Hello all.

I have a few thoughts and i am curious for anyone's opinion. It's always good to draw out violent opinions!!! I have read many posts on many different websites and I see things like "51 HRC, I wouldn't use a sword like that, it's useless". It seems that period blades had low hardness levels based on research, inconsistent steel composition, unknown composition for the maker, slag inclusions, etc... yet these blades were most surely useful to their owners. With composition/quenching/tempering being a black art in the day, I wonder which I would prefer to take into a fight. I think I'd rather settle for a slightly softer sword that wasn't going to shatter at the first contact with a shield. Even a nicely annealed blade will take off a limb. Granted, today with modern science, temp controlled ovens, and steel that has a known quality and composition, a quenched and tempered or austempered blade is ideal, (austempered I think is best actually) but there seems to be a lot of "rockwell snobbery" floating around.

No offense meant to anyone, I am genuinely interested in the various opinions, as I have been known to be wrong...yes, it does happen from time to time.

Have you checked out Craig Johnson's excellent article? Sword Blade Hardness: A look at the current research

Yep, that's part of what got me thinking about this topic. We are so far removed from the days these weapons were used, it's hard to even understand the needs of the medieval sword user.