Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Project Dragonslayer: Forging Old Tech With New 160

Posted by timothy from the no-violating-concealed-weapons-ordinances dept.
Mark Balaschak writes: "[This link] is the easy route to an article on the state of materials science from the May 12 issue of Science. Cool in its own right, the article's kicker is at the end: Northwestern's Dragonslayer Project, which aims to produce a single historically-patterned double-edge broadsword of surpassing temper and hardness. Lacking an ISO Standard Dragon to test it, the sword's criterion of proof will be its ability to cut through a modern case-hardened blade. And to add that extra touch of mythic resonance, it will be made from meteoritic iron. Its makers plan to offer the blade up at auction to collectors -- my guess is that it will go to the lady in the white samite ... " This has to be one of the coolest projects I've seen in a long time. Perhaps they could apply it on a smaller scale and sell some nice tantos as well?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Project Dragonslayer: Forging Old Tech With New More

Project Dragonslayer: Forging Old Tech With New

Comments Filter:
  • God, it sometimes seems that people are not amazed at all this cool stuff that's happening. There was a time when I bemoaned that I did not live when the ground breaking discoveries were being made until I realized that we're at the cusp of some really massive changes. Everything you mentioned would be revolutionary in other times, but because so much is happening, the significance is missed during the chaos.
    I'm always amazed that Leibniz and Newton, Wallace and Darwin, and other pairs or groups had earth-shattering discoveries revealed so closely together. It's as if the discovery was ready to emerge and needed only a medium to do the revealing.
    Who was it that said that advanced science would be indistinguishable from magic?
  • "The only 10 lb sword there was [sic.] a rapier."

    I'd have to disagree with this point alone.
    My wakizashi can't be more than 8 or 9.
    Admittedly, it is a japnese "short sword,"
    according to Mayamoto Musashi, but it is
    still a sword.

  • Not a single katana or tachi i've ever
    held has been that light, and while many
    were simple 440 steel display pieces, a
    few were well-wrought damascus or even
    the proper differentially-temepered
    higher-carbon blades.

    Claymores as well, of all types, weighed more
    than 10 pounds. Though I know less of scottish
    weapons, my friends wallace-style claymore and
    his lighter basket-hilt claymore are easily
    over your 10 lbs.

  • You'd have to read Pratchet. He writes absurdist fantasy somewhat similar to Douglas Adams. There is no requirement for a correlation between anything which appears in a Pratchet work and reality.
  • True enough, I stand corrected, however, I do think that part of the Japanese armor/weapon issue comes from armor not being really effective against a katana. (Leather/wood would, I suppose even be a bit more effective since it is generally more or slash.)

    As to rapiers, yes, they are pretty ineffective on a battlefield, being better for a duel, however, I believe that a part of their design is to slip in between the small cracks in armor and such. I could be wrong, though. (A good deal of the point of a rapier is to look nice, though:), which I feel they do very well.)

    I believe(more meant to one of the later replies, but I don't want to answer all of them individually, and it is related to this:) that gunpowder did change things, as when people are shooting at you, it is probably more important to be mobile. The pike probably helped a bit, but that has been around far longer than gunpowder, since before the times of heavy armor.

    The way I have always believed it, and I don't have time to check on it right now, is that, following the fall of the Roman empire, armor started getting better(oftentimes meaning bigger, but not always). So, you would make a bigger sword, thus being more able to damage the armor(usually breaking the pins/ties that held it together.) So, make bigger armor... bigger sword... (anyone see a parallel to the arms races of today and the recent past?) Eventually, you get to the point where making a sword any larger is not going to be effective(zwei-hander -- BIG two handed weapons) At this point, you start looking for ways to get through the armor, hence the smaller, faster swords such as a rapier, which wouldn't be (as someone has pointed out) effective in battle, but were probably starting to pop-up. Then, comes gun-powder. I don't think that cross-bows really played as big a role as that. I could be wrong, though.
  • >>>
    Actually, the knights dissapearance had abosulutely nothing whatsoever to do with gunpowder.
    >>
    The end of the Knight on the battlefield was due to the invention of the Pike, the widespread use of the crossbow, and the English Longbow.

    Actually missile weapons altogether had nothing to do with the disappearance of armored knights. (Missile weapons meaning firearms or bolt type missiles).

    A knight is an armored soldier. But the armor was so heavy that it was impractical to wear on foot, so all knights were mounted. Devise a means of unmounting him, and a knight is a sitting duck (turtle is a better image). Military strategy employed many such techniques (once the cultural bias against it disappeared). The pike, stakes driven into the ground, fire pits, etc. all served this purpose.

    Armor technology of the day was capable of repelling all but the most lucky of missiles (through the eye holes, between joints, etc.) There was even a standardized test for this - how close an archer would have to be to pierce the armor (maximillian armor was the penultimate in this area. I forget what its test was). There was even a mechanical arrow shooting device that could be used to accurately reproduce the test.

    It wasn't missile weapons that defeated mounted armored knights, it was military tactics. The reason the tactics took so long to develop was because of the huge cultural bias against allowing foot soldiery (i.e. commoners) to kill knights (i.e. nobility).

  • SCA martial arts have a large variety of simulated weapons effects, which include impact, piercing and slashing. Actual swordplay against actual armor does not use a cutting motion with the broadsword of the middle ages because it can't slice through the metal armor of the time.

    AFAIR, there was a SCI-FI story about a time traveller who used a sword prepared with post modern technology. They used a time displacement field to divide a broadsword in half and placed a slab of diamond a few hundred microns thick in the center.

    I wonder if any work has gone it making a composite laminate sword along these lines, rather than using the fold and flatten katana method.


  • I fenced at Georgia Southern with Dr. French. Great fun. The sad part is that it is great fun but rather expensive for someone starting out because the classes were very costly from what I remember from calling the Atlanta Fencing Club.

    I live in Lawrenceville just north of Atlanta. Good to heer from a neighbor, y'all. :->

  • Lemme see those moves, boy. Take your best shot with that there metal toothpick you're holding.

    k., with a full mag of 7.62 FMJ.
    --
    "In spite of everything, I still believe that people
    are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
  • hehe... Epee is my favorite too. I just like how(often-times, anyways) it is more of a stratedgy, and not so much run-in-and-attack-first kind of thing.

    All the equipment is finnicky. I have two epee's, rewired them, went to a tournament, neither passed inspections-- with brand-new parts.

    Oh man, now this is really off-topic:)

  • I would think that over all you would have vey little chance of killing a Dragon with a sword. A Dragon Slayer would carry a sword for use against people and people sized things ... but to kill a Dragon you'd want someing bigger Polearms and long speers in to the back of the neck or something along the lines of whaling harpoons with explosive heads
  • I wonder if layering would be such a good idea on a Claymore/broadsword kind of weapon? The Euros wore a lot of plate metal armor which had to be hacked through in no uncertain terms, wheras the Japanese wore much lighter armor and forged blades which were much better at cutting.

    Can you get the best of both worlds in one sword, I wonder, or is it better to specialize one way or the other?

    In either case, Happy Hacking!

    (-_-)
  • I'm curious, how does one go about becoming an amateur metalworker, metallurgy hobbyist? Are there any good books or web sites on the subject?
  • (Now all we need is a lightweight bulletproof armor to go along with this...)

    Well, there was the bear armour from a few months ago.

    krenshala

  • I would tend to think it would be closer to the 5-10lbs. Of the swords that I have looked at, (and own,) none are that large. AT 40-50 lbs, it is more of a two-hander, and actually more of a club. Here's a greatsword, (43" blade), that weighs in just under 6 lbs, and this is a REAL sword, (this is about the finest manufacturer I have found, I have a long sword from them) Great Sword [highlandsteele.com]
    The main thing I see, is that you really can't weild a 40lb sword effectively for much of anything. Perhaps one horseback, but even then it becomes very unweildy, and generally the balance is not going to be very good on a weapon of that size(well, the balance may be good, but it won't be superb just because of the size of it.)
  • Try Battling [battling.com]. Much more fun too, especially during freshers week (or the equivalent in the States).
  • I want to see what our tech can do with
    a katana. The Japanese managed to create
    (IMHO) the most beautiful, powerful
    bladed weapons in existence. As was mentioned,
    even some of the recent tech couldn't do
    more than match the meticulous forgings
    of the Japanese. I wonder how far they
    were from our "structurally perfect" swords.
    As you say though, you don't slay a dragon
    with a rapier, or a katana.

    adamantium claws anyone?

  • Re:Oh Great! (Score:5)

    by locust ( 6639 ) on Thursday June 29, 2000 @05:04AM (#968903)
    Dude, its all about how you sell your story. Given the number of stories submitted daily (about 400?), you have to have a good line, or else Rob & Co aren't going to look at it twice. You have to start your story off with something like:
    • Technology foo threatens the Internet or
    • Company bar threatens the Internet as we know it or
    • Lawsuit sna could destroy Internet or
    • Patent fu granted on obvious or impossible (or both) invention/technique and will ravage the Internet

    This one got posted because the poster made a big deal out of the Northwestern project. The title Project Dragon Slayer! didn't hurt either. That got attention. I tend to be too longwinded in my submissions, and so they don't get posted. I share your pain, so I suggest that you resubmit your story as: Man jumps 10K feet with 85kg parachute, lives, patents, sues, and threatens Internet!.

    --locust

  • I guess it has its advantages in pitched battle. But if you want a quality sword, a rapier (or longsword, or smallsword) is the way to go. I would dare to say that it requires even more skill than a broadsword, though they are different types of skill. I'd take a simple, lightweight, flexible rapier over a broadsword any day.

    The problem is that your "simple, lightweight, flexible rapier" would get broken fairly rapidly by any normal sword. During the period of actual use, the rapier was only useful for dueling, because in a (hand-to-hand) melee situation the rapier did not have the strength to stand up to anything but another rapier.

    krenshala

  • Ceramical? Is that like ceramic?

    Regardless, here's a very useful application of
    the idea. Wish I could afford them.

    http://www.fantes.com/kyocera.htm

  • Now my Highlander
    Fantasies can come true - Swoosh
    Whoops, where'd my ear go


  • "As for swords being replaced by firearms, that was no revolution. Swords were commonly issued to soldiers all the way up through the US civil war. It took centuries for the sword to be replaced by the gun. And even it today's modern army a bayonett fixed to the end of a rifle (emergency sword) is standard issue."

    Being issued gear and actually using it are separate matters. Hand to hand combat after the introduction of mass field fire tactics (lines and volleys) were uncommon outside of skirmishes and the regular pitchforking of helpless people (civs and routed enemy). Bayonets even at the time of Marlborough were issued and displayed more for morale than for actual use. Most would choose to run in the face of a pressing charge from a formed up enemy than actually cross swords or bayonets with them. As for their facility against cavalry, the bayonet did not replace the pike in utility, but it may have given soldiers enough of a morale boost so that they would stay together and not rout (allowing cavalry to run them down individually). Today's bayonet drills are a joke, little more than physical exercise. Bayonets are best used for digging out trenches and opening ration containers.

    Swords issued to officers after the age of Marlborough were part of the uniform and most officers were glad to be rid of their encumbrance for everyday wear.
  • I would think that over all you would have vey little chance of killing a Dragon with a sword.

    That's why it takes a hero.

    In any case, a lot depends on how big you assume the dragon is. I remember an old picture of St. George and the dragon; the dragon was depicted as being about the same size as a large croc. By the way he was using a lance, but it would be feasible but risky to dispatch such a beast with a heavy sword.

    If you imagine the dragon to be like Tolkien's Smaug, he'd have to be large enough to eat several ponies, and and strong enough to smash the entire side of a mountain. He has enough fire breath to set an entire town on fire in a couple of passes. He boasts (in all liklihood truthfully) that his teeth are as long as swords and his talons are like lances.

    Taking on that kind of dragon with hand weapons is rather like taking on an Apache gunship. The lucky bow shot is pretty much your best option. Successfully killing that kind of dragon with a sword pretty much out of the question, although supposedly in Middle Earth history it had been done.

  • I think it's the same principle as those carnival games where one hits a hammer on a piston and depending on how high the ball goes, you get a prize. In my experience the winners use the lighter mallet, though most go for the heavier one since you would think it will hit harder. the key is that kinetic energy is 1/2 * m * v^2 where m is the masss of the object and v is the objects speed. Thus the velocity is more important in determing the strengh of the resulting blow. A heavier mallet (or sword) will be much more difficult to get to a high speed (except for using gravity).
  • The "Highlander" sword has to be the all-time favourite.

    "Pssst! This was hand-made in the 1500's by a Japanese warrior swordsmith named Tempura Sushiyama, who reportedly died just after it was completed...yours for $85!"

    "What's that? You only have $40? Dude...this one here may look like junk, but...(lowers voice to barely perceptible whisper)...it's plus 2 to hit, dude!"

  • Ironically enough, the auction for this real-life weapon is to occur on Everquest.

    Mmmnnn... Wood elves.
  • I didn't see this in the article, but I wonder if they are planning on making it weigh 40 - 50 lbs the way a traditional broadsword would, or plan on using the technology available to cut the weight down to 5-10lbs or even less. That would make one hell of a devestating hand to hand weapon.....

    Kintanon

  • Sci-Fi Becomes Reality (Score:4)

    by SnowDog_2112 ( 23900 ) on Thursday June 29, 2000 @04:07AM (#968914) Homepage
    It's one of the things I keep telling my non-techie "people" (ok, so that's mainly family) ... we're living so incredibly close to a science fiction reality, it's not funny.

    Molecularly perfect sword blades (drool). Straight out of half a dozen futuristic RPGs, not to mention countless novels.

    Mapping the human genome (floored). Yeah it's only one step but...wow.

    Molecular computing, pervasive wireless networking(hell, just the Internet itself is something incredible -- we just take it so much for granted we forget how out of this world it is), nanotech, etc, etc, etc!

    We live in fascinating times, people. I just wonder whether our grandkids will say, "Wow, you lived in fascinating times" or if they'll think their advances are as amazing as ours. I mean, the past 100 years has been incredible. Will the next hundred? With the stuff we're on the horizon of figuring out, it's hard to imagine it being anything less....
  • The 40-50 pound broadsword has already been discredited, so this is probably redundant, but I thought slashdotters could use some experience in reality-checking.

    42 pounds is about 20 kilograms. Iron has a density of 7.2 g/cc. Thus, a 42 pound sword would be made up of, approximately, 2800 cc of iron. for a 2m (6' 3") sword, that's a cross-sectional area of 14cm, for a blade 2cm thick, and 7cm across. That is, for the metric-impaired, that's 3/4" thick, and 2 3/4" wide. Now this "blade" doesn't taper at all, if it's 3/4" thick in the middle, and tapers down to an actual edge, you get a blade that's 5 1/2" wide. If it tapers to a point, keeping the same thickness at the base, you have a blade 16 1/2" wide. now that is a broad sword.

    Reality check 2. The torque to hold a 6' 40 pound sword level would be 225 pounds (calculus available on demand). We're talking the equivalent of doing a 225 pound wrist curl.

  • Wouldn't cutting the weight down that much reduce its effectiveness against an armored opponnent?
  • "As to rapiers, yes, they are pretty ineffective on a battlefield, being better for a duel, however, I believe that a part of their design is to slip in between the small cracks in armor and such. I could be wrong, though. (A good deal of the point of a rapier is to look nice, though:), which I feel they do very well.)"

    They certainly do look great. Even in fashion the rapier underwent many changes, eventually becoming mostly ornamental as the smallsword which looked as pretty but was a lot lighter and less unwieldy. These types of weapons were useful both on the duelling field but also in the regular type of drunken brawling that goes on when haughty male types get together and down a few ales. Also, during these times banditry was a scourge on travellers so I imagine any type of blade would have been nice to have.

    "I believe(more meant to one of the later replies, but I don't want to answer all of them individually, and it is related to this:) that gunpowder did change things, as when people are shooting at you, it is probably more important to be mobile. The pike probably helped a bit, but that has been around far longer than gunpowder, since before the times of heavy armor."

    mmmm.. mobility is always nice, especially when you might want to run away (it happens) but against the type of gunfire arrayed on the field in these set piece battles, getting hit was more of a matter of chance than whether you were mobile or static. Among its effects, the advent of mass produced gunpowder made it necessary for organization to appear again on the battlefield as only well-directed, mass gunfire was likely to have any effect on the enemy. No more rabble parting so the knights can go a'charging. Although considerably less accurate than a good bowman, massed gunfire put lots of power in the hand of the average conscript, which at medium to close range would either butcher the enemy or at least scare them away.
  • While kinda neat in that geek sorta way, the whole thing still reeks of Society for Creative Anachronism members with too much time and technology at their disposal.

    I think these people need girlfriends.

    /**
    I have a "Zero Policy" tolerance.

  • Actually missile weapons altogether had nothing to do with the disappearance of armored knights.

    This statement is historically inaccurate. Their were 2 primary methods of removing the knight. One was the pike (which I mentioned), you got that much right. The other was the crossbow. The crossbow was capable of penetrating a knights armor in the 1400's, and the same crossbow, can easily penetrate a modern bulletproof vest.

    This was such a concern to the Catholic church that they made posession of a crossbow illegal. The most powerful military organizations of the day were military knighthood orders. These knighthood orders were wholly capable of, and did, take down nations as desired. A weapon capable of removing the knight was a serious threat to the power of the Catholic church.

    A knight is an armored soldier. But the armor was so heavy that it was impractical to wear on foot, so all knights were mounted.

    A classic knight in armor wore less weight (70#) than todays modern soldier with pack. Not only was a Knight not encumbered by the armor. He could literally do cartwheels, and vault into the saddle from the ground. Modern recreationists find enjoyment in showing this to myth-mongers. The weight of the armor as it was, was distributed evenly throughout the body. This allowed him more manueverability than someone in chainmail alone (which hung all of it's weight from the shoulders).

    Armor technology of the day was capable of repelling all but the most lucky of missiles

    Very much true, except for the crossbow. Eventually the English developed the Longbow expressly for the purpose of penetrating armor. Like the crossbow, it is perfectly capable of penetrating a modern bullet proof vest.

    It wasn't missile weapons that defeated mounted armored knights, it was military tactics.

    This has no basis in reality. As weaponry came along that was capable of countering the knight (mainly the lowly pike), the knight was forced to evolve their tactics. The concept of the knight simply evolved into that of cavalry, and later armored vehicles (tanks). Knights were always fought with knights if pikemen were not available. Much as a modern army sends armor against armor. The formality of the knight only went away when the king of France grew jealous of their financial power.

  • No, you're very confused. The US Marine sword is a _saber_.
    Broadswords have two sides, are straight, and typically do not have a basinet.
  • "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

    Arthur C. Clarke

  • Um, stop trying to sound like you're some fucking sword master. I've been using swords for over 14 years and I don't consider myself anything but a user, but I can tell you this...
    Shadow Knight is right on, what sword did you use that was more than 10 pounds? and did you hold it for more than 5 minutes?
    It probably just *felt* heavier because most tai chi swords and katanas made today are horrifically unbalanced (or spring steel-puke).
    Dragon Slayer project represents a cultural highpoint and it's badass!
  • I *want* this sword. But since I'll never be able to afford it, maybe I can get the next best thing -- at the very end of the article, they say they may make a line of Dragonslayer golf clubs using this technology.

    I don't see how a nine-iron could really hurt a dragon, but I'll willing to put on my armor and spar with it for a while to see if it's an effective weapon. ;)
  • Why is the picture on the first page of buckministerfullerene??? Any idea? C60 is not steel so what pertinence does the picture have to the story??
  • Remember that Katanas have a significantly different philosophy of use than European swords. The katana is light, (a stainless one doesn't count, that's just a big knife, IMHO,) because it can be. It's a lot more about finesse, and when you have a sword that is that sharp, it doesn't matter if it is not heavy, because it will do more damage, and be easier to use than the heavier ones, anyways.
    This lead to a number of interesting things, for instance, Japanese armor is often times more of a decorative nature than for protection.
    European armor (and weapons) on the other-hand, evolved together, in a bigger-armor, bigger-sword kind of way, until the advent of gun-powder, at which time you could take down a knight no matter what he was wearing, so he might as well be able to move around. A huge sword is not nearly as effective when you are worried about getting hit, and so came the rapier.

    Disclaimer: I may have afew (or a lot) of the facts wrong here, please correct me if this is the case.

  • Re:10 lbs (Score:3)

    by Kintanon ( 65528 ) on Thursday June 29, 2000 @05:11AM (#968926) Homepage Journal
    I said the only 10lb sword THERE, as in at the location where I was able to weigh the broadsword.
    That has no bearing on any other location on earth. But the collection of swords I was looking at contained only 1 rapier, the only sword that was around 10lbs.

    Kintanon
  • i never claimed ot be a sword master.
    your words, not mine.

    And in insulting spring steel, keep in mind,
    in order to get carbon into the katanas,
    the Japanese would forge them in what amounted
    to a dirty fire. Spring steel, at least that
    of good quality, may or may not have the right
    proportions, but has the advantage or pure
    carbon.

  • I'm getting the feeling that the posters stating swords weigh in the 20-40lb range have either never held a real sword, or never actually weighed the swords they did.

    krenshala

  • Sutton Hoo sword (Score:4)

    by Jon Peterson ( 1443 ) <jon@@@snowdrift...org> on Thursday June 29, 2000 @05:16AM (#968929) Homepage
    People in London who are into such things should check out the reproduction blade of the Sutton Hoo sword in the British Museum. It's a nice example of Damascus steel work and gives an idea of why these things must have been so highly prized. The reproduction blade was made in Wisconsin, which is funny.

    Also, while I know little about ancient weapons tech, there is a seemingly reliable account of the battle of Hastings that describes an axe blow delivered by a saxon housecarl that cut through a horse's neck and chopped the rider's leg off. One assumes that the foot soldiers of the time were wielding pretty heavy weapons...

  • well I cant speak for what options are available to you, but the way I got into it was to be taught basic metalwork in school (along with basic carpentry - when old farts like me were in school the UK taught all boys the latter and included the former if the school had the facilities) then later in life, having kept up an interest I spent a lot of days pestering working smiths to give me a little time and teach me the basics of forge work. Along the way I learned my very rudimentary knowledge of the metallurgy of steel from these working guys - starting from "this stuff needs to be worked hotter than that" and going on to books to find out why.. along the way I learned that ancient blades are often much higher quality than could be readily explained by the technology of their time and that many serious researchers have spent time working out precisely what they did and how in order to achieve these results. From there it was a short step to getting seduced by the mystery and folklore that surrounds swordsmithing and I started researching it in earnest.

    Having recently moved from one side of the Atlantic to the other that is where it currently has stopped, but only until such time as I have the space and time to set up a workshop again. I'm badly out of practice but setting up the workshop will fix that - somewhere to heat the metal, a good sized anvil, a decent hammer and time are all thats needed, once I have the place to start over. With just those basics you can make all the other tools you need (although I'll probably cheat and buy in the more awkward stuff) Even if I never do anything more useful with it than helping my neighbor fix his garden gate (fire-welding wrought iron.. yuck!) its still fun to do.
    # human firmware exploit
    # Word will insert into your optic buffer
    # without bounds checking

  • Didn't you know it's the heroes with the best swords that get laid most often?

    --
  • Yes, up to a point.

    At some point, the human arm is incapable of moving faster. So if E = 1/2 mv^2, note that v itself is a function of m, and dv/dm is zero some neighborhood of m=0; in otherwords, you hit your maximum speed at some m1 > 0; since velocity is a constant for mm1, then m1 represents the maximum energy on the set of masses [0..m1]. Furthermore m1 is not necessarily the maximum energy on the intervale [0..infinity], because in some neighborhood [m1..m2] velocity decreases very slowly as a function of mass, so that the square law decrease in velocity is still overwhelmed by the linear increase in mass. If we define m2 this way, that is to say the mass at which the square of the decrease of velocity is exactly offset by the increase in mass, then the global maximum for energy is at m2. m1 and m2 are dependent upon the individual and the technique he uses to swing the sword.

    In other words, the only way to determine optimal weight is empirically.
  • I agree with you completely. My only point on that was that is still available as an "emergency" weapon. And your correct in that it more closely resembles a pike than a sword. Point taken.
  • The AFC seemed like a little hole in the wall joint in a run-down section of midtown, which is why I don't really plan on joining. Right now I live in that "orphaned" region of highway 9 between Sandy Springs and Roswell.

    I can't remember the name of my fencing instructor at Emory though! A short guy who couldn't move his head. Of course he could pretty much just waste anybody in the class without really trying-- kinda like Neo's fight scene in the Matrix after he comes back to life.
  • What kind of Metalworking? Bladesmithing? (Making forged knives/swords), Knife Making (stock removal)? General Metalworking (Lathe/mill work)

    There are good places for each of these, with SOME overlap between the "Knife Making" crafts and the general metalworking.

    Drop me an e-mail at

    Charlie@TheGallos.com, and I'll help out
  • "It wasn't missile weapons that defeated mounted armored knights, it was military tactics. This has no basis in reality. As weaponry came along that was capable of countering the knight (mainly the lowly pike), the knight was forced to evolve their tactics. The concept of the knight simply evolved into that of cavalry, and later armored vehicles (tanks). Knights were always fought with knights if pikemen were not available. Much as a modern army sends armor against armor. The formality of the knight only went away when the king of France grew jealous of their financial power."

    You can argue both sides but there is truth to all of this. If you ever read the popular history "Distant Mirror" by Barbara Tuchman she gives plenty of evidence that knights were defeated by a combination of social change, economic change as well as by technology. Firstly, it is true that there was plenty of technology available to bring down the average armoured knights. That has already been covered. However, there had to be the will and organization (tactics) to use it. In Tuchman's book she gives plenty of examples where noble haughtiness (honor! honor!) won over common sense. ex. Let's charge the well entrenched English and their massed bowmen over a muddy field! Against middle eastern horsed bowmen, the flower of chivalry were commonly slaughtered by lighter, but better lead muslim soldiery who followed professional military leaders rather than squabble amongst themselves over who gets to charge first. Knights were a class of people who did not simply evolve into different categories of military units. Knights somehow transforming into tanks, indeed. The nobility were forced to open their ranks and share power with the bourgeois as the economic power of towns grew. Inevitably, this meant that military leadership was no longer an accident of birth but also required some element of professionalism. Towns that sent off and financed cadres insisted upon it. Some knights may have morphed into heavy shock cavalry, but the utility of cavalry on the battlefield went through a few phases, ending up during Napoleonic times in their ideal support roles of scouting, masking, harassing, and mopping up. A modern army does not ideally send armour against armour. Ideally, a modern army sends armour against desk clerks. :) Also medieval knights were only too happy to skewer peasants who are running away.
  • One advantage the foil has, due to its flexibility, is the ability to to a quick "whip" around and nail your opponent in the back.
    A valid hit under normal circumstances, but not so effective with electric foils!

    For even more off-topic... my favorite move was la fleche. I had a tendency to combine it with lots of wild screaming and flailing. Most of the time it didn't work, but I had fun doing it, and I did occasionally catch an opponent totally off guard if he'd never fought me before :)
  • That was in one of the Fred Saberhagen Berserker novels (forget which one). The Berserkers sent a killer android back in time to mess up the history of Earth and the humans sent back their own killer with a molecularly perfect sword to take him out. The plot is very similar to the Terminator I (actually the whole Berserker series has a lot of resemblances to the Terminator series/or the Borg).

  • Re:Weight? (Score:5)

    by Kintanon ( 65528 ) on Thursday June 29, 2000 @05:17AM (#968939) Homepage Journal
    I would tend to think it would be closer to the 5-10lbs. Of the swords that I have looked at, (and own,) none are that large. AT 40-50 lbs, it is more of a two-hander, and actually more of a club. Here's a greatsword, (43" blade), that weighs in just under 6 lbs, and this is a REAL sword, (this is about the finest manufacturer I have found, I have a long sword from them) Great Sword
    The main thing I see, is that you really can't weild a 40lb sword effectively for much of anything. Perhaps one horseback, but even then it becomes very unweildy, and generally the balance is not going to be very good on a weapon of that size(well, the balance may be good, but it won't be superb just because of the size of it.)


    I am forced to concede as I just reaxmined some of my information. The sword I weighed was apparently of pretty disgustingly crappy workmanship. Because citing from this page I realize I am in error and you sir, are correct:

    Sword Myths [earthlink.net]

    Myth #2: Medieval broadswords weighed 10 to 15 pounds, some as much as 40 pounds.
    This myth comes from the same place as the myth about the weight of plate armor. Plate armor was worn by knights in the 14th to 17th centuries, and it was certainly bulkier than normal street clothes. However, if a knight wore armor that made it hard to get up after falling from his horse, then such a knight didn't live very long, no matter how thick his armor was. And such a knight would die just as fast trying to wield a sword that weighed 15 pounds.

    Actually, the average medieval broadsword weighed around 3 to 5 pounds, and only the very strongest warriors could handle the 5 to 8 pound hand-and-a-half swords and early Claymores. And then there were those giants who hauled the occasional two-handed great sword into battle, but even those only pushed 12 pounds at the maximum. Even the so-called Austrian Masterpiece two-handed sword with a flamberge blade weighed only 8 to 10 pounds.

    Just to give you an idea, the Marto Excalibur is 48" long overall and weighs around 6 pounds, the CAS Iberia Black Baron sword is about 38" and weighs just 3¼ pounds, the CAS Iberia Swept Hilt Rapier is 44" long and weighs only 2½ pounds. And even Marto's largest Claymore is 56" long and weighs only 8½ pounds. All these swords feature steel blades and have the same size and proportions as their Medieval and Renaissance counterparts.

  • Sword mechanics (Score:4)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Thursday June 29, 2000 @05:17AM (#968940) Homepage Journal
    Much of a broadswords power comes from its weight, with the strike being assited by gravity.

    Well, not exactly. Being a longtime kung fu practioner, I am fairly conversant with the Chinese broadsword which, while a much different design, works prety much on the same physical principles. A moderately heavy broadsword is going to have considerable power when swung horizontally, and the heaviest broadsword that is simply allowed to drop is not going to have much power at all.

    In other words -- muscle does the work. Gravity's most important role is providing the wielder a stable platform from which to lever the sword into action.

    The relation of mass to penetrating power, all other things being equal, is dependent in a complex and inherently only empiracally testable way to each individual's body mechanics. For any given individual, there is going to be an optimal weight from the point of view of penetrating power, all other parameters being equal. Imagine a sword that is as light as a reed; naturally while you can swing it with great speed it will have very little bite. On the other hand, imagine a sword that is literally the heaviest you can lift. If you could swing it even moderately fast it would have terrific penetrating power. Unfortunately, you can barely move it, so it too has no penetrating power (but in the hands of Arnold it could be pretty damned devestating).

    Now imagine a sword that's roughly a third as heavy as you can lift. That sucker's going to bite.

    What they need to do is to conduct biomechanical studies using sword collectors as a test population. Have them swing iron bars of various weights into dynamometers and figure out what weight, on average, yields the most energy when swung by a pencil neck fantasy freak. Naturally an actual warrior is going to be much stronger, and training will produce neuromuscular faciliation, so he'll be considerably faster as well. Therefore, I suspect that the statistically optimal sword for the amateur will be unusually light when compared to professional models.

    Swords tend, I think, to be lighter than is purely optimal from the point of penetration. That is because speed gives tactical advantages which have to be traded off with pure crushing power. However, in dragon slaying literature I've read, dragons are not depicted as being particularly fast. Large animals tend to have slower reaction times because of the finite speed of nerve signal propagation, so a huge animal is going to be relatively slower than a human being. Also, note that they are armored -- critters that make their living off of speed don't carry armor; highly armored creatures, such as tortises,tend to be slow. Of course, dragon armor must be unusually light since it must permit the dragon to fly. However, it is safe to say that reaction time is not likely to be a dragon's forte: strength, invulnerability and, of course, fire breathing are.

    For that reason, the sword should be weighted for optimal penetration (i.e. relatively heavy) since a slight loss of blade speed is not a critical tactical factor. The dragonslayer is unlikely to be called upon to execute quick parrying and feinting type maneuvers.

    This has the fortuitous effect that the optimal dragonslaying sword for the amateur would probably make a fine all around weapon for a trained warrior.

  • Well, I'm no expert on katanas, but my guess would be, not a whole lot.

    They've already pretty much past their peak in evolution, and I doubt that one could even be made today that would match up to the old ones. It's pretty sad, really, 'cause they are a truly wonderful weapon.
  • Who needs enchanting?
    It can already be clearly labeled as the "+4 Broadsword of Human Idiocy"

    Doesnt anyone do anything for the public?

    Ph34r my +2 Dagger!
  • Found a site with some rather extensive length/weight information for various types of weapons, including swords of all types. The heaviest sword listed was ~15 pounds, and was greatsword over 6 feet long. 40-50lb. in a sword is just absurd. http://www.busprod.com/the_burg/sca/rapier.htm

  • Watching with great interest... (Score:3)

    by davebooth ( 101350 ) on Thursday June 29, 2000 @05:23AM (#968944)

    As an amateur metalworker, interested in forging techniques and bladesmithing in general I'm watching this with great interest. I've often spent long periods with metallurgical analyses of both the traditional japanese swords and the pattern-welded european ancient blades. They have in common a multi-laminate structure, of steels of varying hardness, the core of the blade being softer than the edge and the martensite generated in the blades production being deliberately (although empirically) arranged to preserve a sharper, harder edge. This is, after all, why a good blade was often a pretty one too and where the true artistry of a master bladesmith (which I most definitely am NOT) shows.

    Since I've contemplated experimenting with a hybrid technique myself I'm hoping that this project will at least give me some ideas.
    # human firmware exploit
    # Word will insert into your optic buffer
    # without bounds checking

  • I'd like to add that nothing strikes fear in the hearts of your enemies quite like a foil with a little ball of rubber on the end.

    Now, some of us will probably never have the opportunity to be in a pitched battle with a sword, so the beauty/elegance of the piece will outweigh (pun!) its real usefulness.

    As for real swordplay, er fencing, I'm pretty sure I could take out-- or at least really annoy-- a Komodo Dragon with a mere sabre.
  • Just take out both of the dragon's eyes with a couple of well-placed Titleists....

  • At the Cleveland Museum of Art, they have this particularly huge German greatsword from the early 16th century. It's about 5'8" in height or so... I'm 6'5" and it comes to just below the shoulder. Oddly enough, it's 8lbs, 12oz. None of the blades in my collection weigh more than 5lbs total, and these are all originals, not the modern reproductions. I'll admit that some of them feel like they're 50lbs after a while, however. Gotta love the way levers work.
  • I think that number would be even higher if swords weren't a really expensive thing to have hanging on your wall. Even those cheesy (unsharpened!) replicas that all the House of Knives locations have are hundreds of dollars... I'd love to have a huge collection of authentic (or accurate replicas) swordsd, from both western and eastern cultures, but I'm not rich, so I'll just have to hope that maybe these Project Dragonslayer guys will use their newfound knowledge to make more swords, as well as golf clubs (ugh... what a waste of cool metalurgy).
  • Perhaps skip the traditional blade, and put removable CBN coated cutting units, instead (trouble is, how do you determine chip breaker geometry with a sword held by a dragonslayer ?)

    ROFL. That's excellent. For once someone made a good techie-joke that's not computer/internet related.

    Have you checked in Machinery's Handbook? First, you'd need to find some material properties for dragon flesh. I checked, but the closest thing were some tables entitled "Optimum Feedrates for Rough Machining of Low Carbon Dragon"

  • However, there had to be the will and organization (tactics) to use it.

    Correct, and not in dispute, the point was that the tactics used required technology that took a very long time to develop.

    Against middle eastern horsed bowmen, the flower of chivalry were commonly slaughtered by lighter, but better lead muslim soldiery who followed professional military leaders

    Slaughtered? I don't think so. It was routine for knights to battle armies several times their size and win. I believe National Geographic (possibly Scientific American) quoted some historical references of odds up to 35 to 1. The inability to take on knights in even numbers had a direct influence on the development of the assasin.

    professional military leaders rather than squabble amongst themselves

    The various orders of the knighthood had professional military leaders. A person who was to become a knight would start training no later than 12 years of age. They received far more training than any modern army. As for squabbling among themselves, I don't dispute that. But that is certainly not a culture in history that has bypassed that.

    Knights were a class of people who did not simply evolve into different categories of military units.

    Yes, they were certainly a class of people, almost exclusively nobles. I don't question that their was discrimination. But to say that they did not evolve is incorrect. The skills they had (horsemanship was considered as important as swordsmanship) devloped as knights were what was to become the backbone of the cavalry. Even modern horseshows owe much to this history. As history progress it was quite common for the cavalry to consist of nobles. This had as much to do with access to training, and horses that came through wealth as anything else. Even up through the US civil war it was common to have large numbers of officers in the cavalry. FYI, modern US armored brigades quite often have the word "cavalry" in their name. Like the 11th cavalry brigade that gaurds Fort Knox.

    A modern army does not ideally send armour against armour. Ideally, a modern army sends armour against desk clerks.

    I should have clarified myself better. A moderm army counters armor with armor. Of course we also have fighters, copters, and tow missles. The closest midevil thing to any of these is the crossbow to the tow missle.

    You are right in many points, including decimating peasents, social and especially economic changes and so on. I don't dispute there were many negative side effects at all. My point is that the knight was undone by change and had to evolve, even if unwillingly. There was no single factor that removed him from the battlefield.

  • Your typical baseball bat weighs 30-34oz. (around 2lb) and it takes a fair amount of effort to swing one with any great speed. So I'd imagine that anything substantially more heavy would present problems. Granted, a sword is more balanced for smooth motion. Also, in the measurement of kinetic energy ( k = mv^2) the velocity plays an increasingly greater role than mass as each increases. So it would be in the interest of the user to get a faster blade after a certain break-even point.

  • Re:Why a broadsword? (Score:5)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Thursday June 29, 2000 @11:13AM (#968952) Homepage Journal
    Why did the epee supplant the rapier then?

    Because the rapier wasn't a nice weapon to wear to court because caught up in your clothing (after the doublet and hose went out of style).

    Which is to say that saying a rapier is better than a broadsword is like saying Apache is better than Linux... Different weapons fulfil different missions and answer to different requirements.

    The broadsword isn't silly at all. People of yore were just as smart as us, they spent a lot more time thinking about these things than you or I, and tested them. It wasn't that they were too stupid to come up with the rapier or the cavalry saber. They decided that the broadsword design was the best tool for a certain class of jobs. It has a number of virtues that make it particularly versatile.

    (1) It is user friendly. You can hand it to a raw recruit and order him to go forth and kill, and he will by in large do it unto others rather than himself. It's simplicity helps a trained soldier too. If it slips out of your hand on the battlefield, pick it up and swing it any old way. If you're slipping on blood, tripping over rocks or falling into a hole, swing it in the general direction of your target and its fairly likely to do something lethal if it connects. Scientific fencing is fine for a morning on nicely trimmed grass or a gravel dueling ground, but it won't avail if you're standing in a rugged terrain strewn with the bodies of men and horses.

    (2) It is rugged; it can take blows from staves and heavy pole arms for example. It can be used in the countless ad hoc ways that soldiers in need of tools do. You probably could chop wood with it in a pinch. The rapier fails miserably here; it is not a military weapon.

    (3) It is lethal. It has tremendous penetrating and killing power. It will chop of limbs in the unarmored and crush and break them in the armored. The rapier also doesn't measure up here -- it is a dueling weapon ideal for subduing somebody with possibly lethal side effects. You use it to attack the tendons, ligaments and surface arteries of your opponent.

    (4) It is relatively small. It is easy to carry on long fast marches and can be put to use in confined quarters in a pinch. The rapier is superior in this respect, and heavy pole arms are inferior.

    (5) It is easy to care for. Put it in its convenient sheath and its fairly well protected from rust and dings.

    These qualities make the broadsword a good choice for the anti-draconian mission. A heavy pole arm, spear might appear to be a better choice, but remember the dragon also has a distance weapon, and a better one to boot -- fire. Your survival chances are much better two or three feet away than ten of fifteen, although none to good in any case. I might opt for a short halberd or broad double headed axe for its killing power. The longer the confrontation, the worse your chances. You are definitely not going to knick the thing into submission with a gentlemans toy.
  • Does the atl-atl really qualify as a club though? You're not really hitting the projectile with it, you're using it as a lever to really crank up your throwing power. (Lacrosse instead of hockey kinda thing) Also, weren't the projectiles more of a short spear (1' - 1'6" I think) than an arrow? It seems like an actual arrow would be too light to throw straight and fast, even with the power assist of an atl-atl...
  • Comparably:
    I study Iaido (Japanese sword fighting). Half the people who find out say that they (or a friend) own a "really high quality samurai sword - it cost 65 bucks!" - and they're sincere. I rarely have the heart to say that a good (not excellent!) new katana can cost $3000, and a really high quality one can cost $15,000.
  • "Correct, and not in dispute, the point was that the tactics used [to defeat knights] required technology that took a very long time to develop."

    No no. Not technologically based. Swiss cantons defeated Austrian and allied knights without the aid of crossbows or longbows or gunpowder. How? Ambushing and formations. The use of the halberd (existing technology) and the discipline of massed formations. Flemish towns let knights splash against palisades and trenches and then skewered them. The common thread is motivation and disciplined tactics.

    "It was routine for knights to battle armies several times their size and win. I believe National Geographic (possibly Scientific American) quoted some historical references of odds up to 35 to 1."

    Yes, it is true that a fully armoured and mounted knight can run down few lightly armoured horsemen and the knights did stay awhile in the Holy Land. However, if you examine the battles of Hattin and Adrianopole, you will see that the knowledge of how to defeat these charging dreadnoughts was not unknown. Let them charge. Even slow them down with lines of infantry, and then harass and pursue them when they retreat to reform and rest. Repeat until knights succumb. The longevity of the crusader kingdoms had more to do with them staying in their nicely built castles than their tactics on the battlefield. (Also, the muslims were scarecely united against them). The assassins, by the way, were not a special unit developed to deal with knights. They were a unique sect who used assassination against both muslim and infidel to gain power in both worlds.

    "The various orders of the knighthood had professional military leaders. A person who was to become a knight would start training no later than 12 years of age. They received far more training than any modern army."

    Undoubtedly, the average knight was highly trained in personal combat. That does not translate into organization and tactics, however. Especially when faced with an enemy who does not break and flee or wants to fight knight to knight.

    As for the evolution of knights to cavalry, yes it is true that being in the cavalry up to the 19th century was considered a plum place to be if you were upper class or nobility. But the function of that cavalry on the battlefield was more influenced by the eastern use of cavalry than it was by knights. Hence the use of the sabre (from the Turkish shamshir) and the prevalence of light cavalry (hussars, chasseurs, their cossack cousins) rather than heavy (shock) cavalry. In the U.S. Civil War while it was still fashionable to ride around in nice uniforms, cavalry was definitely in its scouting and raiding role (certainly not in the dominant role as it was in the middle ages). Your comment about the modern usage of 'cavalry' is pretty interesting. Air cavalry in the form of a flight of Apache attack choppers certainly is pretty 'shocking'. hmmm :)

    The biggest enemy of armour in the modern context is infantry and ground. With infantry increasingly armed with powerful anti-tank weapons and the ground increasingly unfavourable to armoured warfare (more urban warfare), the tank may be a bit marginalized. Perfect tank fields such as in Desert Storm are not expected to be future sites of conflict. This is another example of social changes bringing change in warfare. All these factors are interdependent.
  • Quite right. Turin Turumbar (Son of Hurin, Cousin of Huor). Was also known as "Mormegil" meaning "The Black-Sword. Yep, he killed Glaurung. As he passed over a ravine. (Glaurung had no wings... he was an earlier, bigger, heaver dragon. Later they were smaller and winged. Possibly to avoid getting poked in the belly by "heroes" while climbing over stuff. :)

    As for the sword itself, it was originally called Anglachel, and was made of "galvorn" by Eol, who first designed that particular metal. Which was devised from the stones of meteors. I think he only actually made two swords out of it.

    One was given to Thingol, king of Doriath, whom gave it Beleg (Turin's elf-friend) to go look for Turin. Who took it as own after Beleg was killed. (By Turin, no less. Mistook him for an orc while waking up, not realising he'd been rescued. Pity.) He ended up breaking it soon after sticking the dragon... but I've told enough already.

    The other, Eol kept himself. His son Maeglin (who eventually betrayed Gondolin to Melkor) inherited it when he was killed. I don't know what happened to that one.

    If you liked the Silmarillion, read "Unfinished Tales". The Silmarillion is pretty condensed, and the stories are more "highlights" than anything else. In Unfinished Tales some of the best of the stories in the Silmarillion are told in full, and make for even better reading. Including "Narn I Hin Hurin" (The tale of the Children of Hurin), which is the story of Turin & co.

  • Remember that Katanas have a significantly different philosophy of use than European swords. The katana is light, (a stainless one doesn't count, that's just a big knife, IMHO,) because it can be. It's a lot more about finesse, and when you have a sword that is that sharp, it doesn't matter if it is not heavy, because it will do more damage, and be easier to use than the heavier ones, anyways.

    This lead to a number of interesting things, for instance, Japanese armor is often times more of a decorative nature than for protection.

    Actually, the reason Japanese weapons tend to be lightweight, and the armour to be wood, leather, or cloth, is because the Japanese Islands have very limited metalic resources. Lacking iron/steel in sufficient quantities, they made due with what they had available (thus the wooden banded armour of the classic samurai in full armour).

    European armor (and weapons) on the other-hand, evolved together, in a bigger-armor, bigger-sword kind of way, until the advent of gun-powder, at which time you could take down a knight no matter what he was wearing, so he might as well be able to move around. A huge sword is not nearly as effective when you are worried about getting hit, and so came the rapier.

    The Europeans did not have the limited iron availability, and thus were not limited in what they could produce. Because they did not have to make the absolute best use of a limited resource, their weapons and armour tended to be of a relatively lower quality (though as you say, until the development of the musket were more than effective for the job :).

    The rapier was an idea that never really took hold with anyone that had to use his sword for a living (professional soldiers, et cetera) due to its low strength. It looked nice, and was very swift, but just couldn't stand up to the rigors of combat. Anyone that tried to use on in real battle quickly realised their mistake (and if they were lucky were able to correct it).

    krenshala

  • Materials and Swords (Score:3)

    by Life Blood ( 100124 ) on Thursday June 29, 2000 @05:38AM (#968958) Homepage

    Ok, first of all tantos are Japanese or at least asian long knives. Project Dragon Slayer is trying to build a european patterned double edged sword. Wrong geography.

    On the other hand I think this is really cool as engineer working in materials who does kenjutsu in his spare time. Unlike other fields, the best material to use for swords is still basically a good low-alloy steel. Most composites and high tech metals (like titanium) can't hold an edge without becoming too brittle. High alloy steels can't be hardened properly to create a soft spine and hard edge. What might be really interesting is to see if someone could make a composite sword using steel edges and different spine material. It could do some significant weight reduction and probably be made using some of the old pattern welding techniques used in the late dark ages.

  • I can just see some corny "Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" movie springing from an idea like this...

    Hmm... interesting thought though. Did any society use clubs to impel projectile weapons? (I'd thinking more of baseball than of golf here...) Seems to be an easier technology to develop than the bow. Of course, to be useful in anything other than a huge battle, you'd need a hell of a lot of practice. And there's the friendly-fire issue...

  • We're heading for an event horizon where the very fabric of society is going to get very very mixed up. No idea whether it'll be for the better or worse but it's definitely happening. Things are getting faster.

  • I'm getting the feeling that the posters stating swords weigh in the 20-40lb range have either never held a real sword, or never actually weighed the swords they did.

    I have held them, and I have weighed them. I just happened to have weighed a VERY VERY poorly made sword. Which skewed my perception. The ones I held were probably not as poorly made, but still felt heavy due to the length. I have since corrected my misinformation and posted a link earlier in the thread to an excellent website which will dispell any myths concerning the weight of medieval swords and armor. I apologize for my previous ignorance.

    Kintanon
  • I was at a Norman re-enactment society event (sig other is a member) last year, and they had a smith who was making a bollock dagger (fairly short with carved horn handle in the shape of knackers) from a broken sword, he surmised that these daggers were where the term "to get a bollocking" comes from..... apologies if you don't know what a bollock is....
  • My take on "stuff that matters" is that it should be something that the readership could conceivably and probably want to use. So somebody actually went to the trouble of building and testing one of Leo's designs, which the great man apparently never did himself. So what? Yes, the dude who did it succeeded when everyone else thought that he'd end up as a particularly juicy crop circle [cropcircles.co.uk]. Yes, he said that the ride was smoother. He also cut it loose and actually landed with a regular parachute because his DaVinci Special weighed 187 lbs. and would have crushed him if he'd tried to land with it. So much for jumping "from any great height whatsoever without injury." An interesting historical reconstruction, to be sure, but hardly as sexy as broadswords or backyard rockets, at least to the Klingons among us.

  • In agreement with Kinshala, most of the misconceptions here come from not holding a _real_ sword, or just one that feels heavier from it's poor balance. With a large portion of even the supposedly knowledgeable population incorrcet on the weights of these weapons, many of the replicas are created abnormally heavy. I have indeed held a 15 lb sword, albeit a very large one, at a Ren Fest.
    While something along the lines of a 40-50 lb sword would be downright painful, some swords, mainly the larger 2-hand claymores, do reach over 10 lbs.
    As Kintanon, i also concede to grossly overestimating the weights of swords, but after some more research, I believe the above post is substantially correct.

  • Good idea! Where can I get some molecularly perfect Titleists made of meteoric iron? ;)

  • Re:Weight? (Score:3)

    by Phrogman ( 80473 ) on Thursday June 29, 2000 @05:47AM (#968966)
    With regards to medieval swords, please don't forget that the armor of the time was poorly manufactured, and not to be compared (even mentally) with modern steel. It had a tendancy to shatter on impact, so the blow of a knight's sword did not need to pierce the metal armor of his opponent in some cases, but merely batter it into oblivion.
  • And there's the friendly-fire issue...

    Yeah, if you accidentally hit a line drive straight at the pitcher's mound, poor Roger Clemens may end up with a gutful of shrapnel, rather than the intended anti-baseball evilpeople on the other side. Not to mention the risk, in a sizeable unit of similar swatters, of clipping a fellow projectilist with an overzealous swing.

    Golf clubs may be a little more suitable, because they're intended to hit a stationary ball. If you had a long line of concussion grenades (one whack to set, 2 whacks to explode) and a fellow with a golf club, you might get some interesting results.

    Then again, slings and arrows are cheaper/easier to make, and probably just as accurate, with practice.

  • Large animals tend to have slower reaction times because of the finite speed of nerve signal propagation, so a huge animal is going to be relatively slower than a human being

    True when comparing mammals, and true again when comparing lizards. (Dragons appear to be related to the latter). But when comparing lizards to mammals the strike of a lizard is way faster than you'd predict by considering a mammal of the same size.

    Lizards are cold-blooded. So they can be mostly fast-twitch and do a significant amount of high-speed work before they cook themselves.

    Also: If the strike doesn't require a mid-course correction it can be pipelined, so the neural delay doesn't matter.

    But it also means that, if you can see it coming, you, as a small mammal, may be able to dodge. Watch "The Crock Hunter" versus a snake or a croc some time.

    The problem is when the snake or crock (or dragon) pretends to be a stick or log (or redwood tree) until the strike. Then you DON'T see it coming until it's too late to dodge.

    Of course, dragons can take advantage of their airspeed, too... B-)

  • Re:Hmmm. (Score:3)

    by GypC ( 7592 ) on Thursday June 29, 2000 @05:52AM (#968982) Homepage Journal

    And what would you do with it? Chop down trees?

    Oh wait, I know, go to Indonesia and hunt for real dragons [sciam.com]! Hmmm, I wonder if I can take a broadsword carry-on...

    "Free your mind and your ass will follow"

  • I'd rather just have my trusty Leatherman Wave with such a blade. The Leatherman is much more practical in every day life than a rapier, broadsword, or katana (or, for that matter, adamantium claws). And if it's too big and nasty to kill with a Leatherman, then I don't want to screw with it no matter what kind of sword I have. :P

  • Re:Materials and Swords (Score:3)

    by Phrogman ( 80473 ) on Thursday June 29, 2000 @05:59AM (#968986)

    Why wrong geography? The Orientals did not have a monopoly on high quality swords - damascened steel swords were manufactured by the Arabs (thus the name), in Spain, and even by the Vikings. I think it is absolutely wonderful that they are making a western pattern sword, as it may help dispel the myth that only in the East could they make a decent sword. The processes involved were pretty much identical to those used in the East to the best of my knowledge.

    We lost our sword fighting traditions with the rise of the industrial revolution. We retained fencing admittedly, but this is mostly preserved the highly stylized form of the modern sport, not as a martial art. We have lost the use of the older forms of swords such as the broadsword mentioned in this article completely, save for a few published works, and the efforts of organizations like the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) who try to reproduce the methods used by practical application.

    But lacking the sword-fighting traditions and preserved martial arts does not mean that the weapons themselves were not of great quality.

  • Re:10 lbs (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The most interesting aspect of this discussion is learning just how many slashdot readers are armed with kick-ass swords.

  • Re:Materials and Swords (Score:3)

    by Life Blood ( 100124 ) on Thursday June 29, 2000 @07:15AM (#968996) Homepage

    Wrong geography because tantos are asian weapons not european as mentioned in the article post. I was not giving my opinion on european forging techniques. Sorry for the confusion.

    BTW eastern and western forging techniques are actually quite different. Eastern techniques used the best parts of the "bloom," that is the piece of steel that resulted from initial refining. Western used the whole bloom. As such, eastern swords tend to be of higher carbon content than western swords. Eastern swords are also forged using clay coat technique to heat treat the swords which was not used in the west.

    As for sword fighting traditions, western society lost most of its traditions but there are people like John Clements and the HACA trying to piece the techniques back together. Personally I think that SCA is more of a sport than a martial art, since the techniques using in SCA combat are significantly different than in real sword play. SCA swords use blunt impact so their techniques involve chopping actions where actual sword play uses draw cuts and stabbing. SCA combat is to real western swordplay as kendo is to true eastern swordplay. Close but significantly different in the specifics.

  • Oh Great! (Score:3)

    by garethwi ( 118563 ) on Thursday June 29, 2000 @04:19AM (#968998) Homepage
    This is just fucking perfect. Someone builds a rocket in their back garden [slashdot.org] and it gets posted. Now someone makes a sword and it gets posted, but submit a story about Leonardo da Vincis parachute [bbc.co.uk] being tested and working, and you get rejected.

    Can someone explain to me just what is news for nerds and stuff that matters.

  • The truth is actual swordplay against actual full plate armor doesn't do much of anything. There are stories from the renaissance of battles between nobles being fought were the only person who died was an old man killed by heat exhaustion or a heart attack. Sword vs. chain mail uses piercing attacks, this is the type of combat you would find through most of the middle ages.

    Creating a high-tech sword faces a few issues. The first is that the spine needs to be strong but capable of taking punishment. The spine is the section which takes most of the actual shock of impact and is used for parrying. The edge needs to be hard, but not so hard that it becomes brittle and breaks when its hit against something. This is the problem with titanium and even stainless steel, they are usually soft and brittle when hard.

    As for using a composite laminate of some sort, I am somewhat hesitant. Swords see lots of impact loading because that is what they do. They hit things. Laminates tend to delaminate under any sort of impact. Once they start to delaminate it tends to only get worse from there since the delamination sites allow for crack nucleation, etc. Most composites are also a pain to repair and recycle. As for diamond, its an interesting idea, but diamond is crystalline so it probably would crack easily. Its still an interesting idea though.

    BTW weight is not necessarily a bad thing in swords since you actually use the weight of the sword to help you in combat. Most people talk about reducing the weight of swords when a good sword actually only weights somewhere between 1 to 2 kilos if its reasonably sized.

  • If a dragon kept stealing your girlfriends, wouldn't you start learning how to make swords?


    ---

  • Ha. Little you know. I've been in the SCA 10+yrs, and where you thought

    Making high-tech swords? I think these people need girlfriends.
    I thought
    Making high-tech swords? Some people will do anything to get a girlfriend.
    And I'll have you know, Salon [salon.com] reported we're one of the few exceptive flavors of geek actually getting any [salon.com] (we all know what a pure wellspring of relevant and unbiased intel Salon is ;).

    I commend metallurgy highly to you. :)


    ----------------------------------------------
  • I seem to recall that, in some cyberpunk novel (Sterling?) poor South Asian peasants destroy their jungles using supersharp mass-produced cheap ceramical cutlasses.
    __
  • I've seen a doctoral thesis by a Japanese metallurgy student who made a high-quality samuri sword using modern technology. This is apparently a task one takes on if you're a very good metallurgy student in Japan. The idea is to use the latest technology to better the work of the ancients, a very Japanese goal.

    Sadly, I don't have a link for this.

  • Much of a broadswords power comes from its weight, with the strike being assited by gravity.
    Although a lighter weapon would be easer to wield, it would require morestrength to strike with the same power as a heaver weapon.



    This is true, but it was mostly necessary for traditional broadswords because they were more like 3ft long crowbars than blades. They weren't exactly razor sharp. If this blade is sharp enough to shear through metal with minimal force then the weight can be reduced to allow for faster strikes. Also, speed breeds power. The faster you move the weapon the more power it will have behind it at the point of impact. I imagine there is a point where the weight is balanced out to provide maximum impact and maximum speed. I'm hoping they will use some of the technology available to locate that point and design the weapon accordingly. It might end up being 20lbs, or 15, or maybe the traditional 40-50lb weight IS optimal. But it would be interesting to know how they plan on determining the weight if they really are using as much of our advanced tech as possible in the creation of the blade.

    Kintanon
  • A traditional broadsword would NOT weigh 40-50 pounds, but in face, is closer to the 5-10you suggested for this high-tech sword. The heavier end is usually about 1 lb. per foot, with many being even lighter than that.
  • Ok, this is ridiculous. "Real broadswords":

    a.) weren't what you see in movies. They were *much* smaller than movie swords, and not usually called a "broadsword." Movie swords are usually "War swords" "Riding swords" or nonexistent.

    b.) did *NOT* weigh 40-50lbs! No sword (I'm sure some fan of ancient Celtic culture is going to contradict me) weighed anywhere near that much! Ten pounds would be about the maximum weight for a sword meant to be used on foot... even that is a little ridiculous.


    Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity

  • Can you imagine... (Score:5)

    by Seqram ( 165661 ) on Thursday June 29, 2000 @04:38AM (#969030)

    Beowulf slaying a Grendel cluster with these?

  • A traditional broadsword would NOT weigh 40-50 pounds, but in face, is closer to the 5-10you suggested for this high-tech sword. The heavier end is usually about 1 lb. per foot, with many being even lighter than that.


    Something about your statement makes me thing you've never in your life picked up a 3 foot long broadsword. I have. I've weighed them. The specific one I was looking at weighted 28lbs and was considered light for the collection. The only 10 lb sword there was a rapier.

    Kintanon

  • Broadsword? Not Quite (Score:4)

    by J05H ( 5625 ) on Thursday June 29, 2000 @04:48AM (#969044)
    The sword that these predictive-materials geeks are building is actually a "long sword" or a "bastard sword", not a broadsword. A broadsword has one edge, and is straight or slightly curved, with a small basinet. Think of the swords in the US Marine ads - that's a broadsword.
    Aside from that little snafu in terminology, this seems like a great project. That sword reminds me of the "artifacts" from D+D, unique and very powerful. Using meteoric iron is cool, there have been blades throughout history made from it, and there is a scientific basis for it being a good material to work with: the metals in meteors tend to be very pure, of pure iron or alloyed iron and nickel.
    I wonder how much that beasty is going to go for at auction?

Slashdot Top Deals

8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss

Close