[Bill Grandy]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Craig Johnson]

Hello All

Thank you for your kind words about the article. It was a subject that I have spent a lot of time looking into and must acknowledge all the authors who did the testing and research. I was just a metal geek who tracked down the articles. It is a very interesting subject to me and one that I think has been greatly misunderstood over the years.

Jean had some excellent questions. From the research, I would conclude that the hardness variability was a material issue in most cases. There are obvious constructions that put material that is easier to harden on the edges in some pieces but the hardness attained in these pieces, on average, is still less than what is often stated as "the average" medieval sword in these same edges. One aspect of our reaction to these numbers may well be a byproduct of our modern concept to push the envelope design wise. It is our own perceptions that key in on numbers like 50 Rc as a ?good hardness? in the period they would have had no way to consistently test such a thing or even to have had meaning for them. It is our desire to say that a product should have a consistency that is testable that leads us to a number being important.

This bears out most strongly in the point the Richard commented on , the period swords with no heat treatment. They are specifically not put through this process and still are seen as a product acceptable at some level in the market. There are to many of these and to far flung in location to say that they would all be due to some anomaly or post period conflagration. It is important to recognize that heat treatment was a choice and one that was sometimes seen as not worth the effort, whether due to circumstances or material.

I will be happy to try and answer any questions that may arise.

Best Regards
Craig

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!

[Craig Johnson]

Hi Richard

These are interesting examples. It is one of the aspects of the historical pieces that I will often find people not willing to believe.

In fact you have stated it very nicely

[Jeffrey Hull]

This commentary is in regards to the article at this website entitled Sword Blade Hardness by the esteemed & skilled Craig Johnson of Arms & Armor.

An interesting article. CJ provided us much helpful technical information. His sources are reputable. Kudos to CJ.

However, some things seemed questionable to me:

(1) A very small & anecdotal sample was utilised to reach some general conclusions:

The number of swords tested is not statistically significant when compared to the number of swords made over the historical period...These blades do show that the working range of blades exhibited by this sample were different then the oft-declared "average medieval blade". It leads one to consider that we may be too focused on certain numbers when looking at what makes a sword.

(2) Sorry, but the Fechtbuecher evince that the fencers of the 14th to 16th Century expected certain similar things that I expect from a sword -- as proven to me by their own words and by my own martial arts praxis -- hardness, resilency, unified quality of design. I would daresay that if the material hardness alone were the only consideration, then all the owners of the the blades sampled would have chosen their respective blades to be equal in their harness spectrum to Blade L or Blade J -- I mean, who would not? Of course, that was not the only consideration either then or now. But given a choice, certainly a swordsman would want his blade to be quite hard.

The attributes the period customer and maker felt were important may have been different than our own.

(3) The goal of the article was unclear -- was it meant to cast doubt on the skills, workmanship and materials of all the smiths of ye olden tymes; or was it meant to tout the modern makers as superior craftsmen using materials that are scientifically definable as superior; or conversely was it meant to allow modern makers an excuse for a lower standard of quality; or was it meant to characterise all modern sword-owners as nothing other than consumers & collectors who never have any desires or values that correlate with sword-owners of the historic past?

(4) There was no example of any 14th Century blade tested. Such would have been nice.

I should thank Craig Johnson for any helpful reply that he may make to my commentary.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Hull

[Chad Arnow]

Jeffrey,
Thanks for the post. I hope Craig will chime in. As an editor of this piece, I've read it several times and think it's a great piece. I believe one of his main points was that our modern preference for a thoroughly hardened blade somewhere near 50 RC may not be in line with our ancestors.

A small sample set was indeed used because that's what the data is available for. A 14th century example would indeed have been nice, but you can't report on data not available to you. This kind of testing is not easy (can be destructive) on antique blades and museums may simply be unwilling to damage their expensive investments for the sake of tests of that nature. This kind of analysis is pretty new as well. Perhaps data will become more available over time.

Please also note that the article title bore the words "The current research" not "the final word" or something similarly concrete. Research is fluid and what we know now (or think we know) could al be swept away with a single discovery.

Do we know for a fact that period swordsmen wanted their blades "quite hard?" And what, metallurgically speaking, does "quite hard" mean? I'd love to see your references for that. Perhaps blades of lesser hardness would take less (or a different kind of) damage when struck.

The bottom line is that, whether medieval smiths truly understood metallurgy or not, they had a practical knowledge we modernites have barely scratched the surface of.

Nowadays we may prefer one set of parameters, but the admittedly scant data available shows that our preferences may be different than those of our ancestors. Our ancestors did the best they could with the materials and technology available. They had to: lives depended on it more so than they do now.

I believe the article was meant to open minds to things like the following:
-The available data (this is a key point) indicates that our modern preferences and modern makers' standards are different than period examples
-There is more research to be done
-Many makers tout their "numbers" which many customers cling to. Both maker and customer should be careful to look beyond the numbers to what a good sword really means. There's more to a quality weapon than shear numbers.

I don't think he's disparaging makers of old. I feel it's pretty complimentary to them, actually. They had fewer resources, tools, and technology available to them than people do today, but they still provided weapons that did their job. They didn't have a Rockwell scale to test against or steel of consistent quality, but they got the job done.

[Bill Grandy]

[Craig Johnson]

Hello Jeff

Thank you for reading my article so carefully and I would be happy to respond to your queries.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Hello Craig:

Firstly -- my apology for the confusion of two posts -- the byzantine architecture of this forum & website made it seem that my first post had not appeared or had been deleted. I hope that the resultant simulacrum does not confuse others and distract from the topic. Onwards...

Now -- my thanks to you Craig for thoughtful and thorough answers to my commentary. I think now that I understand with clarity what you were striving to tell us all. The whole subject is fascinating -- it was cool that your article addressed it.


So anyway, I do reveal examples of what I mean regarding sword material & construction quality as per Fechtbuecher in two different written works that just recently I have finished. Such may not be revealed until published, so I will not reveal such at any online forum. Anybody who does want to read that just has to wait, or find it for himself in the Fechtbuecher.

Craig, please keep providing us with your scholarly investigations of metallurgy and craftsmanship.

Good luck,

Jeffrey

[Craig Johnson]

Hello Jeff

I am glad you found my responces helpful. I understand you do not want to lessen the impact of any information you are publishing with details, but I would expect it would do nothing but increase interest in your work to site the documents you have found said information in. It makes it difficult to carry on a thoughtful discussion of topics like this with out using the same information to base opinions on. I will gladly do the research to find the information but would need to know the sources you are quoting as I have not found the type of information you implied in the manuals I have searched.

Best Regards
Craig

[Jeffrey Hull]

Okay, gratitude to moderator for gathering the various related threads together here.

Craig: I shall reach you privately with information. Aside from my own self-interest of publishing, the interpretive requirements plus the number of sources to present does actually preclude posting at any forum -- for such ends up being a de facto article. So allow me some time to gather and lay out evidence, send to you, and then you may decide if you agree or not.

Good luck,

[G Roebuck]

Very interesting articles. Lots to digest. I love reading reviews. Keep up the good work!!