Classical European Swords: What's the difference between a $250.00 and a grand + one

[The Real Hawkeye]

Assuming both advertise them as "battle ready," (i.e., full tang, steel fixtures, etc.) what are you generally paying extra for in the typical classical European sword available for over a thousand dollars vs the typical $250.00 sword of a similar type? Assuming, for fantasy's sake, that you were actually planning on going back in time and joining a midieval army, would you actually be much better off with the typical grand plus sword? Why? Thanks.

PS: Just for examples sake, what's better about this ( http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-kingmaker-xviii.htm ) vs this ( http://www.armsofvalour.com/miva/me...AOVL&Product_Code=IP-703-2&Category_Code=ICIB )? Thanks.

 

[Bors]

Assuming both advertise them as "battle ready," (i.e., full tang, steel fixtures, etc.) what are you generally paying extra for in the typical classical European sword available for over a thousand dollars vs the typical $250.00 sword of a similar type? Assuming, for fantasy's sake, that you were actually planning on going back in time and joining a midieval army, would you actually be much better off with the typical grand plus sword? Why? Thanks.

PS: Just for examples sake, what's better about this ( http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-kingmaker-xviii.htm ) vs this ( http://www.armsofvalour.com/miva/me...AOVL&Product_Code=IP-703-2&Category_Code=ICIB )? Thanks.

On the surface both swords "look" pretty and have a nice polished finish. To see the real difference you have to look below the surface. The differences are often subtitle but they are there.

What's the difference between a $120 Clarinet and a $2000 Clarinet?

Materials , workmanship, tuning, fit and finish, and sound quality.

Difference between the swords:

Research, materials, workmanship, tunning (mass distribution and balance), edge geometry (effects cutting), heat treating and fit and finish.

While both swords are “battle ready” I would characterize the AV sword as a $120 clarinet and the Albion as a $2000 clarinet. Both will play music but one will do it so much better.

On a side note:

Craig Johnson penned a nice article titled “Some Aspects of the Metallurgy and Production of European Armor”. It can be found at the Oakeshott Institute http://www.oakeshott.org/Article.html

It provides a glimpse into the quality of Old armor and swords. Worth reading.

 

[The REAL Commander]

A very expensive modern European sword will likely have been hand crafted with great consideration to maintain consistency in the blade. There would be no soft spots or flaws, it would be balanced very well, feel extra comfortable and so on. But to answer your question bluntly, if you went back in time to say, oh I dunno, the 1200's, you would be better off with even the least expensive battle ready swords offered today. In those times, many swords were hammered out in haste and issued to soldiers. Prone to corrosion and chipping, those swords, while fully capable of enduring battle, were still not really all that wonderful when compared to the pieces we see today. Only a select few swords of that period would have been painstakingly crafted with incredible attention to detail and perfection, and these swords would normally only be seen in the possession of wealthy folks, nobility or royalty. Unlikely would such a sword ever be used in combat either, nor would it be left exposed to the elements. So effectively, it wouldn't matter which sowrd you brought back in time with you, the Kingmaker or the Henry, they would both be leaps and bounds beyond the quality of true medieval swords.

Modern science and technology has allowed for incredible advancements in crafting metal blades. While the differences are subtle between a thousand dollar sword and a $250 sword, as mentioned above, they are indeed there. But, I'd be more willing to bang up a $250 sword than a $1000 sword. i mean, you can go through 4 cheaper ones for the price of one expensive sword. If I had a $1500 sword, I certainly wouldn't abuse it in any way... unless I was some rich weirdo who had nothing better to do with my money, lol.

 

[senoBDEC]

A very expensive modern European sword will likely have been hand crafted with great consideration to maintain consistency in the blade. There would be no soft spots or flaws, it would be balanced very well, feel extra comfortable and so on. But to answer your question bluntly, if you went back in time to say, oh I dunno, the 1200's, you would be better off with even the least expensive battle ready swords offered today. In those times, many swords were hammered out in haste and issued to soldiers. Prone to corrosion and chipping, those swords, while fully capable of enduring battle, were still not really all that wonderful when compared to the pieces we see today. Only a select few swords of that period would have been painstakingly crafted with incredible attention to detail and perfection, and these swords would normally only be seen in the possession of wealthy folks, nobility or royalty. Unlikely would such a sword ever be used in combat either, nor would it be left exposed to the elements. So effectively, it wouldn't matter which sowrd you brought back in time with you, the Kingmaker or the Henry, they would both be leaps and bounds beyond the quality of true medieval swords.

Modern science and technology has allowed for incredible advancements in crafting metal blades. While the differences are subtle between a thousand dollar sword and a $250 sword, as mentioned above, they are indeed there. But, I'd be more willing to bang up a $250 sword than a $1000 sword. i mean, you can go through 4 cheaper ones for the price of one expensive sword. If I had a $1500 sword, I certainly wouldn't abuse it in any way... unless I was some rich weirdo who had nothing better to do with my money, lol.

Yes, there were low-quality implements and there were less "controls" regarding contamination of steel, but I highly doubt that you can say that the less expensive examples of swords today would be better than a similarly priced one going back some 500-1000 years. Similar problems plague these weapons SIMPLY because quality costs money, and the less time and effort and care put into a weapon, the cheaper it is - I highly doubt CPM metallurgy is used in China or India-made budget cutlery . Also, if a smithery produced many subpar weapons that had various structural flaws, such as small tangs welded to rat-tail threads, steel that tended to fracture, chip, or bend easily, badly balanced blades, etc that smithery would probably not get much more business, despite the relative difficulty in transporting a large amount of goods during those times due to technology and political limitations.

For one, those swords, spears, and such, WERE actually used and users could probably provide decent feedback to any smiths they might purchase from (they might even be neighbors - see below). Many farmers/hunters/militia used simple weapons based off of implements they would use at home, including spears, bows, axes, and clubs. I would be very much surprised if the majority of the "peasant-soldiers" were even provided weapons by their feudal lord or whomever would be in charge of such. More than likely, these weapons were simply tools that they used at home - see the messer for a good example.

Finally, in swords, you get what you pay for in general, with diminishing returns as you reach about 1500 dollars, where it becomes more about the fit and finish, rather than necessarily the functional quality of the sword that becomes more evident as price rises. For the money (~400-700 USD), I don't think you can beat a sword from Angus Trim. That said, Albion, Arms&Armor, and several custom makers make fantastic weapons at a variety of price levels - but again, you get what you pay for. Distal taper, balance, edge consistency, blade geometry, harmonic balance, and heat-treat all come into play, and time and effort at every step adds to the price. Also, for the below US$300 crowd, there is Kris Cutlery and some newer Gen2 swords (though they tend to be heavier and more forward-balanced than they "should" be in some cases).

Simply see the thread below: Good hand-and-half? for some examples.

 

[The REAL Commander]

I think the original poster means the "battle ready" modern swords that run between $200 and $300. These are typically not wall hangers, and are actually used in steel-to-steel combat reenactments. While I am not overly familiar with ALL the lower end manufacturers, I know that there are some who put a fairly concerted effort into ensuring the swords are of decent quality. No welded rat tails or cast stainless blades, that sort of crap, but a modern carbon steel battle ready sword with full functionality is what I was referring to.

Concerning feedback to smiths in the medieval period, that may indeed be true for a custom sword crafted for a special person of the middle ages, or by a field commander who witnessed his troops' swords come apart in battle. Typically, however, swords were built en masse as a tool to be rapidly made and deployed to fighting forces by the cart load. It is highly likely, based upon the number of weapons that would be needed in a short time, that a Chief blacksmith/craftsman would be in charge of an assembly facility, where less skilled laborers would hammer out basic tools of war under the supervision of the foreman. With this in mind, I would guess that the standards of quality were somewhat low, and the focus would have been more on rapid production. Do not forget, that just like today with so many products, a smith might be tempted to cut corners to speed up production and increase profit, thus lowering quality even further.

Exceptions certainly would exist, however, where the swords are seen as more than merely the cutting counterpart of a good solid club. Such exception may be seen with Crusader swords, or more specifically, swords of the Knights Templar or Hospitallers, who were elite riligious fighting monks. I know that Templar swords had to remain cruciform, humble in appearance, with no vanity markings save for a crucifix, but I would assume the quality of these pieces needed to be very high. Any elite force would undoubtedly receive better materials, but the large majority of medieval swords would have been stamped out as a generic weapon, and for this reason, I believe a modern battle ready sword is superior in general than a medieval sword, even a $250 carbon steel reenactment sword.

Finally, the other thing to consider is abundance of materials, as well as thinking two moves ahead. It would be inconceivable to issue extremely rare, pricey and well-made swords to a force that gets decimated in battle... guess who would have first pickings of your lovely nice swords?

Good reading here!

 

[Bors]

Also, if a smithery produced many subpar weapons that had various structural flaws, such as small tangs welded to rat-tail threads, steel that tended to fracture, chip, or bend easily, badly balanced blades, etc that smithery would probably not get much more business, despite the relative difficulty in transporting a large amount of goods during those times due to technology and political limitations.

Actually I would disagree. If your a lord and thinking of how the farmers and serfs were regarded are you going to equip your unskilled serfs and farmers or cannon fodder with $1500 knight and man at arms swords or $100 (or cheaper) wrought iron swords.

Today we have many arms makers making low quality arms (including firearms) and their doing a brisk business. The more things change the more they stay the same......

Check out the article linked above by Craig Johnson. While it's not definitive it does show that not all swords were of good quality.

 

[senoBDEC]

Actually I would disagree. If your a lord and thinking of how the farmers and serfs were regarded are you going to equip your unskilled serfs and farmers or cannon fodder with $1500 knight and man at arms swords or $100 (or cheaper) wrought iron swords.

Today we have many arms makers making low quality arms (including firearms) and their doing a brisk business. The more things change the more they stay the same......

Check out the article linked above by Craig Johnson. While it's not definitive it does show that not all swords were of good quality.

Nonetheless, what I'm saying is that inherent design problems and poor quality steel (again, all relative) would discourage repeat business. That's precisely why axes, spears, and such were probably more common than swords, though low-end swords are far from uncommon. I'm not saying bad-quality swords were not made, and were not used - this would be especially true during times of conflict, when, really, the faster you get the tools/weapons you need, the better, despite subpar quality. Do people typically have access to better steel today? Yes, do they necessarily use that? No. Are these modern low-end swords designed specifically for cutting and maiming people? NO. They are approximations, fairly crude copies from pictures or degraded samples. Could they still work? Of COURSE they can, providing it's got weight, a point, and an edge.

Just buy around the 400-500 range, with the makers mentioned in my first post (and in Bors' first post). Good choices, good steel and heat-treat, and excellent design and construction. The Albion Squire line is also quite useable, and is more in your budgeted range ($200-$300). Note, that they would need to be sharpened ($25 extra). Not sure if it still applies, but for a while, Windlass was shipping items unsharpened (primary shape, but no or very dull edge) - liability issues?

Also, "battle-ready" swords for "steel-on-steel" reenactment would be specifically designed to be fairly light (aluminum, softer grades of steel, etc) and essentially very blunt (more like a slab than a blade), to be able to withstand this use. If the OP were talking about the typical Windlass item... than my statement stands, their quality varies, sometimes adequate, sometimes poor designed.

 

[Bors]

Nonetheless, what I'm saying is that inherent design problems and poor quality steel (again, all relative) would discourage repeat business. That's precisely why axes, spears, and such were probably more common than swords, though low-end swords are far from uncommon.
I'm not saying bad-quality swords were not made, and were not used - this would be especially true during times of conflict, when, really, the faster you get the tools/weapons you need, the better, despite subpar quality.

Good “steel” would have been a valuable resource. Plain Iron would have been more plentiful. After a battle what happens to all the arms and armor? Some is given out as rewards for valor, what’s serviceable or repairable is put in the armory and what's left is piled to be recycled. Most regular weapons, armor and farm implements would have been made from the mix only using steel where it’s required.

If a "quality" sword was ordered it probably would have been made by the master smith out of the best steel on hand. Or he might have traded for better steel if non was available.

The reason for more axes and spears is because they require less “steel” and less skill to make than a sword. All axe’s (except copper/bronze) up to the late 19th century were made by hammer shaping a piece of wrought iron and folding it around a mandrel then inserting a narrow thin piece of “steel” for the edge and welding the whole thing together. It requires less skill, less time and less resources to make an axe. The Spear was typically made from small iron and steel pieces welded together. Again less metal and far less skill and time is required.

The axe can be used for multiple day to day chores such as defense, building shelters and collecting firewood and general construction just to name a few. The spear can be used for hunting and fighting. The sword has but a single purpose.

You can make a lot of axes and spears for the price of “one” good sword. Low end swords were quite common just as low grade armor was, an example of cheap armor would be munitions grade armor as opposed to full plate or mail the really expensive stuff.

How much "gold" is in your wallet/purse...LOL

Do people typically have access to better steel today? Yes, do they necessarily use that? No. Are these modern low-end swords designed specifically for cutting and maiming people? NO. They are approximations, fairly crude copies from pictures or degraded samples. Could they still work? Of COURSE they can, providing it's got weight, a point, and an edge.

Just buy around the 400-500 range, with the makers mentioned in my first post (and in Bors' first post). Good choices, good steel and heat-treat, and excellent design and construction. The Albion Squire line is also quite useable, and is more in your budgeted range ($200-$300). Note, that they would need to be sharpened ($25 extra). Not sure if it still applies, but for a while, Windlass was shipping items unsharpened (primary shape, but no or very dull edge) - liability issues?

OK...

Also, "battle-ready" swords for "steel-on-steel" reenactment would be specifically designed to be fairly light (aluminum, softer grades of steel, etc) and essentially very blunt (more like a slab than a blade), to be able to withstand this use. If the OP were talking about the typical Windlass item... than my statement stands, their quality varies, sometimes adequate, sometimes poor designed.

Re-enactment swords are (for hard contact) are made from high quality high shock resistant steel, not soft steel. Spring grade steel is used for many and the swords and in some cases the swords are slightly over engineered. Softer steel tends to bend (take a set) rather than flex. I have not seen any aluminum swords used in hard fighting. They would not hold up against contact with steel swords. They are mainly used by Hollywood and for slow work. Aluminum is lighter which make the swords move faster for the screen and they don’t spark and chip like steel swords do making them safer for the actors.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Interesting discussion, folks. Thank. Enjoying it.

 

[The REAL Commander]

Re-enactment swords are (for hard contact) are made from high quality high shock resistant steel, not soft steel. Spring grade steel is used for many and the swords and in some cases the swords are slightly over engineered. Softer steel tends to bend (take a set) rather than flex. I have not seen any aluminum swords used in hard fighting. They would not hold up against contact with steel swords. They are mainly used by Hollywood and for slow work. Aluminum is lighter which make the swords move faster for the screen and they don’t spark and chip like steel swords do making them safer for the actors.

Correct, these are the type I was referring to earlier, not the Aluminum ones. I have indeed seen the aluminum swords used in renaissance fairs and demonstrations at festivals, but they look goofy and in all honestly, barely pass for sword-shaped in many cases... almost look like a kids toy.

Most reenactment spring steel swords are blunt-edged, with a rounded tip for safety. This doesn't mean they need to stay this way, however, and various manufacturers offer both sharp or blunt versions, and vendors also will often allow the consumer to choose. The real thing to consider though is that the manufaturers of modern day reenactment swords don't only need to worry about the safety of the participants, but moreso the safety of the spectators! Even a heartless ape of a CEO would not want to see a sword made by his company come apart and fly into the crowd maiming onlookers, it would make for countless lawsuits and ultimately spell a finincial nightmare for the company. So it should probably be assumed that modern steel to steel sword makers put an awful lot of testing into their productcs to ensure they do not fail.

I have a question about the broken pommel in the link a few posts up. I am curious how this really happened. Typically, I would guess that in oder to subject the sword to conditions that may lead to such breakage, the wielder would have to be misusing it to some degree. While they call it a "hand and a half" my personal experience with such nomenclature may apply to the sword when held by a child or a small person. For a grown adult, these are usually only suited to one hand (I dunno, maybe I just have big hands), so my guess: A wild swing with two hands wrapped over the grip & pommel, striking a hard or heavy object perhaps? Did he clobber something with the pommel? Was it stepped on or something? I see so many videos of guys swinging as hard as they can with both hands at a rolled up bamboo mat, or pop bottles filled with water, and it just makes me shake my head. If THAT is the sort of style they wish to use, then they have the wrong tool, they'd be better off with an axe, a machete, scimitar katana or even a dang halberd for that matter, not a European sword. Euro swords of that periodical design, when used properly, shouldn't really go through that sort of repeated and silly punishment.

Anyway, all good posts!

 

[Bors]

Correct, these are the type I was referring to earlier, not the Aluminum ones. I have indeed seen the aluminum swords used in renaissance fairs and demonstrations at festivals, but they look goofy and in all honestly, barely pass for sword-shaped in many cases... almost look like a kids toy.

LOL

Most reenactment spring steel swords are blunt-edged, with a rounded tip for safety. This doesn't mean they need to stay this way, however, and various manufacturers offer both sharp or blunt versions, and vendors also will often allow the consumer to choose. The real thing to consider though is that the manufaturers of modern day reenactment swords don't only need to worry about the safety of the participants, but moreso the safety of the spectators! Even a heartless ape of a CEO would not want to see a sword made by his company come apart and fly into the crowd maiming onlookers, it would make for countless lawsuits and ultimately spell a finincial nightmare for the company. So it should probably be assumed that modern steel to steel sword makers put an awful lot of testing into their productcs to ensure they do not fail.

Correct, especially about the “safety of the spectators” however I don’t agree about “assuming” that the modern steel to steel manufacturer has dome their home work and tested their blades. Although they probably have if there in that business.

Ambiguous and misleading statements are made about many things. One should investigate in detail the quality and suitability of the sword for a given use as well as solicit the opinions and recommendations of those involved in the activity rather than relying on the marketing statements of the makers or dealers.

I have a question about the broken pommel in the link a few posts up. I am curious how this really happened. Typically, I would guess that in oder to subject the sword to conditions that may lead to such breakage, the wielder would have to be misusing it to some degree.

Here is the original post it took place about 5 years ago. There were as some say quite a few reports of failures. I don’t know if CS addressed this issue with the maker or if it still exists. If your planning on buying one it might be prudent t remove the pommel and have a look-see. The tang looks to be pretty stout and with some work one could correct this issue. But then again did they cut corners elsewhere besides the pommel?

I am not well about this! The Cold steel H&H that came in yesterday has snapped at the pommel. I cut 1 soda bottle with it and noticed the handle seemed to have loosen up a bit. I dry handled it a bit and noticed the pommel seemed to be bent out of line! I thought maybe the handle had split and shook it around and the pommel fell off! FELL OFF!!!!!!!! Then I noticed the handle was in fact split! But that wasnt all, OH NO, the tang was wide enough, but the screw part of the tang is only 3/16 inch medium steel screw welded to the tang! And the whole tang itself was off center as well. This is completely unacceptable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am about to contact Cold Steel directly and grind a few tangs myself!!!!!!! I hope they have the good sense to correct the situation with at least a replacement that has been completely inspected from the tang up!

While they call it a "hand and a half" my personal experience with such nomenclature may apply to the sword when held by a child or a small person. For a grown adult, these are usually only suited to one hand (I dunno, maybe I just have big hands), so my guess: A wild swing with two hands wrapped over the grip & pommel, striking a hard or heavy object perhaps? Did he clobber something with the pommel? Was it stepped on or something? I see so many videos of guys swinging as hard as they can with both hands at a rolled up bamboo mat, or pop bottles filled with water, and it just makes me shake my head. If THAT is the sort of style they wish to use, then they have the wrong tool, they'd be better off with an axe, a machete, scimitar katana or even a dang halberd for that matter, not a European sword. Euro swords of that periodical design, when used properly, shouldn't really go through that sort of repeated and silly punishment.

Anyway, all good posts!

The Hand and a half or bastard sword came about roughly around the 13th century although Oakshott mentions that extended grips on swords were common back to about the 2nd century CE..

Around the 13th century armor started a transition from mostly mail to plate. As armors were pressed to make better armor the weaponeers wear pressed to make better weapons by which to combat the better armor. The lighter one handed swords were not really up to the task of dealing with plate armor so, Along comes the hand and a half sword or "War" sword. The sword was slightly heavier with a longer grip allowing for two hands to be used. Some had slightly longer blades. These swords had a bit more authority when striking. The lighter swords continued to be worn but would be replaced for heavy combat.

Cutting with swords is actually an important part of learning to use them. The Japanese used rice stalks as well as the tatami mats. The mats can be expensive (especially shipping costs) so people have become creative using everything from shipping tubes to pool noodles. Of coarse the real purpose is to improve the “cutting” technique however there are some who look like there hitting a home run...LOL

 

[The REAL Commander]

Of coarse the real purpose is to improve the “cutting” technique however there are some who look like there hitting a home run...LOL

LOL, I know what you mean. Usually these folks put up Youtube videos of themselves after picking up a flea market special. While I certainly never like to see anyone get hurt, when it does happen as a result of their own idiocy, a small part of me can't help but think of the Darwin awards.

While a longsword (or similar) can indeed cut, and cut quite well actually, you are right about the technique. Since the blade is straight, a typical swing would result in more of a chopping action. It is therefore quite important to learn the right technique to actually slice with a straight blade, and not put too much stress on the weaker parts on the sword (ie don't swing with the pommel and hit with the tip of the sword). Curved blades kinda do it for you, but still, I have seen fools on Youtube somehow manage to just chop into something with a curved blade using only one part of the blade. :jerkit: They might as well grab a $5.00 hatchet from the Wal Mart camping section and post a video of that in action too, it's about as entertaining, heheh.

 

[senoBDEC]

Re: spring steel - well yes, this is what I meant by softer steel. If it were so soft that it would bend fairly easily under sudden impacts, it would fairly useless. I guess I should have said that typically it is less hard than a blade that would have been designed for cutting (say, 45-50 HRC rather than 50-55 HRC).

Granted, I thought you meant theatrical stuff rather than say, the steel trainers and such that are used for both practice and demonstrations of WMA. However, I have seen very solid aluminum trainers (Valentine Armoury, etc) that could also be used for WMA practice, however, the edge did seem to dent more readily and require filing more often. And yeah, most theatrical stuff is terrible, in general.

Yep, axes and spears could have steel forged onto a iron body (or lower carbon-content steel) and then shaped accordingly. Cheaper, easier, and much more efficient IMO than a sword (except for, of course, warfare).

 

[The REAL Commander]

I imagine a sword would have been a nice all around weapon, since it could be wielded on the battlefield, in close quarters (castle hallways for example), and could parry, cut, chop, stab, and can be used from horseback. It seems to do a lot, just none of those things very well in comparison to something designed for a specific purpose. For example, on an open battlefield, I'd hate to have only a sword and go up against an opponent with a halberd. Same could be said about encountering a spearman in a tight staircase of a castle. By the same token, I'd be quite confident with a sword in a confined space if I came across an opponent with a halberd or axe. If I was to choose only one weapon before venturing off somewhere not knowing where I might get into the thick of it, I would choose a sword. It is a general versitile tool for combat.

Re: spring steel, the type they use for reenactment swords ranges usually from 1065 to 1095. The size, length and purpose of the sword usually dictates which steel to use. In all cases, the sword will (usually) have a very good balance of flexibility AND hardness. So, in other words, hard enough to hold an edge, but not so hard as to be brittle. Flexible enough to bend without snapping, but not so much that it becomes a piece of rubber when swung. Here is the thing, if you try to sharpen one of these yourself on a bench grinder, take your time. You don't want to heat the blade up or it messes up the tempering and the blade can become stiff and brittle.

BTW, doesn't Rockwell hardness really only become important in tools, like pliers axes and hammers, that sort of thing? I didn't think they rated swords this way. Correct me if I am mistaken.

Good thread folks, I enjoyed the reading!

 

[senoBDEC]

BTW, doesn't Rockwell hardness really only become important in tools, like pliers axes and hammers, that sort of thing? I didn't think they rated swords this way. Correct me if I am mistaken.

Good thread folks, I enjoyed the reading!

Agreed, it's all about balance of characteristics, from distal taper, balance, carbon content, and degree of hardening of the steel (typically formation of martenisite or other forms of molecular structures of steel).
So yes, HRC is important in that one can examine the steel used (simple carbon steel, various tool steels, etc) and look at the HRC and of course, you CAN look at the "grain" of the steel using somewhat sophisticated methods.
The HRC is a fairly easy, and low-tech, way of determining if the heat-treat went well or not - further tempering (lowering the HRC by changing the arrangement of carbon and iron atoms) may be necessary to achieve that balance of flexibility and hardness. Selective tempering or hardening is also possible (this can be seen in monosteel Asian blades as well as in certain traditions of Western blade-making).

 

[Rat Finkenstein]

Actually I would disagree. If your a lord and thinking of how the farmers and serfs were regarded are you going to equip your unskilled serfs and farmers or cannon fodder with $1500 knight and man at arms swords or $100 (or cheaper) wrought iron swords.

They would not be issued swords at all. A spear or pole arm, maybe.

 

[Bors]

BTW, doesn't Rockwell hardness really only become important in tools, like pliers axes and hammers, that sort of thing? I didn't think they rated swords this way. Correct me if I am mistaken.

It’s not really that important and it’s really not a very good gauge for determining the quality of a blade or the quality of a given piece of steel for that matter. Example, You can take a piece of dead soft mild steel and case harden it. On the surface it could test out from the low fifties to the low sixties in range. The affected depth ranges from a few microns to ~1mm. On the surface this looks good but on the inside it’s still dead soft mild steel.
The important thing is grain size, carbide size and distribution.
Side note case hardening is still used today in some firearms, car parts and a host of other things.

They would not be issued swords at all. A spear or pole arm, maybe.

My statement of farmers and serfs being issued swords was an exaggeration on purpose. The point is that the lowest fighters that “you” are “equipping” would not be given the same higher quality weapons one would give to a knight or highly trained fighter. The same goes for armor. Technology and quality filtered down according to skill and rank.

 

[john0270]

While both swords are “battle ready” I would characterize the AV sword as a $120 clarinet and the Albion as a $2000 clarinet. Both will play music but one will do it so much better.

Yest this is the case, but you would have to be a proficient musician to use the extra quality. Same with swords.

 

[Triton]

Yest this is the case, but you would have to be a proficient musician to use the extra quality. Same with swords.

Agreed, but you don't have to a proficient musician to recognize the better quality or want to own it.

 

[Bors]

Yest this is the case, but you would have to be a proficient musician to use the extra quality. Same with swords.

I disagree.....

A novice playing either will still sound like a novice however, a novice playing $2000 clarinet will sound better than the novice playing a $150 clarinet.


As swords go $250 swords tend to be costume pieces rather than users. Most if any will stand up to repeated hard use. The more expensive swords tend to be built better and thus can take more abuse. The better swords also tend to cut better because more attention is paid to the overall geometry of the sword.

Swords are very difficult things to make and get correct....