Posts
The tachi was the primary combat sword of the Samurai until the 15th century.
The tachi and o-katana are even different enough from a katana to get different stats in GURPS.
"Katana" in Low-Tech is actually a tachi or o-katana.
"Late-Katana" is the shorter side-arm sword, or a true katana.
Ayup. And then there's the question as to how well the tachi and the katana work against armored and unarmored opponents, versus a straight-blade.
ReplyDeleteSo many people think Japanese weapons are steel light-sabers, when they're really just made of poor quality ore that's been beaten to death and beyond, at a time that 'barbarian' Scandinavians were putting out highly technically advanced blades that would have been the wonder of the world if anyone was paying attention. Damned Victorian historians screwing everything as usual.
I'd have to disagree with you on those last points. Personally, I've been feeling that Japanese weaponry are experiencing an "over correction" of sorts among the HEMA community. Sometimes, with misinformation intertwined with the whole thing.
DeleteThere's also arguments to be made about crucible steel and how they compare to bloomery steel and such. Especially regarding how crucible steel is kind of mythologized nowadays.
I'd suggest checking out this guy's blog: http://gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2018/02/iron-and-steel-technology-in-japanese.html
--Jack
Ulfberht swords are metallurgically impressive by even modern steel standards.
DeleteCrucible steels ARE better than bloomery, No myth.
The introduction of crucible steel ended the use of bloomery steel and pattern welding as fast as smiths could learn the methods. It took a while because it was a huge market advantage in knowing the secret.
Almost forgot about this, but I'll present you the points against crucible steel.
ReplyDelete1.) Since it has no inclusions, crucible steel performs better in terms of fracture toughness. However, since it was ultra-high-carbon steel, it was also quite brittle due to it's carbon content (examples range around 1.4-1.6%). This was really good for small tools in the 19th century, but not so much for implements taking on high impacts such as swords.
2.) Swords made with crucible steel got around this by annealing or leaving out heat treating entirely. These usually didn't exceed 25 units Rockwell, and would be similar to mild steel.
3.) It isn't friendly to heat treatment due to it's carbon content. (Exceptions include a few Syrian and Persian blades.)
4.) Crucible steel tends to have high levels of phosphorus and sulfur. These two contaminants are the worst elements to have in your steel. The methods involved producing a sword doesn't remove these than if you were with the bloomery method. Since the crucible is essentially a pressure cooker, those two elements along with various gasses produced in the crucible are contained and penetrate the material of the steel. The resulting pattern of a sword is attributed the high phosphorus content.
5.) Crucible swords tend to be 'cold-short' because of the high amounts of phosphorus contaminating the steel. This issue's mentioned by Ibn Hodeil, where he writes: "The Arabs claim that the fabrication of (Frankish swords) is the work of Genies. They are more resistant to blows one gives with them even during cold weather, while the hindy (wootz) sabre often breaks when the weather is cold...".
6.) This one's going off of memory, and I can't remember this point exactly, but I remember reading on how the qualities of 17th century European swords compared to crucible swords in India in terms of flexibility.
Now for that last part, it didn't really end the use of bloomery steel. It only did so when certain factors are taken into consideration. Regions that lacked wood and sufficient iron supply such as those in the middle east tended to import crucible steel since it was cost effective. Places such as China continued to work with bloomery steel, and so did much of Europe. It wasn't until recently that Europe had interest, but mostly for tool steel. For secrecy, I'm uncertain of, but I do know that there are period texts that describe the many ways of producing crucible steel. If I remember, the "secrecy" of crucible steel was probably a myth sprouted in recent times. I might have to check on that again.
--Jack