about swords, iron/steel and some physics

[XorX]

How many blades have you tested? Why do you think that Roman swords, or Celtic La Tene II and III swords known to be slashing swords, reported by Philon to be tested for springiness, weren't springy by and large? Is there some source that you're using that reports this info?

well, in most of the museums I know, you`re not allowed to grab all the blades and bend around a bit..., so I`ve tested none.

I think most of them were not springy because most of the ones I know which are examined or where the construction technique is visible are built in a manner that does not allow springiness. total springiness and total hardness of a blade stand contrary. the can`t be achieved in one blade. it is always a compromise. it depends on many factors to which side this compromise tends in a blade.

my main source for this claim is the archaeological evidence, the other is the report of, I think it was Tacitus?, I`m not sure about that, who sayd that Celts in a battle against romans had to rebend their bent slashing swords in battle.

Dan:
what we define as crappy today must not have been seen so in the times when the pieces in discussion were in use. The question should be: why did they produce so many "crappy" swords when they had the abilities to produce "better" ones?
my guess is: it was about money in the widest sense, as I said some posts before. the infrastructure (sources of excellent ores, specialised furnace technique, specialised craftsmen, extra energy for carburisation of softer steel e.g. charcoal, knowledge!! not only by some specialists, but by a large range of craftsmen,...)needed to produce the needed amount of the right steel is much more expensive than finding a compromise that works for the mass

it`s also interesting that in the time when Japanese began producing "crappy" swords, in europe the techniques had developed to a mass production of "springy blades". it`s thought that this was based on more effective furnace techniques used from this time onwards.

the point of this thread: I see a tendence, when discussing weapons, to use modern terms of "quality" on the ancient pieces. I think that is the wrong way. we should discuss the original items we have, examine much more of them chemically and from a physical point of view, make more reproductions of different types of blades in different constructions using period material and test them in experiments. then we can tell what the blades were able to do, not what they should be from our modern view.
this can help to rise our knowledge about how fighting was done, in which ways the weapons can have been used,...
I personally don`t rely totally on some single written sources because we never know if these describe the norm or something extraordinary.
I would not say that Philon or Tacitus or Erhart told fairytales, but we don`t know their sources, their special knowledge of blademaking, their intentions....

by the way: happy new year :-)