This question really is perplexing Keith. While often the production of weapons is inferred to a certain location, it seems typically assumed it was either for the accessibility to local resources for said production.
However that does not seem always the case, in fact quite contrary often.
The thing is that extracting and processing material is complicated, consuming and difficult...so much in the manner of 'why trade blades were used rather than locally produced'...expedience.....became the attraction to Swedish steel.
Its like wootz, the choice crucible steel for blades throughout the Middle East, it was produced in India (and Ceylon) and the ingots traded prolifically to be used in forging blades. It was not until the British Raj that deforestation led to the demise of its production, and the loss of generational makers that production of fine blades nominally ended.
I wish I could find that reference noting the disruption of Swedish steel into Solingen during Thirty Years War caused decline in production and the diaspora in degree of many of the makers. It is in some degree like the demise of Toledo, whose decline began with the move of the royal court to Madrid, then other economic factors brought demise of the industry in 17th c
It seems like somewhere I read that Cologne was always recognized in earlier years as the place of origin of German swords as this was the center for the cutlers to mount the blades from Solingen. ..thus they were called Koln (Cologne) swords. However in another reference it was noted it was because Cologne was the Diocese center for the region.
This suggests religious geo-classification elements also being at hand.
Clearly there are many elements in understanding the development of swords and their production far beyond identifying the finished products...which makes these aspects of their history so intriguing.
|