separated and executed by different persons- no person performed more than one job. These persons specialized in their fields and became experts which then led to an extraordinary high level of blade and sword quality. Their knowledge was passed down from generation to generation and not shared with anyone outside of their particular gild. The only way to join one of these gilds was to be recommended by one of the current members and these positions were mainly filled by family members who were deemed to be trustworthy. The book that got me started researching the history of the German swordmakers of Shotley Bridge is by David Richardson in 1973. He, and he alone, declares that the waters of the river Derwent, used for quenching, were/are 'radioactive' like the Tagus. This is a contentious statement, but one of very great interest. He does not indicate where he learned this fact; and during my 6+ years of research, I have never found any previous reference to it; a statement also made by subsequent researchers. Concerning quenching, here is a paragraph from my book on Shotley Bridge swordmakers: According to Dr. Helmut Nickel, curator of the Arms and Armour Division of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, legend had it that the best blades were quenched in ''dragon blood''. However, a little closer to reality – but only just – in a letter to the museum, a Pakistani gentleman told of a sword held in his family for many generations that was quenched by its Afghan makers in donkey urine. This concurs with some medieval blade-smiths over here who recommended the urine of redheaded boys; or, even more realistically, from ''three-year-old goats fed only ferns for three days''. Were scientists to analyze these bodily fluids, they may well discover the presence of elements pertinent to metallurgy; then again, they may not have the time, nor inclination, to start breeding goats… or red headed boys! Around 500bCe the Celtiberians (i.e. Celts from Iberia) were mixing hard and soft metals in the blade forging process. These swords were acquired by the Phoenicians and would eventually end up in Roman hands during the Punic wars. At about the same time (it is so-far established) Wootz was being produced in Sri Lanka and Southern India. A display case in Bamburgh Castle in Northumberland shows two fragments of sword blades: one using a twisted pattern-weld and the other a herringbone weld. Both these blades were compliments of Viking attacks. The Vikings copied techniques descended from the Celtiberians. We could have learned from this science, but as far as I am aware, we didn't. That is my question: why? The Germans took advantage of the Christian crusades to discover the techniques of the Damascus version of Wootz. We were there too but didn't do the same... why? One point in mitigation is the property of the iron mined in the hills around Solingen and processed in Remscheid, which contained high amounts of Manganese and produced superior results to the iron mined around Shotley Bridge for example which was detrimentally high in sulphur. For the most part, England used Bar Iron from Sweden, but had also used iron from other European locations until wars prohibited this. Is it possible that the availability of good iron was out-weighed by the ready availability of fine blades: i.e. why import the raw material when you can import the finished product? Incidentally, charcoal produces a higher temperature compared with coal; but Queen Elizabeth had restrained the destruction of our forests: the ratio of trees to quality iron was tragic. The world history of iron and steel fills shelf after library shelf of literature and is only undertaken by time-rich, totally dedicated souls. I have more books on the iron and steel industry than I do on the sword industry and yet I barely scratch the surface. All of the above is presented for scrutiny and correction where necessary.