WOOTZ or SHAM?

Jens Nordlunde · 29th January 2006, 07:11 PM

Thank you for your explanation Jeff, I think it makes it easier for a lot to get an idea of what it is all about, and yes you are in good company – here

.
The problem to many is, that when they see analyses, showing a lot of different metals plus carbon, many does not know what to look for and what not, so they get confused and stop watching for anything – thinking they don’t understand it anyway. I think you have given a fine explanation, without tying yourself into something you can’t get out of. But you have given an understandable explanation – thank you very much.

MABAGANI · 30th January 2006, 08:34 AM

I've been following the thread with interest, btw. Other than creating the wootz pattern indicating a high degree of refined skill of a smiths forging ability, if all things were equal in the shape and form of two swords, one with wootz, one without and the skill of the swordsmen weilding them were equal, would a sword with wootz have an advantage over one without, martial or combat wise? I could imagine a psychological advantage or disadvantage of the swordsmen, but leaving that aside, are there qualities in the wootz sword that make it better than a non-wootz sword? tougher yet flexible, better balance, etc? Excuse me if this has already been answered and I missed it in all the commentary.

Gt Obach · 30th January 2006, 01:38 PM

That is the 50 dollar question ?

is wootz a better sword steel that regular high carbon steel...

this is very hard to tell.... since if both steels are heat treated right.....they will work wonderfully

- i would think that wootz would hold its edge abit longer.....since carbides are wear resistant

- i've also found that wootz will take a keen edge...

if were are comparing this to our modern high carbon steels....it would be hard to tell..........but if we are comparing it to the high carbon bloom steels that were used by the ancient smiths.... ... the silicious slags in these steels do not add to strength, nor edge retention, or toughness
- then i'd alway vote for wootz...

like i said before..... it is very hard to quantify this property in steel

i'm interested in what others think, aswell

Greg

B.I · 30th January 2006, 02:15 PM

i believe the 19thC (european) opinion was debated as well. from memory, the historian was fascinated by it, to the point of attempting to replicated it in england (and failing), whilst the military opinion was that it was vastly inferior to british steel.
this cannot be taken seriously of course, given the military attitude at the time (raj and empire vs anything unbritish).

MABAGANI · 30th January 2006, 02:15 PM

I see, so to quantify the advantages, it would make more sense to make the comparison using technology of the era and the ancients would've had the answers by having their smiths and warriors do several hundreds or thousands of test cuts to check which sword held up better. Any ancient or early text or references as to how the wootz performed in battle and test cuts vs. non wootz swords?

Jens Nordlunde · 30th January 2006, 02:48 PM

Greg, I think you won the $ 50 note, both for your answer, and for mentioning that the steel of to day is not the same as the steel they used hundreds of years ago.
I agree with you that a sword with a wootz blade most likely would be preferable. One thing is the pattern on the blade, but I think when fighting most would tend to forget about the pattern, and be happy to have a sword, which keeps the edge better than the opponents, armed with a sword with a high carbon blade.

It should also be mentioned, that you now and again see blades, where one side is made of wootz, and the other side of high carbon steel. These blades are rare; I have never seen one myself – only read about them.

Mabagani, I don’t think you would need many thousand test cuts – a battle or two would be enough, and no, I have not seen anything about the test cutting you refer to, in any of the old texts I have seen. The only thing I have seen about test cutting, was that the young Rajput nobles practised their cutting power on wet clay, so they would be able to serve the head of an ox in one blow – anything else would be a disgrace to the family.

MABAGANI · 30th January 2006, 03:45 PM

One cut slamming edges of a wootz vs. non-wootz blade could've also given an immediate but costly answer, too, ouch...
Wet clay, interestingly for testing could give feedback and practice for- line, angle, aim, quality, etc on a stationary target without damaging the edge. I'll have to try it some time.
So were wootz blades more difficult for smiths to master and an expensive commodity reserved for the elite warriors and/or wealthy?

Jens Nordlunde · 30th January 2006, 04:33 PM

Mabagani, I think you will need a very big lump of moist clay, as the test they did was on force. I don’t know how much force it takes to serve a bulls head in one blow, but I would think it take quit a lot of strength – besides a very sharp sword.

In some of the older texts that I have prices of blades are mentioned, and it seems as if a perfectly made watered blade would sell for a kings ransom - almost, a good watered blade would sell for the ransom of a minor prince - almost, and a normal blade(?) would sell for far less. It is difficult to say how much the blades would be in to day’s currency, but from the old writing it is clear, that very good blades must have cost a fortune. On the other hand, for the owner it was safety first, as there were a lot of wars going on in India in those days, as well as a lot of robbers were touring the country – and it also gave prestige.

Jeff Pringle · 30th January 2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

the historian was fascinated by it, to the point of attempting to replicated it in england

Not just historians, cutlers like Stodart and scientists like Faraday (the famous one) investigated wootz in the early 1800's because it was viewed as superior to the crucible steels in production then. Attempts to duplicate it were also made in France, Switzerland and Russia. According to C.S. Smith in "A History of Metallography", interest waned when local methods improved and the Bessemer process came along and introduced a method of making homogenous steel more adaptable to large-scale production.
An analogy might be drawn between the manufacture of wootz blades and violin bows - The starting material is graded, and the lesser quality stuff is used by production line workers with little care to exploiting the material or fit and finish. The higher quality stuff is worked by th more skilled artisans, and as they work it they grade it further. The bows that are fully realizing the potential of the high-grade wood get more hours lavished on them in fit and finish, as well as gold fittings, the finest horse hair, a signature. The ones that are not working out optimally are still much better than the lower quality wood could aspire to, so they get some attention to detail and silver fittings, and perhaps a signature.
Violin bows are still largely made in a manner that survives from the pre-industrial era, so I think it could be a window into how the ancient steel was worked. The best material getting the most attention and expensive fit-out could also explain the tenfold increase in prices for the best watered blades.

29th January 2006, 07:11 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Thank you for your explanation Jeff, I think it makes it easier for a lot to get an idea of what it is all about, and yes you are in good company – here. The problem to many is, that when they see analyses, showing a lot of different metals plus carbon, many does not know what to look for and what not, so they get confused and stop watching for anything – thinking they don’t understand it anyway. I think you have given a fine explanation, without tying yourself into something you can’t get out of. But you have given an understandable explanation – thank you very much.

30th January 2006, 08:34 AM	#2
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	I've been following the thread with interest, btw. Other than creating the wootz pattern indicating a high degree of refined skill of a smiths forging ability, if all things were equal in the shape and form of two swords, one with wootz, one without and the skill of the swordsmen weilding them were equal, would a sword with wootz have an advantage over one without, martial or combat wise? I could imagine a psychological advantage or disadvantage of the swordsmen, but leaving that aside, are there qualities in the wootz sword that make it better than a non-wootz sword? tougher yet flexible, better balance, etc? Excuse me if this has already been answered and I missed it in all the commentary.

30th January 2006, 01:38 PM	#3
Gt Obach Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 116	That is the 50 dollar question ? is wootz a better sword steel that regular high carbon steel... this is very hard to tell.... since if both steels are heat treated right.....they will work wonderfully - i would think that wootz would hold its edge abit longer.....since carbides are wear resistant - i've also found that wootz will take a keen edge... if were are comparing this to our modern high carbon steels....it would be hard to tell..........but if we are comparing it to the high carbon bloom steels that were used by the ancient smiths.... ... the silicious slags in these steels do not add to strength, nor edge retention, or toughness - then i'd alway vote for wootz... like i said before..... it is very hard to quantify this property in steel i'm interested in what others think, aswell Greg

30th January 2006, 02:15 PM	#4
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	i believe the 19thC (european) opinion was debated as well. from memory, the historian was fascinated by it, to the point of attempting to replicated it in england (and failing), whilst the military opinion was that it was vastly inferior to british steel. this cannot be taken seriously of course, given the military attitude at the time (raj and empire vs anything unbritish).

30th January 2006, 02:48 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Greg, I think you won the $ 50 note, both for your answer, and for mentioning that the steel of to day is not the same as the steel they used hundreds of years ago. I agree with you that a sword with a wootz blade most likely would be preferable. One thing is the pattern on the blade, but I think when fighting most would tend to forget about the pattern, and be happy to have a sword, which keeps the edge better than the opponents, armed with a sword with a high carbon blade. It should also be mentioned, that you now and again see blades, where one side is made of wootz, and the other side of high carbon steel. These blades are rare; I have never seen one myself – only read about them. Mabagani, I don’t think you would need many thousand test cuts – a battle or two would be enough, and no, I have not seen anything about the test cutting you refer to, in any of the old texts I have seen. The only thing I have seen about test cutting, was that the young Rajput nobles practised their cutting power on wet clay, so they would be able to serve the head of an ox in one blow – anything else would be a disgrace to the family.

30th January 2006, 03:45 PM	#7
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	One cut slamming edges of a wootz vs. non-wootz blade could've also given an immediate but costly answer, too, ouch... Wet clay, interestingly for testing could give feedback and practice for- line, angle, aim, quality, etc on a stationary target without damaging the edge. I'll have to try it some time. So were wootz blades more difficult for smiths to master and an expensive commodity reserved for the elite warriors and/or wealthy?

30th January 2006, 04:33 PM	#8
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Mabagani, I think you will need a very big lump of moist clay, as the test they did was on force. I don’t know how much force it takes to serve a bulls head in one blow, but I would think it take quit a lot of strength – besides a very sharp sword. In some of the older texts that I have prices of blades are mentioned, and it seems as if a perfectly made watered blade would sell for a kings ransom - almost, a good watered blade would sell for the ransom of a minor prince - almost, and a normal blade(?) would sell for far less. It is difficult to say how much the blades would be in to day’s currency, but from the old writing it is clear, that very good blades must have cost a fortune. On the other hand, for the owner it was safety first, as there were a lot of wars going on in India in those days, as well as a lot of robbers were touring the country – and it also gave prestige.