Surprisingly, I don't see a thread on this so I am just going to ask.

Were Medieval European swords made from iron or steel? My knowledge on metallurgy is relatively limited, and mostly second hand information from The Arms of Krupp, which is about one of the leading steel producing families in Europe focusing mostly on both World Wars. My understanding is that steel production even into the early 1900's was "a fortuitous accident," as a friend of mine puts it. Most of the books on swords do not deal directly with material, and many, including Oakeshott in The Archeology of Weapons (I don't remember if it is the case with The Sword in the Age of Chivalry), use the two terms almost interchangably.

If any one has a book or article that provides this information, I would be very grateful if you would pass that information on to me. I am mostly interested in swords from 1300-1380, so this doesn't need to be a discussion of pattern welding, but I won't complain if I get so free info on that subject, too.

Thanks in advance.

-Grey

Hello Greyson


In the time frame of the 1300's I would say that it was not an accident for steel to be made. But rather the process was fraught with difficulty for higher grade steels to turn out consistently and that the raw materials were chosen and the processing was designed to maximize useable material for the purpose intended. The use of a steel/iron mix product in many weapons and armor is clearly seen throughout the medieval and renaissance period and the quality of the intended end product was also something that would dictate what any given artifact will exhibit today as far as its composition.

There are several articles that have been written on the composition of specific sword blades and Tylecote did a great deal of research into early iron/steel production that is interesting. The total amount of study into the metallurgy of swords in the middle ages is however not that great and there is definitely no consensus on the technology used or the abilities and consistency of the industry in general.

Regards
Craig

Hi Craig!

When I read this thread I thought "Craig's the guy to answer this one. "

Thanks for chiming in! :D

Thanks Craig,

That pretty much answers my question, though I would be curious to see how 14th century sword steel compared with the modern stuff.

Where can I find the articles that you mentioned? I am not familiar with Tylecote (Narrator: And he calls himself an historian...), what did s/he write, and is it still in print? If you (or anyone else) has any more specifics, I would love to know. Thanks again.

-Grey

Hello Greyson

I am fleshing out my answer with some sites and such I will try to get it up in a day or so.

Craig

Jeff,

Thank you. My current situation does not allow me access to any libraries at all, but since the Universities back home have online catalogs, I was able to check on A History of Metallurgy. My alma mater (where my brother and mother are both students, thus making it easier to get hte book) does not have it, but the university in the next town over does. I may have to just sit in the library and read it (that's how I read most of The Sword in the Age of Chivalry), or I might be able to call on a favour from a friend's sister.

Either way, thank you for the info. It may be a while before I have the resources at my disposal to answer all of my questions, but I appreciate you guys helping me figure out which resources I need.

-Grey

No problem. Glad to help in my own little way.

Here's an article worthy of your attention:
Swords of Iron Swords of Steel by Bruce Blackistone

This article has some really good information, however I think Mr. Blackistone made a mistake by only going back to the Romans. The Greeks used 'Iron' weapons that were usually the quality of mild steel as far back as the Persian Wars. Both Romans and Greeks got this technology from the Celts, however not all Celtic tribes were accomplished metal workers. As there are references to Celtic craftmanship, there are references to Celtic war parties and mercenaries using poorly made iron swords that would bend on first contact with enemy arms and armor.

To the Greeks, as the Romans, warfare was a way of life. They would not have traded 'quality' bronze weapons for a higher 'quantity' of poorly made iron weapons. Iron weapons of that period were of higher quality then the author has lead himself to believe. Bronze was available in quantity to the Greeks, as they made there helmets and greaves out of it, faced there shields with it and made there higher quality cuirass out of it. More telling they made there arrow heads out of bronze, not something you do with a finite resource. Though one would try to recover as many arrowheads as possible, they are still considered expendable. Iron armor wasn't unknown to the Greeks, as Mardonius, the Persian general at the battle of Plataea in 479 BC was reported as wearing a Iron Scale corslet under his tunic.

I should have known that Bruce would pop up. He has been known to contribute quite a bit on a couple of blacksmithing forums, but threads of this nature tend to get taken to scientific extremes that I can't understand.

For those who were commenting on critical thinking skills, and discriminating use of sources, here is a good example of a source that can be trusted. Bruce Blackistone holds a Ph.D. in metallurgy and is an active blacksmith. He makes quite a few blades (mostly knives, I think), and has produced a video on how to produce pattern-welded/damascus blades. This is not intended to be an advertisement for Bruce, but it does, I think offer an example of a place where critical thinking and caution can pay off.

I have been at work for 15 hours, and I need to eat, so I probably won't read that article until tomorrow. Nonetheless, I appreciate the help.

-Grey

I wasn't so impressed with that text (from a historical context at least)

Quote:

The reason for this [gap of written information] is that knowledge of smelting, forging and tempering techniques were important trade secrets to be kept within the confines of the family, guild or town. The market for a superior product could only be controlled if the resources and techniques were closely held

While there is a definite literary gap during the time period in question I think he goes too far to ascribe it to keeping things secret. The fact is that there is a gap in MOST areas of everyday life from that time period and there doesn't seem to be any one reason for it.

Quote:

STEEL: .04% (4 pts.) to 2.25% (225 pts.) carbon. Most modern steel runs from 20 point "mild steel" to 150 point "tool steel".

Also, interesting use of "points" of carbon. Perhaps there is difference between blacksmithing "points" (tenths of a percent) and metalurgical "points" (hundreths of a percent)?

Other than that everything seems to be pretty good.

Douglas,

When I click on that link I get a window saying that the server cannot be found. I'll keep trying, it may just be down at the moment. Thanks anyway.

Mark,

I didn't mean to ignore your comments yesterday. You have a good point. I was surprised to learn that one of the treasures mentioned in The Iliad was wrought iron. I don't know if that is misinformation propagated by a poor translation, or not, but, especially given what you said, it makes sense. Besides, I have trouble believing that one morning some guy woke up and said, "today is the beginning of the Iron Age, lets make iron stuff." I am sure that iron of various qualities and in various quantities was around, and in use for a decent portion of what we still call that Bronze Age.

Dan,

You have a good point, but I think that secrecy does play a certain part as well. Even today, many makers and manufacturers are not willing to share information. My father encountered this problem when he tried building a double rifle. People who knew how to do the work were not willing to share the information. He had to learn much of it the hard way (and subsequently wrote a book on it so that others do not have to reinvent the wheel). I guess my point is that, if information is not shared, it increases the chances of it getting lost, as has been the case. Thus both you and Bruce are correct, and secrecy, as well as an incomplete historical record are to blame.

Thanks again for the input and insights.

-Grey

Edited because, every time they make a fool-proof product (i.e. spell-check), they make better fools (i.e. me). :D

Okay, I finally got a chance to read Swords of Iron, Swords of Steel. I wish he were a little more specific on the dates that he is referring to with homogenous steel swords, but Bruce Blackistone does have some good information. He mentions that homogenous steel would have been about 60 points of carbon, which isn't that far (all things considered) from the 1075 (75 points of carbon) that some modern sword makes use.

I guess part of what this will make me have to unlearn is that belief that, historical smiths did not understand how to make steel scientifically, therefore they did not know how to make steel consistently. As Bruce points out, "Trial and error works even when you don't know why something works." I should know that from my own blacksmithing experience; I have in fact, said that same basic thing to others. My brother is fond of pointing out that, "Some old movies are black and white, and all penguins are black and white; therefore, all penguins are some old movies." Guess that will teach me to do my own thinking.

In an effort to get a better idea of what period is being discussed in the homogenous steel swords section, I looked up the Catalan forge. [url="http://www.davistownmuseum.org/toolPreBlastFurnace.html"]This site[/url] indicates that the Catalan forge was developed some time between the fifth and eight centuries, and that it had spread to other parts of Europe by the ninth century. That leaves a lot of room for experimentation, and refinement of the process before the turn of the 14th century, my stated era of interest. I don't know anything about the credentials of Douglas Alan Fisher, the gentleman who wrote the work reproduced on that site, but I would hope that a "Center for the Study of Early Tools," would be rather discriminating in the sources they cite. I also find it interesting to note that Fisher says that the English tended not to use the larger stückofen furnaces that were common on the continent. It seems fair to say that a larger capacity furnace would result in a greater quantity of good per batch, which might give the impression of greater consistency. For example; if you mix three gallons of paint in three 1-gallon cans, you will probably end up with three slightly different shades (or hues) of the same color (since paint mixing still seems to be one of those trial and error processes), but three gallons of paint mixed in two 1 1/2- gallon cans (if they even make such a thing) would only result in two variations on the color. The process is no more exact with a larger batch, but it appears to increase the chance of getting the color you want. This might explain why blades from Bordeax, France, were considered superior to native-made English blades during the course of the Hundred Years' War. If they used larger furnaces, they might easily have had larger batches of a given quantity of steel, and thus a more consistent product. This, of course, does not rule out the possibility of simple skill.

Despite the above pondering, I suspect that England had rather decent steel nonetheless. The wife of nearly every second Plantagenate King was a princess of Spain, and English-Spanish relations seem to have been quite good from the reign of Henry I until about the last quarter of the 14th century. I don't think that the little tiff at Navarre in 1367 helped to improve relations, though. In addition, Fisher credits the Cistercians with spreading the production of steel, and (if memory serves) there was a rather large influx of that monastic order during the reign of Edward I.

I am basically writing the answer to my own question here, but this way it is available if anyone else searches this forum looking for the same information.

In the words of the man who taught me to smith, "We have the technology!" Perhaps those words are more correct than he realizes.

I apreciate the help, and I fervently hope that you have helped more people than just myself in the process.

-Grey

Just a tidbit of info:

An archaeometallurgist (sp?) I know has analyzed slag excavated from sites of early iron production in the Lake Mälaren region of Sweden (this is a lake raching inland from Stockholm. An important highway in ancient times as water allowed easier transportation than overland.)
The slag showed the craftsmen produced carbon steel with a carbon content of about 0,6%. Good spring steel that is.
(I forge my tools and hammers of a steel with a carbon content of 0,5%. A 0,6% carbon steel is very cerviceable for making edged tools and eapons.)
The site was dated to the 7th C BC.
That is late bronze age...

Of course, not every craftsman knew all the ecrets and they did not have a scientific understanding of carbon content, but we can conclude form iron scrap and slag from sites of production, that they knewto tell the difference between pure iron, phosphorous iron and carbon steel already in the early stages of the iron age.

In those cases where we find steel weapons that have no traces of martensite, we must remember that in a low to medium carbon content steel of fine grain structure you will only have a very thin layer that forms martensite during quench. The core will be fine pearlite and bainite.
If the surface is eaten away by corrosion it will be difficult to tell to what degree the weapon was heat treated.
We can also not knwo if a weapon before an intentional deposit was ritually killed by heating (anealing).
We know this was sometimes done to bronze age blades before they were thrown in sacrificial waters.

The topic of steel and iron is very complex. It is impossible to find clear and straight lines of development of technology and knowledge.
This will always vary between different cutlures and within different strata of the same culture.
We can know that the use of what we recognize as steel was known at a very early date.
To what extent this knowledge was put to use and how widespread the knowledge was, is more difficult to tell.

Peter,

Thanks for the tidbit. Unfortunately, I am a historian, and a hobby blacksmith, not a metalurgist. Could you do me a favor and define "martensite," "pearlite," and "bainite?"

You are right that we will probably never have a perfect knowledge of the developement and use of steel producing technology, but I think I have learned that steel producion was not only possible during the medieval period, but was common and sufficiently reliable for quality weapon construction. I can consistantly make functional fire strikers from dump-rake teeth, but I do not know specifically what kind of metal they are or what temperature I am heating/cooling them to. I just know that you heat the suckers to a good orange color, and about the moment that they match the color of the coal in the fire, you whip them out, quench them in oil for 1.5 to 2 seconds, and let them air cool the rest of the way. Using that method, I can make a functional striker nine out of ten times. If that kind of process (i.e. "follow these steps, and it works, but we don't know why"), without scientific knowledge to back it up, was used to produce steel, it was still steel.

Thanks for all the help!

-Grey

Here is an article dealing with iron/steel production in the middle ages.

Alexi

Alexi,

Thanks for the article. That has some pretty interesting stuff, and deals with some things (like effeciency of steel production) that I had not put a whole lot of thought into. The focus of that article is a bit later than I am really interested in, but it is still valuable.

If any body finds any more information, feel free to pass it my way. Thanks once again, and have great day.

-Grey