Hej everyone,

I would like to ask you for your knoledge and experience...

Knowledge:
As far as I am aware the european people used damascus steel (they made by themselves) in ancient, dark and early mediavel times ..
Do you know of some (ancient, early mediavel) weapons made of wootz steel from these times?
- I mean the steel they really made themselves (not imported) ....and preferably from Viking period.. :-)

Experience:
What are your experience of using Damascus (or Wootz) steel weapons compared to standard steel weapons?
- I mean the use in training, duels, battles, in woods or real work ... not just by looking at it and holding it in hand while doing nothing :-)
- different behaving, higher / lower endurance, breaking limits, tendency to rust etc.

thank You :-)

p.s. web pages (and videos) I found about making WOOTZ STEEL (in english) - to better describe wootz matter: http://provos.org/

If by "Damascus", you "pattern welded" and/or "folded" or "piled", then, yes, that was common in ancient Europe, and was still being done into early modern times.

If by "wootz", you mean crucible steels, then many of the Ulfberht Viking swords appear to be crucible steel (low slag content, high and relatively uniform carbon content). But the steel is suspected to be imported from Central Asia; the swords to be Frankish. I don't know of any crucible steel being made in Europe before the 18th century.

As for performance, the main folded steel weapons I've cut with extensively are actually sanmai construction ("three plate"), with a non-folded steel sandwiched between folded steel sides. The non-folded steel forms the cutting edge, so I can't comment on the edge-holding of the folded steel. But this kind of construction lets you use very hard steel for the edges while avoiding brittleness in the main body.

As for antiques, I've seen folded steel weapons that have suffered damage like bent tips, cracked edges, etc. and remained functional. The folding helps stop crack propagation - cracks grow until they reach a fold, and stop. The composite construction pattern welding allows can result in tougher weapons. However, welding flaws can weaken the blade. This isn't so bad, since the pattern welding is usually done in such a way so that welding flaws aren't fatal to the blade (e.g., welds running parallel to the edges, along the blade, rather than across it).

I have a couple of folded steel knives that a more prone to rust than I'd expect if they were a typical carbon steel. I don't know the alloys used in the folded steel. It's also possible that the sheaths are to blame, not the steels.

The carbon content of crucible steels/wootz could be very high, sometimes well over 1% carbon. Carbon contents of 1.3% or so makes for very hard knife blades, with superb edge retention. Good for kitchen knives, but they can be prone to chipping due to brittleness.

As for wootz swords, I have heard of people accidentally breaking antique wootz blades by dropping them. Depending on the heat treatment, wootz swords can be brittle. (Often, they were air cooled rather than quenched, to avoid brittleness. They could still have good edge retention due to the carbides in the blade.)

A. Williams, "A metallurgical study of some Viking swords", Gladius 29, 121-184 (2009) classifies 9 swords as made from crucible steel, and another 5 as possibly made from crucible steel. His entire Group A (spelling of +VLFBERH+T) are either crucible steel or possibly crucible steel, all 14 out of 14. None of the other 30 swords analysed were crucible steel. 44 sword were analysed.

So 9-14 out of 44. If 14, then that's all of the +VLFBERH+T swords, and about 1/3 of all Ulfberht swords, if the 44 swords analysed are representative of Ulberht swords overall.

The crucible steel Ulfberhts are more likely to have snapped blades - more brittle can make a difference in practice.

I would say wootz and bulat (both crucible steels with unusual non-equilibrium phases depending upon forging and handling, as opposed to piled and pattern welded sword construction) are relatively similar if we are trying make a general classification. Wootz and Bulat swords are identified in materials or metallurgy research articles. Bulat may come up in Slavic or Russian examples, and is stated as having been known during medieval/ crusade era. There was a resurgence in the Bulat technique, although I don't know if the more modern material can easily be compared with pre- 15th century material. You can find researchers stating swords made of "bulat" from 15th through 19th century era fairly easily though. I believe Verhoeven studied and entire collection of Russian bulat material swords and compared them with wootz.

It is well known that in the very early centuries the Indians exported tons of wootz ingots to countries like Italy, Egypt and the Arabian countries - likely to east Africa as well, as they has colonies there.
It is also well known that the Vikings had trade routes to Rome and other coultries in that area, so they may have used Indian wootz ingots for their weapons.

Or more directly from Transoxiana, which had a large crucible steel industry at that time. Given that the Vikings were trading around the Don bend (i.e., where the Don and Volga rivers near each other, just north of the Black and Caspian seas), and raided in the Caspian Sea, that would be a more direct source. That trade would go through Scandinavia, and from there to the rest of Europe, which might explain why Ulfberht swords are concentrated in Scandinavia (while other Viking swords are much more pan-European).

[ Linked Image ]
Here is a wootz Persian tulwar. The owner remarked that the blade has a fine contrast wootz pattern on its blade (closeup below).
[ Linked Image ]