[Michael F.]

Lately I've been thinking about how historical swords were constructed. In particular how they were peened. I've wondered, did smiths use the cold peening process, (possibly before grip was added to relieve stress?). Or hot peening process, which seems to be stronger. Medieval smiths did not have high powered blow torches (such as the ones used by Albion) to hot peen their swords. I've learned alot about grip construction via this site, but not alot about this subject. Also I am also quite curious as to how rivet blocks were put in place.

I've read that cold peening with the compression method is not accurate. Swords that have grips which are bored or burned through are, from what i have learned, historically accurate. This method makes it necessary to use a compression method because the grip needs to be put in place before the pommel. Plus, that sword could not be hot peened because the heat used would surely burn the grip, right? because they did not have blow/ welding torches to hot peen, if they did hot peen, what did they use? If I am totally off please tell me! Feel free to share knowledge and opinions.

Thanks!
Michael F.

[Shane Smith]

Just a note.Threaded pommels were used in period on occasion. The source text "Gladiatoria" bears this assertion out.

[Chad Arnow]

Michael,
Swords were certainly made with the compression method historically. Cold peening was also used. According to some smiths, some swords had tangs that were dead soft, non-heat-treated or more like iron than steel. A soft tang can be peened cold without cracking. I'd have to disagree with anyone who says that cold peening with the compression method is not accurate. It may not be ideal in some cases today, given the materials and methods used in some modern repros, but it is historic for certain periods and sword types.

Wedged components are historically accurate, as were components held together my pressure or compression. You could have a combination of things, too, which further muddies things up. The guard could be wedged, peened, or even shimmed into place. The grip could have been slipped on, then the pommel hammered down onto a slightly-oversized tang for a tight fit. A slip-on grip doesn't always equate to compression being the primary method of holding things firm.

A rivet block would slip over the part of the tang that sticks out of the end of the pommel. It would usually be held in place through compression. Its purpose is both decorative and functional. If you need to dismount the sword, just file off the peened part. When remounting the sword, replace the rivet block with one slightly shorter. Otherwise you'd have to shorten the grip or something to get enough tang to re-peen.

It's hard to talk in absolutes on these things sometimes. Plenty of swords survive without their grips whose pommels and guards are not loose. You can also find many surviving examples that are loose, too. That, to me, shows that both methods were used.

[Nathan Robinson]

You can't make broad sweeping generalized statements about what is and is not historically accurate. Everything depends on the time of the piece, the place it was made/used, the type of weapon it is, and perhaps even the ability or preference of the maker. Generalized statements simply do not work in this case.

[Michael F.]

[Nathan Robinson]

[G. Scott H.]

[Nathan Robinson]

[Risto Rautiainen]

Regarding the question about hot peening... Although the medieval smith didn't have welding torches, I believe it could be done. A few years ago in a discussion with a blacksmith I found out that the smith I talked to had been an apprentice to a smith who had such a forge that he could direct the heat very acutely producing fire that was almost blowtorch like. It could be done by building a potlike fire in the forge sand and making the opening hole for the "pot" quite small. IIRC they used this technique to forgeweld broken bicycle frames back together.