Steel stupid thought

M

motard2

Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
40
Just considering hour's (meaning "human") story. Knifes, as weapons or tools, started with and extremely sharp esxtremely brittley nature (silices here in europe, obsidian mey be in south america) and then "uprgaded" to a most softer and duller, material: cooper, bronze, then iron.
But for some millenniums, when blades where real "vital" items, the preferred choise was thoughness over any other features. Anywhay I still see persons whorkers in agricoltural as in houses industry, hunters, shepards and mountain men, gaving theyr's preference to a simple, economical, but reliable steel over any superalloy.
:mad: stupid I know
 
First I don't agree that toughness was the first and most important aspect.

Secondly you must consider that availability and cost of better knives. If people had the money, better was available and they wanted a better knife they would buy one. I think it's difficult to proov in a historical view what was good enough or what was prefered without taking those factors (avalilability, cost) into effect.
 
I believe if you read some of the history of the middle ages you will find that they were quite interested in better metals- quite understandable when your life could depend on whose sword held up better or could defeat which armor or shield material. Lots of very interesting material if you're willing to take the time. I did a paper on "Arms & Armor" in school (many, many years ago).
 
Certainly for many centuries, simple, tough carbon steel has served well and has been economical and is still a good performer today. It's only drawback being the rusting/staining issue which is not even an issue for many uses and minimal maintenance can overcome it for many other uses. Only in the last couple of decades has it become hard to find in knives as stainless steel (usually the cheap inferior variety) has replaced it.
 
motard2 said:
Just considering hour's (meaning "human") story. Knifes, as weapons or tools, started with and extremely sharp esxtremely brittley nature (silices here in europe, obsidian mey be in south america) and then "uprgaded" to a most softer and duller, material: cooper, bronze, then iron.
But for some millenniums, when blades where real "vital" items, the preferred choise was thoughness over any other features. Anywhay I still see persons whorkers in agricoltural as in houses industry, hunters, shepards and mountain men, gaving theyr's preference to a simple, economical, but reliable steel over any superalloy.
:mad: stupid I know
Click to expand...

Ductility and malleability of metals are quite important features - "natural" materials (bone, stone, etc.) are of limited use due to the fact that they can't be used in more complicated shapes (i.e. most of tools and machinery).
 
MVF said:
I believe if you read some of the history of the middle ages.

I often do, and like a lot.
But:
roman gladius, extremy softer simple iron, nevertheless it overcomed easyly the (much more) harder steel of barbaricians swords and schramasax

grecian sica and xifos, (as over) it was a very cheap tool, but cold dirupt the exotics pesian's blades

Portuguese, genovese, and spain going to japan with their's mass production armory (and some black powdered guns): no story else against the sofisticated laminated katana.
But i rearly don' whant to trust any-one opionion here
as said mine was a stupid thought. Just sayng most time is the man and the hands that makes the difference.
::)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top