02-12-2012, 06:47 AM
I was told there was some discussion of my work on this forum, so I joined.
well where to begin....
Damascus, pattern-welding, laminated; these are all related or the same really. Its only a matter of making it look one way or the other. All were used in antiquity to add carbon into the iron matrix. Examples of this time of forging surface even before the Greeks. There was some strong debate amongst Metallurgists (not Archeologists) as to whether cast and wrought iron were being used to create these steels. However from a molecular perspective this wouldn't yield a useable steel as cast and wrought iron precipitate too much carbon. This creates a layer on top of the ferrite which disallows its being hammer fused sufficiently. In fact the process of making cast iron and wrought iron means carbonizing the iron beyond the percentage needed for quality steel. If the Greeks could make cast or wrought iron, they could and did make proper steel. The laminated layers seen in Greeks swords is not purely and cast iron layered up, it would fall apart like Tiramisu, for lack of a better analogy. Beating pure iron together would fuse it without layers, beating cast and wrought iron together creates unstable layers, beating layers of properly carbonized steel creates fused but distinct laminations as seen in artifact weaponry. Its not an argument, its physics.
While Damascus as we have it today, can be viewed as inauthentic it is only because its made in a very controlled way today. The damascus patterns I've seen in artifacts is very blotchy and irregular. No one did it for looks back then and they didn't, I'm sure, etch it like they do today. Pattern-welding is more or less, simply giving laminated steel a twist while continuing to flatten and re-flatten the billet. Same process but it creates a different pattern. more linear in appearance than Damascus. Mostly because Damascus is usually made with rods rather than folding a flat billet. While I would love to only make properly bloomed and carbonized iron to use for swords and thus everyone can have perfectly authentic swords....the cost per sword would be about $2500-$3000. The process was simple and the best way in antiquity to make this steel. Today however we have a vast resource of mills and manufacture that produce much better steel at a fraction of that cost.
I would love to stay as authentic as possible but just sometimes the cost is beyond most everyone, even me! I am simply trying to provide better alternatives for reenactors than has been available. Nothing from India, or Pakistan is worth anything IMHO.
I have posted in the marketplace for 4 swords I am completing in the coming days. I am making these out of 1095 steel. Its as authentic as you can get for the small pricetag. Its a good steel, tough and will hold a decent edge.
This has been a very long post so I won't address the helmets here unless someone is actually interested.
eharisto
well where to begin....
Damascus, pattern-welding, laminated; these are all related or the same really. Its only a matter of making it look one way or the other. All were used in antiquity to add carbon into the iron matrix. Examples of this time of forging surface even before the Greeks. There was some strong debate amongst Metallurgists (not Archeologists) as to whether cast and wrought iron were being used to create these steels. However from a molecular perspective this wouldn't yield a useable steel as cast and wrought iron precipitate too much carbon. This creates a layer on top of the ferrite which disallows its being hammer fused sufficiently. In fact the process of making cast iron and wrought iron means carbonizing the iron beyond the percentage needed for quality steel. If the Greeks could make cast or wrought iron, they could and did make proper steel. The laminated layers seen in Greeks swords is not purely and cast iron layered up, it would fall apart like Tiramisu, for lack of a better analogy. Beating pure iron together would fuse it without layers, beating cast and wrought iron together creates unstable layers, beating layers of properly carbonized steel creates fused but distinct laminations as seen in artifact weaponry. Its not an argument, its physics.
While Damascus as we have it today, can be viewed as inauthentic it is only because its made in a very controlled way today. The damascus patterns I've seen in artifacts is very blotchy and irregular. No one did it for looks back then and they didn't, I'm sure, etch it like they do today. Pattern-welding is more or less, simply giving laminated steel a twist while continuing to flatten and re-flatten the billet. Same process but it creates a different pattern. more linear in appearance than Damascus. Mostly because Damascus is usually made with rods rather than folding a flat billet. While I would love to only make properly bloomed and carbonized iron to use for swords and thus everyone can have perfectly authentic swords....the cost per sword would be about $2500-$3000. The process was simple and the best way in antiquity to make this steel. Today however we have a vast resource of mills and manufacture that produce much better steel at a fraction of that cost.
I would love to stay as authentic as possible but just sometimes the cost is beyond most everyone, even me! I am simply trying to provide better alternatives for reenactors than has been available. Nothing from India, or Pakistan is worth anything IMHO.
I have posted in the marketplace for 4 swords I am completing in the coming days. I am making these out of 1095 steel. Its as authentic as you can get for the small pricetag. Its a good steel, tough and will hold a decent edge.
This has been a very long post so I won't address the helmets here unless someone is actually interested.
eharisto
Michael
