I have a question: What is the right thickness for the edge of a blade.
This for different needs.

Collection or cutting = sharp
Sparring = 1.5mm or 2 mm
Tough fight re-enactor = 3.5 mm or 4mm (for re-enactors who do not use technical)
Is correct what I wrote?
Your suggestions will be much appreciated.

Thanks in avance.
Maurizio

P.S. sparring and stage combat are the same thing??

For a quality blade with a proper heat treatment 3mm can be sufficient for a blade that is meant to be abused.

Otherwise i agree with your statement as a general overview.
But like Jean said, sharp covers a wide variety of cutting ability.

2-2,5 mm for a reenactment sword is plenty, as said above. I've also seen people abuse swords to such a degree that the edge was unservicable and unfixable, but that just means those in question need to review their fighting style... A 4 mm edge would quite likely lead to a heavier sword as well, with a larger impact area, which might be a hazard for other fighters...

I really like the same edge thickness for reenactment and sparring swords, 2-2,5 mm is a good, safe allrounder.

Johan Schubert Moen

Some very thick edges can still take a lot of damage if the edges are very squared off instead of being very rounded: The corner even if the form a 90 degree angle with the flats of the blade are subject to notching nut rounded edges will only dimple a bit if hit very hard.

Dear Maurizio,

On Wednesday 5 August 2009, you wrote:

P.S. sparring and stage combat are the same thing??

No. Sparring--a word I dislike, by the way, as I think it gives a false impression of the activity it's used to describe--is free play or unconstrained fencing, typically done with safety equipment such as masks and fencing jackets. It's scherma with historical weapons. Stage combat is for the theatre, and is often much more like re-enactment combat, especially in the damage it does to weapons, than it is like free fencing.

I hope that this proves helpful.

Best,

Mark Millman

Thickness is not the whole story. Normally there are several deliberate combined angles (possibly we mean hemispherical radius for safety in this case) in an edge when looked at under a microscope. The knife maker Jay Fisher has some pretty good diagrams of these angles on his web site. The overall blade edge geometry (hollow, flat, tapered, "axe grind" etc,) choice largely dictates how much material will be lost, and how much effort required in subsequent resharpening or repair. I often get very wicked slices on my hands from handling wooden boards, 3/4" thick (~20mm) that have very sharp 90 degree corners after they come off my planer and joiner. Fairly good hunting knifes that are not hollow ground may also fall within most of the original proposed categories until you start looking at that last 2 to 3 mm near the actual honed cutting edge.

My first sword purchase was a 1st Generation Crecey Grete that I requested blunted. It was shipped with a roughly 1.5 mm diameter radiused- rebated edge. This would not easily slice skin in low pressure drawing, but could cut a variety of hard and soft test targets surprisingly well when attacked deliberately.

I would say that in a blade intended to be a "safe blunt", you need to put in similar deliberate maintenance as you would a "real cutter" to ensure that it stays nicely radiused at the edge. Otherwise, you may soon have a vicious serrated killer!

Now, I have clear the difference between sparring and stage combat in your language. Thank you.

For the thickness of the blade, I knew that round the edge is better.

Some of you have said that make blades with thickness from 3.5mm to 4 mm makes heavy swords and ugly. Mr JG Elmslie says: "european sword is a metal club." This is true.

From your answers I thought of other things.
Here, other considerations:
1) in a combat theater, I have a blade with 2 mm thick, my opponent with a blade 4 mm. thick. Both blades have rounded edges. My blade suffers more damage. The conclusions of my opponent are the best sword is the one with 4 mm thick. This is not true, but the majority thinks so. Perhaps for these groups, there is a lack of education about what is a sword.

2) The weight of swords with different thicknesses are different. Who is ahead, the sword heavier or lighter than the sword? I think the impact of the heavy sword, but the speed of a light sword. Think of a fight in the Middle Ages.

3) It seems that the quality of steel is inversely proportional to the needs.
Collection = average steel-carbon
Fencing as WMA = steel high-carbon
Combat theater = special steel

4) the cost of a sword is a safety for the sword itself, the greater the cost, most will be the trick to not damaging.

Educate me, please.
Maurizio

Dear Jean,

average carbon-steel, I want to say a percentage from 0.40 to 0.60.
A steel with those percentages provides a good hardening.

Well, I think the costs.
steel with a medium or high carbon content is hard in its natural state about 23-25 HRC.
A special steel,in its natural state, can be tough 37 HRC.

Working on the machine tool becomes much longer as the hours worked, for a special steel.
Even the performances are very different.

This is the reason for different steels, but I can make mistakes.
Perhaps for the swords do not need to use these steels.

I agree with you, Jean, is better than guard and pommel are of good steel.
The vibrations = movement
The movement = wearing

Best
Maurizio

P.S.
Dear Jean,
I want to promote you like my tutor for English. You have an insight in understanding my bad English that others do not. :) ;) :p
Perhaps you know the French language, this helps you.
The structure of the French and Italian languages are similar.

Sirs-First and foremost, I have always understood that the shield was used to pary. Second, if you HAVE to pary with the blade, it was done with the flat of the blade NOT the edge. That's why blade flats on a well used original blade are scrached up