Persian fighters. . .why is it said they can't be made anymore???

A

atomicjoe23

Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
273
I've been going through the Robert Loveless "How to Make Knives" book and on the very last page it shows a picture of a Persian fighter and states. . .

"Just in case you feel that everything has been done in the field of knives and there just isn't any place for the new man to go. . .an old Persian fighting knife. . .and more important to us is the fact that there isn't a maker around today who could make it."

I have also heard someone else state this before, but why is this?

I know that I have seen some modern Persian fighters that are very similar. . .not identical, but they weren't reproductions either so I wouldn't expect them to be exactly alike either. There is one very similar to it in the April 2011 issue of "Blade" magazine made by Anders Hogstrom, here is one similar to the one I'm talking about. . .

DSC_0009_34.jpg


This one looks pretty close to the picture in the book. . .

Persian_Fighter_K.jpg


Thanks!
 
. . .true enough, but forging has been around for a long time. . .

. . .can anyone tell me what it is/was about these knives that prompted the statement I posted?
 
No internet? Or, should I say, internet wasn't as influential then as it is now for the knife community. You can only travel to so many knife shows per year to talk with other makers.
 
I think that's a case of someone talking about something they simply know nothing about. There's nothing about so-called Persian fighting knives that has ever been out of our reach, except perhaps examples with wootz steel blades. That knowledge was temporarily lost when the mines for the ore used in the process ran dry. Trace elements in the iron from those mines was what allowed it to do what it does, so when it was no longer available the method died out. However, modern metallurgy has allowed us both to chemically analyze surviving examples and the method of processing. So we can even make wootz blades again--even though it's not as good as most modern steels. It was just by far the best thing around back in its day. :)
 
I wondered if the statement was referring to the wootz steel. . .I just recently did some reading on Wootz steel, it was a pretty interesting read.

I personally can't see anything about a Persian fighter that would make it unmakeable by a modern bladesmith either. . .I think I could reproduce most of the aesthetics myself and I've only made 3 knives and taken 2 blacksmithing classes at this point, but those two beginning blacksmithing classes covered enough technique that I don't see a feature that couldn't be reproduced using what I learned (not saying I could make it as pretty that's for sure). . .

. . .I don't know anything about Richard Barney (co-author of the book) and I don't know who was making the statement about the Persian fighter, but I don't think anyone could safely say that Mr. Loveless didn't know what he was talking about, but like I said he may not have been the one to make the statement.
 
atomicjoe23 said:
. . .I don't know anything about Richard Barney (co-author of the book) and I don't know who was making the statement about the Persian fighter, but I don't think anyone could safely say that Mr. Loveless didn't know what he was talking about, but like I said he may not have been the one to make the statement.
Click to expand...

Just because Mr. Loveless could make a mighty fine knife doesn't mean he had all of his facts straight. Even the greats get things wrong, and he was a knifemaker--not a historian. ;):thumbup:
 
I too think he was referring to the steel, ancient damascus type steel was different than what we have now, i've even read that ancient damascus type steel had carbon nano-tubes in it, and no one knows how that was done. Our modern damascus doesn't even compare, though thats not to say that we don't have superior steel now.
 
Last edited:
mdh90 said:
I too think he was referring to the steel, ancient damascus type steel was different than what we have now, i've even read that ancient damascus type steel had carbon nano-tubes in it, and no one knows how that was done. Our modern damascus doesn't even compare, though thats not to say that we don't have superior steel now.
Click to expand...

Actually, wootz steel had trace amounts of vanadium and molybdenum in it (which weren't even discovered and named by scientists until centuries later) due to the ore from which it was smelted. Then a particular crucible firing process and low-temperature forging were used to create carbide banding. The pattern is literally carbides suspended in the steel matrix, making the steel much more wear resistant than normal steel of the time. Modern steels are cleaner, more consistent, and possess a finer carbide structure which surpasses the qualities of wootz in virtually all ways save for visual appeal. ;)

Since "damascus steel" can be used to describe both wootz and pattern-welded steel, it's common to confuse the two. Wootz was better than pattern welded steel, but neither compare to modern metals and heat treatments. :)
 
A 1998 article on the reproduction of wootz steel and the chemical analysis of historical examples: CLICK :thumbup:
 
That is the article I was referring to earlier. . .I was gonna post up a link to it, but you beat me to it. . .

. . .while we're at it here is a link to a technical paper by the same author (J.D. Verhoeven) titled "Metallurgy of Steel for Bladesmiths & Others who Heat Treat and Forge Steel". . .I haven't read the entire paper yet, but it's specifically geared towards the knifemaker. It was supposed to be published and be broadly available at some time, but that hasn't happened yet so it's currently only available as a .pdf download on the internet (at least that's the only way I could find it).

http://www.feine-klingen.de/PDFs/verhoeven.pdf

Enjoy! and Merry Christmas!!!
 
Ahhhh, the change in title is why I missed it. . .Verhoeven has written quite a few papers so I just assumed that it was another paper when I saw that in the list of available publications he authored.

Thanks for clearing that up!
 
I'm new to the community. . .I took my first knifemaking and blacksmithing classes this year which is probably why I'm not on top of the chronology of these publications (plus I just didn't think to look at publication dates).
 
I too have that book, and what I figured Loveless meant was that the workmanship on the old Persian blade was, in his opinion, unparalleled by the knifemakers of his time, especially when you consider that the Persian maker would have had less advanced technology/equipment to work with. Not something that can really come across on a small black and white photo in a book, but hey, that's just my interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top