I was sort of half watching a show today about King Arthur. It was basically trying to separate fact from fiction and find out which aspects of the story were based on fact. When it came to the part about Arthur pulling the sword from the stone, it tied that with the notion of pulling an iron sword from a stone mold. This kind of bothered me, as I always thought that swords during the Dark Ages were constructed by pattern welding. Was casting a common method of production as well, or did this show just have its facts all screwy?

-JM

Thanks Jean. I figured that was the case, considering what I already knew about casting and metallurgy. It makes you wonder where that show was getting its facts. The name of the show was "Is It Real?" on the National Geographic channel. You'd think NG would have access to historians who actually knew what they were talking about. The other weapon related portion of the show discussed how Arthur came upon Excalibur. The theory there was that many weapons belonging to kings and warriors were throw into lakes or rivers after their deaths as tribute to pagan water deities. That at least seemed plausible.

But since we're on the subject, what could be the historical basis, or plausible reason behind the bit about Arthur pulling the sword from the stone? Might be cool if we can get a decent discussion about that part. Thoughts...?

What it might be is that the origin of the story had to do with a bronze blade being pulled out of it's stone mold and got changed into iron or steel in the retelling. I don't know if "way back then" in Europe that anyone had the ability to make a forge that would generate the temperature needed to melt Iron. I would also question whether or not the stone use for the molds would stand up to having molten iron or steel poured into them. I know that modern steel starts out being cast into molds but my understanding is that it has to be run through a rolling mill to refine the grain as well as draw it out to a usable shaped bar. The rolling out would be a type of forging.

I actually heard that the "Pullin the Sword from the Stone" started as a metaphorical statement. King Arthur buit his kingdom with Excalibur, but I heard that the stone reffered to the Bible. During the telling of the story, it changed from a metaphorical sense to a more literal sense.

I can't remember where I heard that. I'd love to hear other theories too.

Do you mean to tell me that Sauruman's Uruk-Hai didn't really make their swords from pouring molten metal into molds?

I am disillusioned..... ;)

Terry

If, as some research suggests, Arthur was a Roman Cavalry commander, his sword would probably have been a steel spatha.

I've always suspected the 'drawing the sword from the stone' was a reference to forging (i.e:drawing) a sword from a stone (ore, or meteor).

I figured it was just a euphemism for honing military training, similar to "a diamond in the rough" being a euphemism for finding a good thing in a sea of bad.

M.

It would be interesting to find out when the drawing the sword from the stone bit became part of the story, was it always there or did it get added on later? From what I understand most of what we recognize has Arthurian legend is descended from welsh Arthurian legend (which is supposedly somewhat different) as passed down by the french and anglo-norman authors who took a liking to it. It would be interesting to find out if the sword in the stone bit is included in these legends as well or if it is absent.

Then again I could have got my facts wrong.

Or Durendal?