[David Sanford]

I know that the subject of comparing differnt manufacturers blades has been beaten to death on this forum. What i was wondering is what would level of quality would one expect the average foot soldiers sword to have been. I mean a suit of armor and a sword at the time was like owning a corporate jet and a sports car. If you were a lord outfitting an army of lets say 50 men with swords you might have a couple of smiths working for you on this job. Now are they going to make 50 differnt swords for your men? No theyd pick a simple design that was easy to produce. Not unlike what maufacturers do today. So is it always fare to compare an albion to a windlass in terms of quality? I mean from my limited reading i have come across stories in the viking sagas of men having to straighten their swords in battle or of them breaking. Now at this time they were most likely pattern welded iron or early attempts at steel . isnt our modern steel superior to that earlier metal? I mean hilt construction aside wouldnt a windless or a paul chen blade be of the same strength if not better then what your average viking or early medieval soldier took into battle. Have we got caught up in comparing swords based on the quality of the origional or what modern makers are capable now of producing? Its just my two cents but something that was keeping me up in bed thinking about.

[George Hill]

Hello David. Actually I suspect you are overestimating the value of these things, even though they were expencive. First, yes, these things were made in what we would consider a factory setup, (Though they did not have the idea of interchangable parts...) But the cost of a suit of armor was likely closer to that of a very nice car. High, but not unreachable for the middleclass.

Second, the quaility of the swords produced for a unit would have been realitive to what the man equiping the unit was prepared to pay. As to adverage quaility, I think it very likely would have been higher then what Windlass produces. Windlass tends to be low end, (though they do produce some good models.) Compare this to firearms. The Raven and the Loricin are very cheap, but infamous for jamming, whereas you can get a decent revolver for a bit more, or a very nice stock Glock for a bit more then that, or you can pay through the nose for a custom tuned 1911. The weapons issued to cops and soldiers tend to be well made 'stock' weapons, which can stand up to abuse.

But yes, they would all have about the same equipment, but without interchangable parts.

As to comparing a Windlass or a Paul Chen to an antique, the Antique, (when new) would be overwhelmingly better in every measureable way. (Possible exception for eastern blades where Paul Chen's people have more direct experince with the originals) This is because the whole thing is made by a master craftsman, who is interisted in not having a hardened soldier show up on his doorstep to kill him if the weapon fails, (And the shield doesn't.) This master also far better understands what he is trying to achieve then either Paul Chen (in the case of western blades) or Windlass. Albion has proven the tremendous importance of distal taper, which Paul Chen has yet to understand in the least. Samurai swords have no Distal taper, but it's tremendously important on western blades.

As to our steel being better, it can be, but are still re-learning what a sword ought to be, and aren't experimenting to find the idea alloy to create a sword. (Although some swords made by the best swordsmiths today may outperform the originals in some respects.) Tinker Peirce has produced swords which cut very well, and can flex like mad. I confess the idea of so much flex makes me think the wouldn't be stiff enough to fight with! (No offence to Tinker, I am most impressed with his ability as a bladesmith to produce exactly what he's trying to produce. I only mean to say that something that flexes so much is disconcerting to a poor laymen such as myself.)

If we had all the information, we could do this. There was a company planning to make a sword out of a new alloy devoloped for something like helocopter rotor gears, which they planned to call Dragon Slayer and to cut Katanas with it, but the progect never went forward. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.02/dragonslayer.html

[Chad Arnow]

David,
I'm no expert, but, in terms of raw materials alone, I think it's fair to say that what we have now is superior to what they had then. The carbon content in modern sword-making steels is higher and more uniform, and they are heat-treatable to better degree.

However, that's far from enough to say that modern implements are as good as, or superior to antiques simply because raw materials are more consistent and readily available. You said "hilt construction aside." We can't leave hilt construction aside, nor can we leave the many other elements of design that take raw materials and produce a workable weapon. Windlass, for example, may use a better blade steel than a smithy of 1400, but the smithy had a better understanding of how to produce workable weapons. Their livelihood and the lives of their customers depended on it. Windlass misses so many of the subtle, important details that go into making a quality sword. Raw materials alone don't make a good weapon.

There are historical reports of swords bending or breaking, just as there are modern reports. I'd guess that many of the historical reports are due to limitations in the materials and hard use when lives depended on it, where many modern reports of failure are a result of poor design and craftsmanship, not materials, or misuse.

Is it fair to compare Windlass to Albion, etc.? Of course, to a degree. We must keep in mind that they are built for different subsets of the market, with wildly different goals and R&D processes, as well as wildly different price points in manufacture and sale. But you can make valid comparisons when you note that they are intended for different markets and made to different standards.

George,
It's a fallacy to assume that each medieval sword was made by "a master craftsman." That implies a single smith made the weapon start-to-finish. That did happen sometimes. In many cases, though, blades were made in one of the centers of large production in Europe, then hilted by someone locally, and outfitted with grip and scabbard possibly by a third person. There was a fair amount of mass-production, as much as technology allowed. I will agree that the maker/cutler/finisher has no desire to see their customers die from using shoddy products.


In general, I'd think antique weapons were more functional than many low-end modern swords, because they had to be. We modern folks get to sit back philosophize about these things, while our medieval counterparts used them and relied on them for their lives and livelihoods. Antique sword-makers had practical experience from themselves and their customers. Modern makers like Albion, A&A, and Atrim study originals and talk to practitioners to get an approximation of the feedback and hands-on experience their medieval counterparts had. Most low-end modern swords aren't made for hard use and aren't designed with a great deal of care for functionality. Those makers also tend to spend less time studying antiques and less time getting real-world feedback from practitioners. That's the difference.

[George Hill]

[James Barker]

[Bruno Giordan]

[David Sanford]

Chad you make some very good points. I guess i got a little off topic in my initial post i have a tendency to do that i have the kind of mind that could meet itself in a maze im afraid. hehehee. I guess i was mostly inquiring about the metelurgical properties of our modern carbon steel vs dark age materials. Wouldnt it be a fair assessment thou to say i could take a cheap windlass sword blade that was tempered well with a decent sized tang and myself rework it to make a weapon that would be as durable if not with the same handling properties as one of ancient construction? Also as to what bruno mentions. Yes i am well aware of what wealthy merchants could afford but i think you are discussing something in a later time then what i had in mind. i was thinking post roman occupation of brittan to early medieval . I am well aware of what was being done in norther italy in later times having seena great deal of it in my travels throu that country as a young man. Truly there were some very wealthy and skilled peopel operating there in the later middle ages onward.

[Daniel J. Willis]

[David Sanford]

Yeah i understand the points you guys are making i guess id have to almost compare a specific example from history to a modern made one for it to be a fair comparison. Also i guess youd have to take into account the person using such a weapon . What might seem clumsy to you might be just right for me and so on. Truth be told if i was to go back in time id most likely be using some medium sized battle axe any way. One of those in my hands seems much easier to wield then any sword i have ever handled be it a cheap wall hanger to a 1000 + . But my post did give people the chance to post some good ideas and knowledge which was the main reason i did it anyway. thanks for all the feed back guys