Wootz steel--how does it stack up against supersteels like K390, S90V, M390, M4?

We can't really be sure what the medieval or Roman dogs looked like because most of the breeds we see today were developed or refined since maybe the early 1800's. Remember that even the dogs bred to go after wolves didn't have to be that big because once you get outside of the areas where wolves go after REALLY big prey like bison, they didn't have to be very big, like maybe 60-75 pounds. The really huge 100+ pound ones are pretty rare and may only exist in Canada these days where they have always had bison to prey on. I have the sneaking suspicion that the mastiffs of old were not nearly as large as the enormous dogs we see today. To begin with, our dogs today probably get fed a LOT better.
The Mastiff said:
After raising English mastiffs for the last twenty some years I have a real respect for what a battalion of war dogs let loose ahead of the main body could do to even well trained light infantry, or footmen from a large fast moving group of 180 to 220 lb male mastiffs. They would absolutely terrorize and scatter the pack animals behind the army if unprotected by their own dogs as the Romans did.

And I use my mastiff as a foot warmer or an extra blanket on cold nights. :o

Joe
Click to expand...
 
willseeyalater said:
Pikes, bow and arrow, rocks of various size and means of being chucked, war dogs, fire, thirst, hunger and disease....lots of alternate weapons that outnumbered swords in medieval warfare. Plenty of choices for bifurcating your enemies one way or another.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely right. A good sword was a rich man's weapon.
 
jdm61 said:
You are absolutely right. A good sword was a rich man's weapon.
Click to expand...

I think someone else had made that point and it got me to thinking about what the foot soldiers and bowmen would have had for weapons. We have maybe drifted off of the wootz steel topic a ways but it veered off into medieval warfare. I think it is easy to romanticize warfare from past era's and be focused on artifacts and forget that the majority of soldiers were there not by free choice but that was their trade or obliged duty to the powers over them. Getting hacked, piked, spiked, speared, arrowed, burnt, bit or diseased were not an automatic free pass back to HQ. Infection and dysentery/intestinal issues killed vast numbers more than wootz steel I would guess.
 
The availability and cost of swords varied from period to period, but they generally became more widely available and quality ones available at more budget-friendly prices the farther along the timeline you move. By the Renaissance there were industrial-produced--by the standards of the day--sword blades available for import from Germany and Italy in large quantity. The blades would then be matched to fittings and assembled by a local area cutler. I don't have the time to dig it up right now, but there are blades that have been found with over-long tangs for trimming down to match the end fittings, or with just a ball at the base of the blade to allow forming of the tang by a local smith.

Also, the sword was to the polearm what the handgun is to the longarm. It almost always a backup weapon or one to get you to your polearm! But the sword saw more use in home/self defense because it is easier to carry and wield, and similar laws were in place back then with regard to carry of arms in public. A sword was "normal" but still made many nervous in urban environments. A polearm would get you arrested and questioned.
 
willseeyalater said:
I think someone else had made that point and it got me to thinking about what the foot soldiers and bowmen would have had for weapons. We have maybe drifted off of the wootz steel topic a ways but it veered off into medieval warfare. I think it is easy to romanticize warfare from past era's and be focused on artifacts and forget that the majority of soldiers were there not by free choice but that was their trade or obliged duty to the powers over them. Getting hacked, piked, spiked, speared, arrowed, burnt, bit or diseased were not an automatic free pass back to HQ. Infection and dysentery/intestinal issues killed vast numbers more than wootz steel I would guess.
Click to expand...

I take it you've read "Guns, Germs, and Steel"? :D
 
That is one I have not read but the PBS series was quite interesting. I am a big fan of Morris Desmond's two books on Teddy Roosevelt and am about halfway into Stanley Karnow's book "Vietnam: A History" and anything Stephen Ambrose wrote is worth reading...even if it was his grocery list. Oh well, having a degree in History and not using it as a teacher leaves you with being a history geek. I told a college kid who asked me what my degree was in and his second question was what was I doing with it now. I told him I was trying to avoid repeating to use the things that did not work in the past. He thought I was being a smart ass but that was only half right. Mostly what I get from reading the history of great military battles is to not forget the heavy cost in average people's lives. General Grant's views on defeating the Confederacy seem to me to be so disconnected from the human side, maybe Generals have to disconnect from it to win wars. There is no doubt that wars are meant to be won but that is another topic.
 
The Renaissance also saw the advent of the different class of sword for the well healed "civilian" crowd. The long rapiers that are familiar to us today were not really intended for general military use any more than the small sword that replaced them in that "sharp jewelry" role. What changed more than anything in the Renaissance to open up that market for expensive cutlery was the rise of the wealthy urban merchant class. I would almost be inclined to say that the kind of fighting that Shakespeare wrote about in say Romeo and Juliet was more akin to modern gang warfare or a good old fashioned blood feud than the "private warfare" of the medieval period. Those guys weren't trying to capture territory. They were just looking for payback,
FortyTwoBlades said:
The availability and cost of swords varied from period to period, but they generally became more widely available and quality ones available at more budget-friendly prices the farther along the timeline you move. By the Renaissance there were industrial-produced--by the standards of the day--sword blades available for import from Germany and Italy in large quantity. The blades would then be matched to fittings and assembled by a local area cutler. I don't have the time to dig it up right now, but there are blades that have been found with over-long tangs for trimming down to match the end fittings, or with just a ball at the base of the blade to allow forming of the tang by a local smith.

Also, the sword was to the polearm what the handgun is to the longarm. It almost always a backup weapon or one to get you to your polearm! But the sword saw more use in home/self defense because it is easier to carry and wield, and similar laws were in place back then with regard to carry of arms in public. A sword was "normal" but still made many nervous in urban environments. A polearm would get you arrested and questioned.
Click to expand...
 
jdm61 said:
The Renaissance also saw the advent of the different class of sword for the well healed "civilian" crowd. The long rapiers that are familiar to us today were not really intended for general military use any more than the small sword that replaced them in that "sharp jewelry" role. What changed more than anything in the Renaissance to open up that market for expensive cutlery was the rise of the wealthy urban merchant class. I would almost be inclined to say that the kind of fighting that Shakespeare wrote about in say Romeo and Juliet was more akin to modern gang warfare or a good old fashioned blood feud than the "private warfare" of the medieval period. Those guys weren't trying to capture territory. They were just looking for payback,
Click to expand...

Agreed. However the term "rapier" when used in-period was also a very loose one, which included cutting-and-thrust swords as well. They weren't all narrow pig-stickers. In fact, some would be considered as "broadswords" by today's nomenclature. :)
 
Wootz steel, leather armor, miniature war dogs, dysentery... Let's keep this thread going!

I think a paramount thing to remember about antiquity is that information was not very freely available, and what was available was spread very slowly and sometimes (most times) imprecisely. Just like today (though in a highly accelerated form), short information leads to tall tales, and the hype machine was churning for Wootz steel (or Damascus, or "thousand fold" Japanese Steel and Katanas) for centuries, without any sort of empirical comparisons. This isn't even taking into account romanticizing, both by the users (Samurais were the worst for this), and later poets, historians, story tellers, and laymen. Now that these pieces are lost or priceless, and all we have to go on are these near-legends and recreations that are easy to doubt, it is easy to overestimate these materials.

Keep in mind, these alloys and designs were being compared to alloys not too far removed from wrought iron and mild steel. There was also just an embryonic understanding of heat treatment, so that even a passable treatment would yield a top-flight material in that time.
 
In the roman army and even the british empire in the 18th thru 19th centuries dysentery wouldn't even get you the day off. Same 30 mile road march then set up camp/fortifications. Heck they would often march 30 miles just to enter into combat upon arrival. Tough, tough people. Turnip soup flavored with salt pork ( rancid) and axel grease. :) Water taken from creeks or roadside ditches. Imagine how modern americans would stand up to that.
 
Though of course disease was the single biggest killer in war back then. The armies were often a bit smaller after such a march. :D
 
Reading back into the thread someone had mentioned how the European swords were heavier and more robust then Japanese swords,etc..This is actually more of a myth then reality. Longswords and katana actually are pretty similar in weight. Katana could have blade spines 7-8mm+ thick, That's a serious cleaver! The European style of sword use was arguably just as refined and skillful as any other culture. There is a wide, false generalization that European warriors clumsily hacked away with their heavy swords while the samurai were super skilled and elegant.

This is of course not true, As one can find this information on the internet fairly easily. Also I have read that the Japanese Katanas actually used in battle were a little different then most people imagine. They were generally more simple, less ornate and had more obtuse,robust geometry.

There were ways to get around armor: halfswording, Maces,hammers,poleaxes and daggers. Longsword users were even known to grab the sword by the blade and swing the crossguard and pommel toward the enemy like a warhammer.
 
The Mastiff said:
In the roman army and even the british empire in the 18th thru 19th centuries dysentery wouldn't even get you the day off. Same 30 mile road march then set up camp/fortifications. Heck they would often march 30 miles just to enter into combat upon arrival. Tough, tough people. Turnip soup flavored with salt pork ( rancid) and axel grease. :) Water taken from creeks or roadside ditches. Imagine how modern americans would stand up to that.
Click to expand...

People these days wouldn't last 10 seconds.....
 
The Mastiff said:
...Tough, tough people. Turnip soup flavored with salt pork ( rancid) and axel grease. :) Water taken from
creeks or roadside ditches. Imagine how modern americans would stand up to that.
Click to expand...
:) That they were. Although, with average life span of 40 years or less. There's only so much abuse the body can take...
 
Ankerson said:
People these days wouldn't last 10 seconds.....
Click to expand...
I dunno about that. People will adjust to harsh conditions if they have to. Modern-day people in a situation like the one you're referencing would be miserable, of course... but so were people back then, I'd imagine.

Gator97 said:
Although, with average life span of 40 years or less. There's only so much abuse the body can take...
Click to expand...
That average is brought significantly down by the number of kids who never survived into adulthood. If someone was successful at surviving beyond early childhood, there was a decent chance of them living into their 50s and 60s.
 
Dan57 said:
I dunno about that. People will adjust to harsh conditions if they have to. Modern-day people in a situation like the one you're referencing would be miserable, of course... but so were people back then, I'd imagine.
Click to expand...

People back then grew up in those type of conditions so they were tougher in general than the pansies we see so much of today......

Take them away from their XBOX, Smart Phones, flip flops, cargo shorts, face book, tweeter, fast food, Star Bucks etc they would die within a week....
 
Ain't that the truth. I'm amazed that I'm considered an oddity by most people I know because of the work I do around the house, on my cars, etc. 30 years ago, I would have been considered lazy. Growing up around Midwestern farmers (who work unbelievable hours) gives you a different perspective on things like work ethic.
 
Ankerson said:
People back then grew up in those type of conditions so they were tougher in general than the pansies we see so much of today......

Take them away from their XBOX, Smart Phones, flip flops, cargo shorts, face book, tweeter, fast food, Star Bucks etc they would die within a week....
Click to expand...

Why would I die without my cargo shorts? Flip flops? Maybe. Cargo's? No way, I will live forever. On top of a mountain.
 
You are correct.. Look at the numbers from the Mexican War!!! Even the Civil War saw a huge number of deaths due to disease. the death from disease numbers arguably didn't really start to decline a LOT until WW2 when we also saw a decline in the number of death from wounds at least on the Anglo-American forces due to better field medical care and transport.
FortyTwoBlades said:
Though of course disease was the single biggest killer in war back then. The armies were often a bit smaller after such a march. :D
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top