Steel flow?

[Cactus Wren]

In another forum, as part of a posting debunking fantasy-novel tropes about swords and swordfighting, someone claimed that "Steel swords don't last eleventy thousand years at the bottom of some ancient ruin", because:

Steel is actually an extremely slowly flowing liquid, like glass.

Do I even want to get within ten yards of this thread?

No, you don't. Steel doesn't even share glass's amorphous properties - depending on how it's solidified, it's got a definite crystaline structure.

Steel will oxidize. Given enough time, it'll be gone, but it won't flow or even deform under its own weight. Most fantasy swords buried at the bottom of ancient ruins aren't steel anyway, they're Orihalcum, Mithril, Adamantium, Eternium, or some other fantasy metal, and usually enchanted on top of that. They can last eleventy thousand years at the heart of the sun without breaking the internal logic of the story.

[Troberg]

No, you don't. Steel doesn't even share glass's amorphous properties - depending on how it's solidified, it's got a definite crystaline structure.

Steel will oxidize. Given enough time, it'll be gone, but it won't flow or even deform under its own weight.

If given proper care, it will keep in shape just fine. A 500 year old sword that's properly taken care of is still as good as a sword produced yesterday, and in some ways even better, as some of the finer points of swordmaking are now lost.

[Casey]

Originally Posted by Troberg

If given proper care, it will keep in shape just fine. A 500 year old sword that's properly taken care of is still as good as a sword produced yesterday, and in some ways even better, as some of the finer points of swordmaking are now lost.

Very true. The grain structure of an old black-sand katana from the 15th Century is finer than anything that current smiths can produce. I've seen microscopic analysis of a broken katana from an archaeological dig, and it's incredible because the grain is so fine and tight.

Steel can "Flow" a little bit, if you count the relaxation of a burr. However, considering that the burr may be a few microns thick, gravity is the prime mover and not a characteristic of steel itself.

Steel is actually an extremely slowly flowing liquid, like glass.

Glass is not an extremely slowly flowing liquid......

[threehead_99]

So one day back in Ye Olde Medieval Times, there was a blacksmith. Before Billy the blacksmith came along, all the swords were blunt objects with very sharp edges; not very good very thrusting with. One day, he made a large batch of swords, painted them, and hung them in his barn to dry. Then he got drafted for a war by the evil monarch King Louis Vitton. Years passed and he fought valiantly. The war ended with a victory for both sides somehow. When he went home to present his swords to his squires, he found that all the blunt edges had slowly flowed down into a nice, crisp point. After that, all swords were made in the same fashion. Although you won't read about Billy the blacksmith in history books, he was very real and very good at sword making. Remember, you read it first on Snopes.com!

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by threehead_99

. . . Although you won't read about Billy the blacksmith in history books, he was very real and very good at sword making. Remember, you read it first on Snopes.com!

Then there was the Japanese swordmaker, whose blades were so sharp... (How sharp were they?) ...When you poured water over the edge, oxygen went to the left and hydrogen went to the right.

Silas

[threehead_99]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

Then there was the Japanese swordmaker, whose blades were so sharp... (How sharp were they?) ...When you poured water over the edge, oxygen went to the left and hydrogen went to the right.

Silas

Oh geeze... if that guy was still around,it would tremendously help with hydrogen fuel cells. Was that supposed to be a reference to "the Match Game" the way it was laid out? Or am I just reading to much into the comment?

Either way, nicely done.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by threehead_99

. . . Was that supposed to be a reference to "the Match Game" the way it was laid out? . . .

Johnny Carson and Ed McMahon. (I think that's where the riff originated, but I don't know for sure.)

By the way, my joke is a "topper" for the older, more classical joke:

The great swordmaker could make a blade so sharp, that, when he placed it in a gently flowing stream, it would neatly slice in half any leaf, floating upon the water, that drifted across the edge.

But the greatest swordmaker could make a blade so sharp that it cut the leaves which drifted nearby the edge without actually touching it!

Silas

[Alchemy]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

The great swordmaker could make a blade so sharp, that, when he placed it in a gently flowing stream, it would neatly slice in half any leaf, floating upon the water, that drifted across the edge.

But the greatest swordmaker could make a blade so sharp that it cut the leaves which drifted nearby the edge without actually touching it!

The Japanese sword story is:

There were two swordsmiths, widely known as the greatest two swordsmiths alive. They happened to each be forging their masterpieces at the same time, in the same town, and each placed their finished blades, sharp side upriver, in the same small stream to cool after their final tempering.

A passing monk noticed all this as the two swordsmiths stood over their creations.

One swordsmith said, "Look, and see my sword. Everything in the stream - leaves, branches, small fish - is drawn toward it and sliced cleanly through. No sword has ever been this sharp. My sword is superior."

The monk noticed this and said, "That is true. But look upon the other sword. Everything in the stream - leaves, branches, small fish - present no aggression, so they are harmlessly directed around the edge and are not cut. That sword is peaceful. The other sword is bloodthirsty, and kills indiscriminately, and will corrupt its wielder with its ill will."

The story further indicates the "evil" swordmaker was Muramasa and the "good" swordmaker was Masamune. (Troublesome because they lived in completely different centuries.)

A swordmaker would of course never place his prize possession in an open body of water for any reason, but the story is not at all meant to be an actual event.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Alchemy: nah... Being peaceful, the second swordmaker merely put his sword into the water -- with the blunt edge upstream!

Silas

[Troberg]

Very true. The grain structure of an old black-sand katana from the 15th Century is finer than anything that current smiths can produce. I've seen microscopic analysis of a broken katana from an archaeological dig, and it's incredible because the grain is so fine and tight.

Add to that, that despite popular misconceptions, Japanese swords were inferior to the European swords.

Sure, the Japanese swords had an incredibly sharp edge, but you don't need such a sharp edge, you need a strong, durable edge, especially when fighting opponents in metal armour. The European swords where both stiffer when thrusting and less brittle. I've seen a European sword put in a vice and bent 180 degrees without breaking, and retaining just a slight bend when it was let go.

Then again, it's different circumstances that shaped the swords. Japanese armour, compared to European, was very much for show. The was no need for much force. On the other hand, battle was different in Japan, with the absent of pikes meant that there was little use for the big wavy-bladed flamberges (the wavy edge was to make it easier to catch the pikes, sweep them aside, step inside their attack range and attack the pike men before they had an opportunity to switch to a more suitable weapon).

The excessive folding of the steel was because Japan didn't have the technology for powerful kilns, so it was difficult for them to get an even carbon content and quality throughout the steel. Europe had no such problems, and could get away with fewer folds (or none at all). A European sword was typically made out of three ingots, one softer, more flexible for the spine, two harder for the edges.

See how much information you pick up when you have friends who are researchers of such things? Even better, I just love asking them which sword is best, a ninja sword or a laser sword, but then again, I'm evil!

[damian]

A sword is only as good as the hand that wields it.

[Alchemy]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Add to that, that despite popular misconceptions, Japanese swords were inferior to the European swords.

There is such a variation of style and quality that it's absurd to think you can say anything objective about every single sword ever forged in Japan and every single sword ever forged in Europe. The sword has never been a primary battlefield weapon for either group. Much of Europe and much of Japan created inferior sidearms for spearmen and exquisite dueling weapons for gentlemen-warriors.

Sure, the Japanese swords had an incredibly sharp edge, but you don't need such a sharp edge, you need a strong, durable edge, especially when fighting opponents in metal armour.

Most European swords are also ineffective against full plate armor, and mounted opponents, and pikemen, etc., which is why armies used pikes and polearms and other impacting and piercing weapons against strong opponents.

Then again, it's different circumstances that shaped the swords. Japanese armour, compared to European, was very much for show.

Similarly, it is absurd to think you can make an objective comparison between every piece of Japanese armor ever and every piece of European armor ever. There is a wide variation in quality and purpose.

The was no need for much force. On the other hand, battle was different in Japan, with the absent of pikes meant that there was little use for the big wavy-bladed flamberges (the wavy edge was to make it easier to catch the pikes, sweep them aside, step inside their attack range and attack the pike men before they had an opportunity to switch to a more suitable weapon).

The yari, a type of spear, was the primary weapon of the Japanese footsoldier for over a thousand years. The simplicity and utility of the long pointy stick is known to every culture.

The excessive folding of the steel was because Japan didn't have the technology for powerful kilns, so it was difficult for them to get an even carbon content and quality throughout the steel.

Folding the ingot three or five times isn't really excessive and wasn't the most difficult or time-consuming part of the swordmaking process. It's true that Japanese metalworking lacked the benefit of technologies that many European cultures gained through trade with the East.

A European sword was typically made out of three ingots, one softer, more flexible for the spine, two harder for the edges.

A high-quality Japanese sword was often made of up to five ingots of differing characteristics for the sides, spine, edge, and core. Two ingots was most typical, IIRC. This was followed by a meticulous differential tempering process on the edge, which is a typical characteristic of Japanese swords that I don't think is shared by swordmakers of too many other cultures. They are made to defeat a particular type of lamellar armor by being sharp enough to dig in and not be redirected. If full plate armor was common Japan, the Japanese sword would of course have evolved in a different way.

No, Japanese swords are not magical, but it's unfair to call them inferior because they were not optimized to fight an enemy the Japanese would never meet. Even then, the sword was not the cutting edge (sorry) of battlefield technology and in some imagined fight between Japanese and European armies neither force would use swords anyway. (In such a case the battle would, as always, go to the side better able to adapt and exploit the other's mistakes.)

[Troberg]

There is such a variation of style and quality that it's absurd to think you can say anything objective about every single sword ever forged in Japan and every single sword ever forged in Europe.

I assume you compare top level swords in each culture to each other, or rank-and-file swords to each other.

Most European swords are also ineffective against full plate armor, and mounted opponents, and pikemen, etc., which is why armies used pikes and polearms and other impacting and piercing weapons against strong opponents.

Of course, you needed to find that opening in the armor or knock your opponent down and get in close with a knife in the armpit or something like that. The point is that until you get that kill shot, you will do a fair amount of bashing against steel.

There's even an account of a battle (I can't remember which) which dragged on for a long time, as the armour was to effective against swords and the sides were too evenly matched. After a while, one side wanted to end the battle, dropped their swords and drew their less chivalric knives. Suddenly, it got dangerous, and the opponents fled.

Similarly, it is absurd to think you can make an objective comparison between every piece of Japanese armor ever and every piece of European armor ever. There is a wide variation in quality and purpose.

Of course, but there was never anything like the human tanks that existed in Europe, and European armour was both stronger and more common on the battlefield.

The yari, a type of spear, was the primary weapon of the Japanese footsoldier for over a thousand years. The simplicity and utility of the long pointy stick is known to every culture.

Spears have been common in most cultures, and still are (a rifle with a bayonnet is basically a spear). In many ways, a large, twohanded sword resembles a spear more than a sword in how it's used. A pike, however, is something different. It's longer, thicker, heavier and used with the butt end against the ground to repel cavalry. It has much less mobility, and is only useful in tight formations. A single man with a spear is a threat, a single man with a pike is defenseless.

Folding the ingot three or five times isn't really excessive and wasn't the most difficult or time-consuming part of the swordmaking process.

I wasn't talking about three or five times, I was talking about those mythical swords people tend to talk about where they talk about dozens or hundreds of times.

Folding is not entirely good either. It removes the possibility of using different steel for different parts of the blade, as it is all mixed up. To some extent, the Japanese solved that problem by applying a paste of boiled hooves to the edge side of the sword before hardening it, thus increasing the coal content and making it harder. Very much like our current technique of case hardening.

European sword smiths had a somewhat similar technique. They didn't fold the metal, but they did still adjust the hardening by applying clay to the spine of the sword, making it cool slower and thus giving it more flexibility, while the edge was cooled quickly and became harder.

A high-quality Japanese sword was often made of up to five ingots of differing characteristics for the sides, spine, edge, and core. Two ingots was most typical, IIRC.

Isn't that lost as soon as you start folding?

No, Japanese swords are not magical, but it's unfair to call them inferior because they were not optimized to fight an enemy the Japanese would never meet. Even then, the sword was not the cutting edge (sorry) of battlefield technology and in some imagined fight between Japanese and European armies neither force would use swords anyway. (In such a case the battle would, as always, go to the side better able to adapt and exploit the other's mistakes.)

I agree, to just compare the swords without context is comparing apples to oranges. Military technology evolves to handle the threats it faces.

That said, if a purely hypothetical test was set up where the swords was tested against each other, without context (lab tests, duel or something like that), I'm confident that the European swords would win.

As you say, the sword was not the primary weapon, in fact, it was more of the show weapon, an emblem of authority in both cultures. That said, it was and is a quite capable weapon, so don't mistake it as merely a decoration.

[me, no really]

Of course steel flows - you just need to get it hot enough.

Me (waiting for someone to find a mythical sword made of Dalekanium at the bottom of a mystical fortress) no really