Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
Yes, but do you mean by that that period carburised iron would make better armour than the best modern steel or that a test with modern steel won't tell us what would have happened with the period material ? |
Hi Jean,
If I may, I think one of Dan's points is that modern steel, being different, will have different properties when reacting to various types of damage. The problem with saying modern steel is "better" is that we assume this means better at everything. Is it? I doubt it, but I'm no expert. It could very well be that modern steel is cheaper, more homogenized, easier to obtain, and easier to work, making it "better" for all modern purposes. But is it "better" for taking impact? Is it better for keeping a certain hardness? Maybe, maybe not. All I can say is that it's definately different, and by being different, it distorts the results. Maybe the distortions don't matter, maybe they're incredibly important. I don't know that either.
Another aspect of period metal vs. modern: Period armours are usually not the same thickness throughout. They were forged to shape, with certain areas being thicker than others. Most modern armour is of the same thickness more or less throughout because modern steel is generally available in sheets of specific gauges. I'm quite certain there are a number of other irregularities that distort modern armour vs. antiques.
Like I said, maybe these distortions make a difference, and maybe they don't. But we have to accept that exist, and for an experiment to be accepted as scientific it needs to minimize as many of these distortions as possible.