Re: [world] Not really a problem, but...

From: Daniel Koepke (
Date: 01/28/97

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Sammy wrote:

> You have to take into account a couple of things we take for granted.  In
> those days, steel wasn't anything like what we're used to in modern times.
> The smelting process was very inefficient and incomplete, meaning you've
> got a lot of impurities.  Steel is refined iron (dunno what they mix it
> with), and iron is very heavy.

Generally, the swordsmith himself (maybe this was just in Japan?)
would refine the steel himself from sand ores.  Further more, take
into account that many books state the ideal weight for a sword used
in combat pre-1450 was 2 or 3 lbs, and you see how ludricous it is
that a sword over two shaku in length (11.93", I think), would weight
2 or 3 lbs and a short sword from Midgaard weigh the same amount or

> I'm assuming they also made swords thicker then you'd see now, partly
> for strength (since they're using impure metals), and partly because only
> the best swordmaker would have the ability to make a good lightweight
> sword.

Swords were no less thin.  And to cover what you suggest, most
swordsmiths would select which iron was suitable.  While it still
wouldn't be 440c stainless steel, it'd not be 22lbs for a regular
sword.  That'd make ancient sword making 6 times less efficient, which
would also suggest the blades were of lower quality.  This is purely
not true, and the examples can be had with Japanese swords, where
swords made after the Edo period were of much less quality than the
samurai swords of prior periods.

> ps I always thought of the longsword as more of a clobbering weapon, ala
> braveheart. :)

That was a Scottish Claymore most likely...

Daniel Koepke
Forgive me father, for I am sin.

| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
|   |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST