Although I realise that generalisations are generally incorrect, I would like to ask this question, and it requires some generalisations.

Regarding blade steels for (let's say) a medieval sword, I think that it is reasonable to say that a modern blade made of springsteel hardened in a modern manner, as done by most of the reputable modern swordmakers, is superior to the average quality blade of say 1100-1200 A.D. I know that some medieval sword blades were actually quite good, but I think that it is fair to call most of them "servicable" from a modern standpoint. And given the advances made in metallurgy the last few centuries, I think it's only logical.

But I don't want to start a discussion about the quality of medieval steels, however interesting.

The question I want to ask the general sword-buying public is:

"If it was possible to make a sword out of authentic bloomery iron, for the same price as one made of modern spring steel, would you buy it?"

In my opinion, the trade-off here is historical authenticity, which in this case is even very difficult or impossible to see, vs. performance. So, what do you think?

Certainly I would!

I have interest primarily in authenticity and my interest in performance flows only as it relates to the original weapons. I appreciate the organic feel and dynamic effect of the historical specimen and really don't care much for swords designed to be "cutters".

Of course this scenario is absolutely unrealistic but an interesting question nevertheless.

Jeremy

Absolutely. I would really enjoy exploring performance, handling, etc. in a weapon made with period materials.

For the exact same price? Yes, I absolutely would. I want my swords to be as close to the originals as humanly possible, as my main purpose in collecting is gaining a better understanding of historical weapons, not of modern ones. I just have to content myself with modern ones because antiques are so expensive. :)

I have 70 kg of siderite waiting to be roasted and a museum has granted me a place to have our bloomery built.

I would make a sword out of this new iron but i wouldn't use it if not for experiments.

I do not think it could be sold at teh same price. To make bloomery iron the ancient way one has to work a real lot.

one of my biggest gripes about some modern sword makers is that it seems like they believe they can design and make a better sword than the folks who made them for people who used them when their lives were on the line. I would much rather have a piece made with quality period-like materials and design than one with the latest and greatest alloys designed by someone who has little to no knowledge of the use of a sword beyond test cutting.

but that is because my goal isn't to cut tatami today (though I do)... it is historical combat, equipment and culture.

I would perhaps have one or two in my collection but would not necessarily prefer it over swords made from modern steel with good heat treatment. The material itself is not the whole picture for me, though, if one is going to this extent for authenticity. Should one who is having such a blade made insist that it be forged using a medieval-style forge and hammer and anvil, or perhaps more properly a water-powered tilt-hammer? With the temperatures judged by eyeball for the heat-treating?

Considering I've already paid more for tamahagane-made nihonto than for modern steel Japanese-style swords... I guess the answer is yes.

At that price, it'd be worth getting at least two - one with "authentic" fittings, as a wallhanger, and one perhaps skimping on the fittings, scabbard, etc to do some potentially destructive playing around with. Just how bendy are "bendy Celtic swords"? Is an iron sword "better" than a bronze one? How well does it play with armour? While these would be worthwhile questions to answer in a serious controlled way, they would also be fun questions to explore in a less serious and fun way [1]. After all, who hasn't hit old computer cases or whitegoods with swords and polearms of various types, just to see what happens?

[1] And it doesn't matter if the question has already been seriously answered well already (e.g., iron vs bronze), it can still be fun and educational.

I vote maybe because a tremendous amount depends upon what ores, impurities, alloying elements are present, and how the bloom is worked after the initial smelting. Historically, superior sources of cakes and bars of tool grade ores were recognized and sought for international export. Equipped with modern chemistry and knowledge of how to refine it, someone like Patrick Barta can make acceptable blade steel themselves. (Some nice photos of smelting his own are on the Temple web site actually.)

Well, if it looks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck then, its a duck. My gut feeling is that most of the swords discussed on this forum are probably wildly better than the ones they're patterned upon. Steel and metallurgy is so much better than it was even a couple of hundred years ago that there is really no comparison. If the guys who lived and died by their swords were around today what do you think they'd choose? As long as it looks and feels right for the appropriate time period it only makes sense to get the best and most reliable sword you can.

I second what Ken just said...

The reason that the alloys used in historical blades got better and better as time went on is because the warriors and smiths of the time were always trying to IMPROVE what they had. Make it better. Further the technology.

Look at the difference between the swords used 2000, 1000, 500 years ago, and then at a late-19th Century Saber...

We even have awesome man-made materials to make practice weapons out of in the early 21st. Near shatter-proof, flexible, light, awesome... Armour can even stop bullets these days! And bullets move faster than they used to! "Stab-proof Vest" - Speaks for itself...

OK... Ability to take punishment is one of the biggest challenges to a swords used in combat. Does everyone agree?

Now, does everyone agree that modern materials are better at this than those used 1,000 years ago?

We shouldn't let the fact that a sword is now no longer a primary combat weapon and dueling is banned force us to stop developing improvements in design and materials, I think. As long as they really ARE improvements... Imagine what the materials will be like in the future. And I'm pretty sure the overall best design for each job a sword does hasn't been found yet, despite the millions of attempts.

What the initial hypothetical fails to address is the quality of the finished bloomery blade. In fact it tends to imply a merely "servicable" blade from bloomery iron. At the end of the day I'm not sure I'm willing to pay for that novelty if there is a significant quality gap in the final products. If the end result of ALL things are equal, sure, why not. However, this hypothetical does not seem to imply equal outcomes which can alter the equation in my eyes.

Personally it would depend on what I wanted the sword for. If I wanted to see how the weapon would perform when struck against shields, armour, etc., then I would need the sword to be made from bloomery iron and forged in a traditional manner. If I wanted a sword that closely resembled period equivalents in appearance then bloomery iron would be needed. If I just wanted a sword that handled like "period" equivalents (right weight, balance, etc) then I wouldn't really care what it was made from. If I wanted a sword to train and practice in a martial art then I think I would prefer modern steel and modern heat treatments.

In my mind, performance and quality has always vastly outweighed "historicality," so I'm going to have to say no to this.

I'm going with yes, YES and OH GOD YES :) . Even without the same cost, I still plan on getting one so at the same cost...yeah sign me up hehe.