I have a few questions about the swords from Conan.
First, this sword has some of the crossguard going up about a quarter of the blades, along the edges.
Is there any history behind this?
Would it actually serve a beneficial purpose?
It seems that right where the center of the swords mass is, is where they are.
Here's another..... casting a sword.
It works for bronze swords perfectly.
But iron or steel? I've heard it wouldn't work. But would the work done to the blade by hammering in the final shape, edges, and fuller be enough to get a decent sword? The problem with casting is the grain structure that forms when cooling. That has to be broken up somewhat homogenously for the blade to have flexibility.
Here's the second part of the first picture, with that sword in its scabbard.
>>27960020
Probably inspired by pic related.
Here's art.
I'm not sure if it's legit concept art for the movie, or for someone making repros, or fan art.
If your using the lost wax casting, would you be able to set gems in the piece by just leaving them in the wax before investing and melting out the wax? Would gems be able to handle the heat without breaking or acquiring discoloration?
>>27960020
Its kinda Zweihander style(see >>27960097) the upper guard is for extra leverage in close quarters
Regular grip is for extra range vs pikemen.
>>27960097
I was thinking something similar, or the Scottish Claymore. The "Braveheart" style claymore looked kinda like that, right?
What's up with that pseudo-extension of the handle? It's pretty much right where the center of balance would be...
If that's where you would be deflecting hits from most the time it would make sense to reinforce it.
>>27960020
Federschwerts ("feather swords") have a little lump just in front of the quillons in order to give it the feel of a real sword while lessening the impact from actually hitting someone with it.
Large two-handed swords have a second set of quillons on the blade in order to stop the opponent's blade sliding down to the hilt in a bind.
The reason it's only really on larger swords is because you point them more towards your opponent in a bind than you would with a smaller sword like a longsword, meaning that the guard's less effective at actually protecting your hands.
By putting a second set of quillons on the blade, you reduce the angles which their blade can be bound to yours while still being able to attack your hands.
>>27960114
This is largely a myth. If you're half-swording, you generally want your forward hand to be out further than the second set of quillons.
>>27960156
Very true, I've seen some of Skallagrims vids.
But... if you're half handing a massive sword, you might not have long enough arms to reach that far and still fight.
>>27960262
Skallagrim knows literally nothing
>>27960020
It was probably something like the others said, used as a extension of the handle. Of course it also could have something to do with wanting to shift the balance of the sword.
Also, here's a guy making a battle ready version: https://youtu.be/8c2xiKFLnYY
>>27960272
He does what he can, with what he has to work with. If he's passing along incorrect information, he still probably knows more than most people.
Look at science shows, like Bill Nye, Carl Sagan, and Niel Tyson...
We know literally nothing about the universe outside our solar system. We barely know anything about our own solar system. We barely know anything about our own planet!
Medieval Monks drew pictures of African animals like giraffes and whatnot... they looked nothing like the real thing. A biologist can't study cells by looking at a Polaroid of a pond... because people actually looked at ponds for thousands of years and cells weren't studied until we got the ability to look at them with our own eyes.
The truth is WE DON'T KNOW what the past was like because we weren't there, we didn't see it, and we didn't live it... we don't know what's in deep space because we've never been there ourselves. I've heard shit like planets the size of diamonds... lol and the equipment we use is so fallable! Anyone remember that story from a navy anon that tried cooking a pan of popcorn using the radars waves, and the radar showed it as a 3 mile wide circular UFO? hehe...
The Trex went to being a giant lizard that walked upright and dragged its tail along the ground, scavenging dead dinos or stealing kills... then it walked with its tail in the air, using it for balance like a cat, running very fast, and hunting prey... then they gave the Trex feathers... next science will tell us it looks like pic related.
History remembers ancient Greece as a bunch of gay pedophiles, but the nation states were very political and the only sources of that statement are megalomaniac writers that thought they knew everything... and their political slander is the only surviving documents from that time period...
We know so little about reality it hurts :c
>>27960402
That's the wrong video.. that's the Auroch sword. Here's the right link.
http://youtu.be/2dK_4HYcDxM
He is so good at what he does... he's made a lot of different swords.
>>27960433
Ah, my mistake.
It's really impressive that he's self taught.
>>27960152
That's the part you grab for the aforementioned added leverage in >>27960114
the whole thing is "canonically" made strong enough that you probably don't need to worry about a special section for deflecting strikes.
>>27960599
Please, please stop pushing this.
It just isn't true.
>>27960404
having trex be a giant birdwould be pretty funny
>>27960060
Casting steel to make a sword is a poor idea you are correct. I have a head-cannon that what the sword is made of isn't steel, but arsenic-bronze, which does have a silver color.
>>27960516
It's cool. It really is impressive that he's self taught. Here's a neat video of someone casting a car part. http://youtu.be/M95bhPrDwA0 Here's someone casting an aluminum AK47 part. http://youtu.be/CH0qMFn0IxM
Neither of those are lost wax casting, either... lost wax casting is amazing. The detail it can capture is impressive.
I feel so... uneducated, inexperienced, and worthless compared to a lot of people out there.
Also, please comment your thoughts on this post >>27960060
It would be kinda comparable to drop forging... would it make a decent blade?
>>27960666
Yes, but only the swords blank would be cast... it would give you a sword shaped blank and you'd have to forge out the edges and fuller... so technically it would be forged. Albion makes swords from sheets of steel that aren't forged, but they've been rolled flat and that pressing probably does to the metal structure what forging does. Albion swords are very strong and flexible from what I've seen.
>Is there any history behind this?
no.
>Would it actually serve a beneficial purpose?
not really, no.
>Casting - But iron or steel?
No.
casting steel simply does not work. quite aside from the fact that it took till the 18th C to get furnaces hot enough to melt steel, the crystalline structure etc would be a trainwreck. Modern steels are still forged, much like medieval ones - to make a sword-sized bar for instance, its cast as an ingot 2 feet wide, 6 inches thick, and then forged by rolling through huge hydraulic rollers at tens of thousands of PSI, till it is 1/4, or 1/2 an inch thick. doing so elongates the grain structure, just like forgeworking a bloomery steel did in the past.
>>27960020
Swords are dumb, news at 10
>>27960923
You didn't read the part where I said you would still have to forge the sword some... the edges, fuller, and whatever I'm missing.
Would a drop forged sword work?
Because that's the closest analogy I can think of.
Is there no way around spending 8 hours beating on a chunk of metal if you don't wanna use a bar of stock?
>>27960020
Both the production designer and the propmaster lamented the 8 pound hunk of metal after the 80's rule-of-cool wore off, but what you're seeing there is a cross between demiquillions seen on greatswords (as >>27960097 and >>27960156 mention) and reinforcing spines common to Indian, middle eastern and Tibetan swords. Pic related.
>>27960262
>>27960272
Skallagrim Is a bigger faggot than me. And according to 4chan, I am a ginormous faggot.
>>27961001
>You didn't read the part
I did. I'm afraid its you who doest understand the subject. Forging in a fuller wouldnt be enough - not even close.
A casting of steel would need to be taken, and elongated, stretched out on rollers, - or with a hammer for ten, twenty times the original casting length just to *start* to be capable of being used as a blade. Most would be folded (yes, European sword-makers folded their steel too) at least a few times, forgewelded, elongated again, and so on.
hammering in a fuller isnt going to do anything to a casting to make it viable. the blank would still have a highly spherical grain structure, instead of the long, interlinked filaments that make up a forged steel bar.
Take this pic. its an ingot like this, about 6-8 inches thick, that gets put through rollers and ends up as hundreds of metres of 1/4-inch thick carbon steel barstock used in all sorts of engineering applications - including modern swords.
>>27961001
>Is there no way around spending 8 hours beating on a chunk of metal if you don't wanna use a bar of stock?
now, the other part of that.
Today, virtually NO steel does not start as a bar of stock. "hand-forged authentic sword" by any maker? Started as a bar of stock. Albion, CNC milled blank? Bar of stock. "Damascus" steel (of the sort that's really pattern-welding)? Two different bar stocks, welded together. Every single on of those bars, produced using modern blast-furnaces evolved from the Bessmer process, is pre-forged by mechanical means long, long before it goes under the swordsmiths' hammer, to make it the shape it is.
There are some very, very rare exceptions to that. Guys like Owen Bush in the UK, Petr Florianek in the czech republic, Zeb Demming and Dave Stephens in the US have made steel the old fashioned way - in a tuyere bloomey furnace, then taken the resulting wrought irons, and used a fining process to carburise the iron, and convert it into carbon steel. Once that's done, they can then spend hours and hours doing the same job that the modern pneumatic rollers do on the modern steels, stretching it out into a suitable form for blades. That is way, way more than 8 hours - its more like two or three day's work for a single blade, when done by one person. I know all four of those smiths, I've sat and drank with most of them in the past. I really wouldnt want to do what they do. its incredibly hard, painful work to make a good blade steel like that.
There's also a tiny number of people who have done Damascus of the Wootz/Bulat/Palud style crucible steels; Rik Furrier's the most well-known of them after his involvement in the "secrets of the viking sword" TV show. That also involves a nightmarish amount of forging out of the ingot after casting - if anything the dendritic structures that form inside Wootz make it even worse for forging out than nice, "easy" historic-produced blister steel
>>27961309
With all that said, in 90% of history, a professional smith of any stripe would never smelt ore or make his own sheet or bar stock. Thats not their job or skill set, and they don't have the equipment.
>>27961633
very true - even back as far as the bronze age, specialists would smelt copper, or tin, and later on iron, which would then be exported to the places of manufacture where skilled smiths or artisans would produce the objects from the raw material.
making a single blade in medieval Europe, as an example, you'd expect a chain roughly as follows:
Miners (extract the ore)
Charcoal-burners (producing charcoal in forest)
Smelters (at top of mine, converting ore to iron with the charcoal)
Finers (taking the iron and Fining it, converting it by blister carburisation to steel)
Hammermen - forging using water-wheels, to take steel bought from the finers, to fold it, shape it out and produce the raw bars of steel suitable to be forged into blades
Bladesmiths - again using power machinery, forging out the blank blades, with fullers or cross-sections, by the dozen.
Grinders - men working 4-6foot diameter water-wheel powered grindstones, grinding the rough-forged blades down to shape, and using scrapers and .stone to finish fullers, etc.
Master Smiths - overseeing those two processes, would also be responsible for the heat-treatment, quenching and tempering the rough-forged blades.
Polishers - taking those heat-treated blades and using emery powder and leather pads to polish the blade.
Cutlers. Buy those blades, shipped downriver to major cities. They would forge or cast hilt parts - pommels, crosses, and assemble the wooden grips to those blades.
Sheathers - leatherworkers making the wood and leather sheath
All those people, each skilled in one area, just to make a sword.
---
the whole idea of the lone smith, making a sword (especially, making one at a time) at the forge is nothing but a myth.
>>27960075
That's possibly one of the most masculine scabbards I have ever seen.
Figure this is the thread to ask, but where does /k/ get its pictures of swords? And I mean either authentic historical swords or accurate reproductions?
>>27961979
google.com
>>27961979
well, you could do a lot worse than starting off looking at the tumblr "art-of-swords"
>inb4 "Hurr tumblr" shit.
That'll give you a good few thousand of all sorts and teach you plenty of stuff. I know the person who runs it, and they're dedicated to posting a huge range of really beautiful items.
.
from there, museum websites, plenty of online catalogues. Try the Metropolitan museum of art, the Philadelphia museum of art, and Cleveland museum of art for three english language ones. The royal armouries in leeds is a better collection, but their online database is (still) down while they re-vamp the entire thing.
Also try Hermann-historika auctions, Czerny's Auctions, and Bonhams sometimes have auctions of arms and armour.
From there, go to Myarmoury, the Ethnographic Arms & Armour Forum (Vikingsword.com) and Sword-buyers-guide for modern repros and some historical ones, plus loads of forum discussion, from light-hearted to serious academic debate and everything inbetween.
Lastly, go searching for books, and you'll start to pick up enough information
>>27961986
My google-fu is weak and all I can seem to find are sites that sell shit like "Dragon Zombie Slayer Katana, Handforged deadly weapons! Only $19.99!" Neon green bullsht.
>>27961937
by "masculine" do you mean comically camp and cheesy?
>>27962126
Thank you, much appreciated.
How far back have power hammers or tools that aact like a power hammer exist? Medieval blade makers had grinding wheels, but could a water wheel be used to operate a power hammer or press for blade making?
>>27962907
For as long back as we've had the water wheel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trip_hammer
>>27960060
>Open top mold
https://youtu.be/8E6TzT0eCYs
>>27962997
One of the few Brits I love.
>>27963397
His good videos are drowned in an ocean of worthless rant, unfortunately.
>>27960105
I've considered trying that method making rings. I am also unsure of the results but if the stone is good enough I think it would work fine. Consider the extreme heat and pressures required to form a gemstone, motlen metal is nowhere close.
I make be the gems are added in after and a row of theeth soldered in. I'm unsure what was available to ancient smiths but I'd think soldering was around, lost wax casting/investment casting I more doubtful.
There are videos of people with high two handing grips, one hand below the quillions on the blade, fighting. However I think I've only seen this type of fighting with full plate armor, so I'm not sure a sword of this design for that would be particularly useful or period correct for the movie. Anyways my understanding is it has to do with using the sword as a more effect prybar to disarm your opponent.
>>27964712
Yea but he's actually studied medieval and ancient life quite a bit. Unlike me, I'm just by nature a master of everything :p and in that video, he used a clip from game of thrones and those two swords being casted were being cast with Valyrian steel... which might have different properties than regular steel. It actually seems to have the weight of aluminium while being stronger than steel.
>>27962997
>open top mold
If you're forging a blank it would be fine so long as the metal was hot enough to settle evenly and the casting stone level enough. I think everyone thinks of how they casted bronze swords when they look at these videos and it's not a fair comparison...
If a culture went from the bronze age to the iron age, it's logical they would use techniques and skills they aquired in the bronze age at first... and if they had no interaction with other cultures methods, they would probably use trial and error until they found a way to get a reasonably decent sword from techniques associated with bronze sword making.
This is why I compare it with drop forging.... drop forging basically forges something cast, and the science involves manipulating the grain growth where it would be beneficial to how the tool is going to be used.
I'm pretty sure a totally forged sword would still be better, but hammering out a metal cast that has a rough sword shape would certainly be much quicker and easier than starting with a lump of slag filled ore, or a cast steel ingot.
In the secrets of the viking sword, you see a master smith create a sword from a cast steel ingot and it takes two people EIGHT HOURS of non stop hammering to break down the ingot into a sword shape without cracking it.. maybe if the ingot was casted into a rough sword shape in the first place, one person could make a sword almost as good in half the time.
Make sense?
>>27964741
Here's a sword breaker.. I think it's meant to be used against thinner renaissance dress swords.
I can't see someone having the wrist power to break a medieval type sword with something like this.
Watching flexibility tests on swords is interesting, some people literally STAND on top of their sword to show it's strength.
>>27962154
Depends on if it matches his clothes.
Conans scabbard would match Buliwyfs armor and clothes, and he's kinda manly.
>>27965028
>Make sense
No.
Sorry, but you have no clue about the realities of the processes you're talking about.
>If a culture went from the bronze age to the iron age, it's logical they would use techniques and skills they aquired in the bronze age at first..
How exactly do you imagine that the bronze age society is going to have access to an oxygen-fuelled bessmer converter or similar blast furnace to get the termperatures needed for casting? What you're saying is totally ignorant of the reality of how iron age technology was.
>This is why I compare it with drop forging...
You have no idea what drop-forging involves. It does not involve a cast object. drop-forging onto a casting would break the casting. At no point in time has drop-forging been used to create such objects. It is completely irrelevant as a production method - infact, I'm at a loss to even come up with an analogy of how completely wrong it is as a process.
>I'm pretty sure a totally forged sword would still be better, but hammering out a metal cast that has a rough sword shape would
Again, you have absolutely NO clue what you're talking about. I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is pretty much the equivalent of you having played Kerbal Space Programme, and walking into NASA's design offices, saying "I'm pretty sure I can make a better engine..." without ever having studied engineering.
>In the secrets of the viking sword, you see a master smith create a sword from a cast steel ingot and it takes two people EIGHT HOURS of non stop hammering to break down the ingot into a sword shape without cracking it.. maybe if the ingot was casted into a rough sword shape in the first place, one person could make a sword almost as good in half the time.
Do you seriously think that no-one, in the span of 2,000+ years of steel-working has previously thought of this? It does not work.
>>27960105
>If your using the lost wax casting, would you be able to set gems in the piece by just leaving them in the wax before investing and melting out the wax? Would gems be able to handle the heat without breaking or acquiring discoloration?
No.
You can cast pewter ( melting points of around 170–230 °C (338–446 °F)) with gemstones or glass inserts, but even then you have a not-insignificant risk of fracture.
any higher-melting point metal - copper-alloys, silver, gold, etc, your gemstone will shatter under thermal shock.
>>27964741
lost-wax casting has been used since the Chalcolithic period. The oldest known lost-wax casting is from an Israeli hoard, the Nahal Mishmar, dated to at least 5,700 years ago. Lost-wax casting predates the development of writing.
>>27965069
>Here's a sword breaker..
>I can't see someone having the wrist power to break a medieval type sword with something like this
they are not, and never have been for "breaking" swords.
They were used to catch, and bind up the other person's weapon. you dont need to break it. just control its position for a second or two, so they cant use it to defend themselves, and that's long enough stab the bastard while he's unable to block.
>>27960272
Tbh just watch scholagladiatoria.
Lindy is alright, but he makes mistakes.
>>27965100
>How exactly do you imagine that the bronze age society is going to have access to an oxygen-fuelled bessmer converter or similar blast furnace to get the termperatures needed for casting? What you're saying is totally ignorant of the reality of how iron age technology was.
There's more than one way to do something. You're talking about going from one age to the next with a large group of people trying to figure out how things work with trail and error. There are people that think we would have been in outer space during the renaissance if the dark ages never happened.
>You have no idea what drop-forging involves.
I watched this video before I posted this.
http://youtu.be/6YLYqI_8dXM
Plus, notice I used the word "compare". Yea what I'm talking about isn't drop forging as we know it, but it's the closest analogy I could find.
Metal is complex and the ways you can work it are incredibly numerous. I'm just saying if a society spent a few hundred years trying to work iron and steel with bronze age equipment, they could DEFINITELY find a way to make it work, and work well enough.
>again, you have absolutely NO clue what you're talking about. I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is pretty much the equivalent of you having played Kerbal Space Programme, and walking into NASA's design offices
No, this is like playing Kerbal then going on /sci/ and asking if the Kerbals could have developed rockets on a planet that seems to have no resources or population, then saying "well I've got a theory that the Kerbals are immortal because nothing kills them, and if they spend enough time on it they could probably do it."
Analogies, man... how do I into relating one concept that doesn't exist with another concept that does exist?
>Do you seriously think that no-one, in the span of 2,000+ years of steel-working has previously thought of this? It does not work.
Actually I think COMMENT TOO LONG 2000 CHARACTER LIMIT
>>27965164
Google image search "sword breaker".
That picture is in the top 10 or so images.
This why I hate humanity.... I remember playing a game where you play as huge creatures that fight other monsters or destroy buildings or whatever... one of the characters names what "Chaos" and I got made fun of it for pronouncing it how I was taught to sound out letters of words I don't know... so I called it "Sch-oh-as" not "Kay-oss"... I hate this place. It's so ridiculous the if Jesus comes back believers are probably going to murder him again thinking he's the antichrist.
Fuck this world. Fuck this planet, fuck humanity. I hate it here.
>>27965250
What the fuck are you trying to say?
>>27965250
Oy vey, it's like anudda chaos
>>27965216
>There's more than one way to do something.
You dont understand.
To cast steel, you need to get steel hot enough - about 1600 °C or so.
The forges they had in the end of the bronze age had the technological capability to reach about 1,200 °C. They simply did not have the technology to do the job. They had to develop different processes, because heat was not enough on its own.
Its not a case of "there's more than one way". its a case of "they could not do this".
The forge technology they had allowed the heating of iron bloomery smelts to a red-hot state, where the slag content was partially liquefied, where it could be beaten out from the bloom. It wasn't till the 9th-10th C AD that improvements in water-wheel technology allowed larger bellows that helped them work bigger sections of iron, and it wasn't till the 18th century that forced airflow blast furnace technology finally pushed temperatures high enough that steel could be cast.
(Note that cast iron can be done at lower heat - the 1127 - 1204 °C melting point of cast iron made it possible - and the chinese used cast iron. But cast steel is a very different thing.)
That's it. that is the historical fact. No "there's more than one way" nonsense.
>>27965216
To finish what I was saying
>Do you seriously think that no-one, in the span of 2,000+ years of steel-working has previously thought of this? It does not work.
Actually I think the vast majority of humanity tends to communicate a lot and ideas that work spread throughout certain trades a lot quicker than ideas that don't...
Look at the supply chain in >>27961909
It would be unrealistic to expect one guy all by himself to spend countless hours researching how to make a sword with bronze age methods... he wouldn't have enough resources or time. I'm saying if one civilization spent a hundred years trying to figure out iron with their bronze working techniques they could probably make an iron or steel sword that wasn't as good as what we made using our methods, but it would still be better than a bronze sword and that's all that matters.
In that secrets of the viking sword video, he CASTED an ingot and hammered it into a high quality sword. He CASTED. Part of the construction of the sword involved CASTING.
I'm saying what if he didn't cast the metal into an ingot shape, but into a roughly sword shape so he didn't have to spend 8 hours beating it out with two people... maybe one person could do it himself in less time! And while it wouldn't be as good, it would still be a decent sword, and easier to mass produce.
I'm saying since making a crucible sword involves casting anyways why not cast it into a more convenient shape?
>>27965299
Watch "secrets of the viking sword", he made a closed top bloomery and made crucible steel.
Bloomerys had open tops and all the heat escaped.
They definitely could have made it. It would have only taken one dude to think "hey, maybe if we closed the top and trapped in the heat, this would go a little quicker...
They were basically purifying iron ore in CHIMNEYS or CHIMINEAS, dude... they were applying cooking skills to making swords instead of bronze age methods of sword making.
>>27965250
>Google image search "sword breaker".
>That picture is in the top 10 or so images.
Yes. Google search is a well-known authority on historical reality, with impeccable research credentials... Pic related.
The fact is, they are not sword "breakers". that the vast majority of people, who do not know how they were used may call them that, does not mean they were actually used in that way.
they were used for catching and trapping a blade, not breaking them.
>>27965333
Well... if the majority of people call the pic in >>27965069 a sword breaker, then... it's a sword breaker. Regardless of what you like or what's historically accurate.
If 70% of people called the sky green and the grass blue.... guess what. Then the sky would be green and the grass blue.
The world does not cater to what is correct. It caters to the majority.
>>27965299
Hey, >>27965330 here again.... the copper smelting process historically involved a closed top... didn't it? The ones I've seen did. Basically they dig a hole, fill it with charcoal and crushed ore, fire it, then bury it.. trapping in the heat.
How could bronze age methods be so primitive but still be more advanced than later techniques?
>>27960156
>Federschwerts ("feather swords") have a little lump just in front of the quillons in order to give it the feel of a real sword while lessening the impact from actually hitting someone with it.
It is called a schild (or shield) and has nothing to do with weight or impact, it is just handy if you use a thumb grip.
And Conan swords are pure fantasy, nothing about them is practical.
>>27965386
Fantasy is based on reality and it's already been discussed and shown that Conan sword designs have a basis in reality.
>>27965411
>Conan sword designs have a basis in reality.
Like a handle and a blade? Because thats about where the connection with reality ends.
>>27965330
I dont need to go watch a hysterically over-exaggerated entertainment documentary. If I want the information, I'll give Ric a message online and talk to him, like I would any other smith I know.
The process Ric and Kevin used making that sword is one that was developed significantly more than a thousand years after the first creation of iron. They didnt have such technology available.
>>27965302
>In that secrets of the viking sword video, he CASTED an ingot and hammered it into a high quality sword. He CASTED. Part of the construction of the sword involved CASTING.
Oh for fuck's sake.
it is not cast.
The crucible billet or ingot is formed to the shape of the crucible. A drinks-can shaped block of crucible steel. its not cast in any way. it is held to that shape by the crucible walls, but it is neither poured to a mould, nor shaped into any form associated with the finished product during its creation.
How many times do I have to tell you, that you have no clue about the subject you're talking about here?
No, Casting it into a "sword shape" is not going to make it any faster. The forging processes - irrespective of if its a blister steel, a bloomery iron that's been fined, a wootz crucible steel - is about the elongation of the grain structure inside the steel.
Imaging that the steel is cast. you get little spheroidal grains in the material. little spheres arent strong together. so what forging does is stretches them. so instead of spheres, you get long fibres, or filaments, which interlock with other surrounding filaments. (or in the case of wootz, you get crystalline structures sort of like frost crystals on glass, which interlink). It is that process, of stretching out the filaments in the metal that give it strength. This has already been said in this thread several times.
Casting a sword-like shape would not work, and would not make it quicker.
And what part of "they did not do this" is too difficult for you?
>>27965411
> discussed and shown that Conan sword designs have a basis in reality.
are you smoking crack from babies' arses?
>>27965359
>Well... if the majority of people call the pic in >>27965069 a sword breaker, then... it's a sword breaker.
it can be called a fucking flammenwaffeknechtenschwerterkrankendolch for all it matters.
What I was telling you is not what its called, but what it does. and it does not "break swords".
They were used for catching, or snagging swords.
as said perviously:
>they are not, and never have been for "breaking" swords.
>>27965199
>just watch scholagladiatoria
fuck that bald glorious bastard, he is one of the reasons I salivate over having a rapier with a flamboyant hilt and a dagger to complement it
>>27965374
>he copper smelting process historically involved a closed top... didn't it? The ones I've seen did. Basically they dig a hole, fill it with charcoal and crushed ore, fire it, then bury it.. trapping in the heat.
>How could bronze age methods be so primitive but still be more advanced than later techniques?
its not more advanced.
Not even close to
now, I'll say this with the disclaimer that I've done production of bloomery iron, and know a lot of people who've done a shitload more than me. I've studied a dozen different tuyere designs from archaeology sites, etc, but I've never smelted copper, so its outside my range of practical experience, so I'm going off my general knowledge on that subject. .
what you have in a copper-age smelts is a closed container burning, where heat is trapped, while the iron age open tuyeres are much more complex, involving the introduction of air into the furnace from the bottom. They are actually far more advanced, and get the temperature far hotter than the copper-smelting processes. But they still dont get the temperature hot enough to melt steel. Even the closed, forced air furnaces used later on still in india for the production of wootz arent hot enough to allow steel to be cast. That technology wasnt reached till the 1780's or so.
the problem is, that copper extraction can be done at quite a low heat, extracting iron needs a lot more, creating cast steel needs vastly more again. just because one process was used for the far lower-temperature extraction does not mean it could them be applied to the higher-heat processes. Actually making the jumps between these techs took centuries of experimentation.
>>27965663
Matt actually knows what he's talking about.
Lloyd? the man's a great speaker, he can sound confident talking about subjects he knows nothing about.
Which is why people who know even less latch onto the nonsense he says.
>>27965491
>it's not cast
Ok... then what are we arguing about?
How about this.... he makes a crucible in the shape of a sword like the pic in >>27960060 and hammers THAT into a sword. That way you still get a sword shaped ingot of crucible steel, and according to what you said it's not cast...
And because it's already in the rough shape of the final product you can hammer out the edges and fuller, grind it, temper it, finish it... and have a great sword blade with half the work.
You said yourself that what he did wasn't "casting"....
So what I just wrote would work.
You use the a crucible in the shape of a sword and the crucible doubles as a mold and somehow the final result isn't cast! It's magic!!
>>27965276
I pronounced the "ch" like it's pronounced in "chill".
I guess "sch" wasn't the right sound...
>>27965809
>How about this.... he makes a crucible in the shape of a sword
how many times do you have to be told IT WILL NOT FUCKING WORK?
For a springy steel blade to work, you need to take the raw material (carbon steel) and forge it out, stretching the granular spheroid structure of the material into longer filaments.
simply making the raw metal "in the shape" of a sword will not save time. infact, you'd have to spend longer forgeworking that, folding, stretching it out, etc, than you would a simple nice, compact billet. How many times does this have to be repeated for you to begin to understand this relatively simple fact?
Casting steel works for small things: a woodworking chisel, a metalworking punch (plenty of goof 19th-20th C tools are cast steel of that sort). It does not work for long blades that are flexed and stressed in use.
>>27965925
Conan is set in the BRONZE AGE dude, after Atlantis but before the Mycenaeans...
It doesn't HAVE to be a sword equal to what they were making in the high middle ages dude!!
After a bronze sword was casted, excess metal was trimmed, and the entire sword was work hardened by hammering, particularly the edges..
If you made a sword blank like how I said in >>27965809 and hammered a fuller, hammered the edges, hammered the entire surface like how you would a bronze sword, that would basically forge out the blade enough for it to not be brittle as fuck, right?
YOU ASSHOLES DON'T UNDERSTAND this thread is about CONAN swords and the time period it's set it!! You don't understand it's about manufacturing an iron or steel sword with methods we know nothing about!
Why the fuck are you shooting me down when you have never tried it and you can't even understand what I'm saying? I've had to repeat what I'm saying over and over because don't understand how bronze swords are made or what they would have done when they started using bronze sword making techniques on iron!
I'm thinking they would have ended up with a sword that was homogenous material but the core would be like iron and the outside like steel, something like a katana... It wouldn't have been as good as a sword made 4000 years later, OBVIOUSLY but it still would have been better than bronze swords.
You guys don't understand. You don't get it at all.
>>27966332
You've been going on about "well that was cast" referring to a wootz steel sword.
Before that you were talking about casting steel. You've been talking about saving time on forging it by casting it like a sword shape.
Now are you're deciding to completely flip it around and say you were talking about bronze all along?
Have you any clue what you're talking about, or are you just randomly throwing everything and the kitchen sink in there in the hopes that you might get one hit out of a dozen? Because what I'm reading tells me you have so little clue about the subject, that you dont even know enough to know you have no clue.
Please, let that try to sink into your head for a moment.
-
>If you made a sword blank like how I said in >>27965809 and hammered a fuller, hammered the edges, hammered the entire surface like how you would a bronze sword, that would basically forge out the blade enough for it to not be brittle as fuck, right?
In steel? For the 7th time... No.
How many fucking times do you have to be told, that hammering in a fuller and edges, "like" a bronze sword" wouldnt do the job?
In bronze? bronze is cast. That's fucking obvious. You dont forge bronze. You dont hammer in fullers to a bronze sword
You can hammer-work bronze later on in the production process, to work-harden it along the edge.
>>27966332
>YOU ASSHOLES DON'T UNDERSTAND this thread is about CONAN swords and the time period it's set it!! You don't understand it's about manufacturing an iron or steel sword with methods we know nothing about!
Well, clearly, in that case, they forged them by using a diffuse neutron cascade in the lower deflector dish dilithium crys- oh, no, that's fucking star trek.
If you're trying to discuss "how was X made" then saying "it was made with methods no-one knows" rather defeats the point of the discussion. Make up some shit, its going to be about as realistic as whatever the star trek technobabble is, its not going to make it a real way of making things.
>Why the fuck are you shooting me down when you have never tried it and you can't even understand what I'm saying? I've had to repeat what I'm saying over and over because don't understand how bronze swords are made or what they would have done when they started using bronze sword making techniques on iron!
I am "shooting you down", you utter fucking idiot, because you have not the slightest clue what you're talking about. you can repeat it how many times you want, its still a crock of utter shit that has no resemblance to the reality of working in iron and steel. Iron and steel are still iron and steel, if they were made today, made in thrace 3000 years ago, or made by made-up races in the Conan novels. I work as a professional bladesmith. I work with this stuff all the time, people I consider my peers work with it even more often, and I've learnt from them the techniques.
the real, actual techniques used to do this sort of stuff. Not the sort of methods that you pulled straight out your imagination. So when I'm telling you that the ideas you've had dont work, thats because they WONT FUCKING WORK. The methods used for bronze do not cross over to iron. your entire notion of whats done is fundamentally flawed. you're trying to make up working methods while you do not understand how the material was worked.
>>27960020
>he doesn't know the riddle of steel
laughing_barbarians.png
>>27966332
>I'm thinking they would have ended up with a sword that was homogenous material but the core would be like iron and the outside like steel, something like a katana...
You have absolutely NO clue what that actually takes to do.
you are pretty much pulling words you've heard in scattered discussions out, and throwing them blindfold at a dartboard, in the hopes that you're going to hit the bullseye.
you do not understand even the very basics of iron production. you do not understand how steely iron (nevermind a homogeneous steel) was made, or what it takes.
you do not even understand the _words_ you're using. a" core like iron and outside like steel" is not " homogenous material".
that's a bit like saying
>"I'm thinking they would have ended up with an AK47 that was bolt action but the receiver would be like a gatling gun and the barrel like 12-guage, something like a AR15..."
That is how wrong and garbled what you're saying is. You're throwing these words around, but you dont actually know what they mean.
And that is why I keep saying "no, that wont work". It has nothing to do with me not understanding what you're saying. it has everything to do with you not understanding the things you're talking about. I've said it from the outset. I was nice and polite, like in >>27965100 - "Sorry, but you have no clue about the realities of the processes you're talking about".
But you still have failed to get it through to your head, that you do not know, what you think you know.
Inconceivable? See pic. _You_ are Vizzini.
>>27966456
>>27966580
Yes, you two have your good points.
But you've also been shooting me down.
But I've also been very scatterbrained and confused because I'm talking about something I don't understand well with a technique that's never been done.
Oh, one of you is a professional bladesmith? I watched a guy hammer a ingot the size and shape of a beer can into a sword, but if the ingot was shaped like a paper towel core it wouldn't have worked? If the ingot was a more convenient shape for him to hammer into the final product it wouldn't have taken much less time and work?
WHATEVER YOU SAY, I'm sure you've never tried it.
I'm saying if the ingot was shaped liked what it would look like when he was halfway done forging it into its final shape... would it still work? It would still need to be forged enough to break apart the crystals so it would be flexible and the ingot would resemble a sword enough so that he wouldn't have to spend too much time shaping it...
But whatever... I've discussed multiple ways of making a sword from a cast starter because the end result is STILL forged... I'm getting confused too... whatever.
>>27966660
I watched a guy put iron ore in a crucible along with a pinch of charcoal for carbon, a piece of glass, and a little silica sand...
And he got an ingot of high carbon steel he forged into a very nice, high quality sword. He had a sample of it tested and it was very high quality with almost no impurities...
And he did it in a furnace of clay bricks and clay mortar with wood charcoal.
All those things, an ancient culture would be able to do.
And I'm saying, if the crucible was shaped different so instead of getting a block of steel, he got something closer to a sword shape, it would have been easier to forge out and it would have been of similar quality.
>>27966660
I'm actually having two discussions....
One discussion is if a completely cast sword could be made using bronze age techniques would be a better sword than a bronze sword...
Another is about the shape of the ingot and trying to skip half the work involved in forging a sword.
Conan was set like 3500-4000 years ago, and the discussion has taken us over a time period of several thousand years of metallurgy...
So yea I'm kinda confused and lost.
>>27966760
a cast iron sword would be better than a cast bronze sword yes, but not better than a forged iron/steel sword. The forging process makes the material stronger by forming layers within the metal, which evens out the consistency of the carbon content (along with any impurities) as well as forming a supporting crystaline lattice structure at the atomic level in the metal.
There are several reasons why they wouldn't cast a sword of iron or steel, one would be that because the molten metal would likely cool unevenly and create huge weaknesses in the structure. Another point is related to the first point - because of the technology level they couldn't get a perfect cast using steel to begin with so the sword would still require work.
Swords were really fucking expensive back in the day. If you were going to buy one, there was a great chance that you would end up needing it, so you might as well get a sword made to the current state of the art.
A forged sword will shatter a cast sword every day of the week.
>>27966845
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
Finally.
You UNDERSTAND.
I'm not happy because it's the answer I wanted, I'm happy because you're on the same page.
So, a sword mold for steel or iron is still within the realm of possibility because it would still be better than a bronze sword.
>swords were real expensive back in the day
It appears it was the intention of every civilization to provide their entire population with the weapons of the time period, though.
>>27966660
>not owning a straight pull saiga 12 with an AR-15 stock and magpul furniture
Now we just need to make the receiver like a Gatling gun..
>>27966726
>I watched a guy put iron ore in a crucible along with a pinch of charcoal for carbon, a piece of glass, and a little silica sand...
Now, I'd have to send a message and check with him to be sure, but I beleive you're wrong there.
what you watched was Ric put _iron_ which had already been extracted from ore in a bloomery, into a crucible.
Not iron ore.
that's a very, very important difference. and, its one that has about 1000 years of technological process between it, and the first extraction of iron. Just using ore would result in a very slaggy ingot of a far smaller size.
>And I'm saying, if the crucible was shaped different so instead of getting a block of steel, he got something closer to a sword shape, it would have been easier to forge out and it would have been of similar quality.
NO. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD YOU FUCKING IMBECILE. THAT'S THE EIGHTH TIME I'VE TOLD YOU THAT MAKING IT SWORD SHAPED IS NOT GOING TO MAKE IT ANY EASIER. WHAT PART OF THAT IS TOO FUCKING DIFFICULT TO GET THROUGH YOUR FUCKING SKULL YOU CUNT?
fuck this. why am I wasting my time explaining this shit to a spunk-trumpet who cant read?
>>27965925
>simply making the raw metal "in the shape" of a sword will not save time. infact, you'd have to spend longer forgeworking that, folding, stretching it out, etc, than you would a simple nice, compact billet.
>>27965491
>No, Casting it into a "sword shape" is not going to make it any faster. The forging processes - irrespective of if its a blister steel, a bloomery iron that's been fined, a wootz crucible steel - is about the elongation of the grain structure inside the steel.
etc
>>27966845
A cast iron sword would be way too brittle to be a weapon. Otherwise the Chinese would be using that stuff during their iron age.
>>27966845
>a cast iron sword would be better than a cast bronze sword yes
Wrong.
A cast iron sword would be useless. As in chocolate teapot levels of useless.
Cast iron is exceptionally brittle (its good in compressive loads, like a pillar, utterly shit in torsional or elongational load. or to use layman's terms, Squash it and its great, twist or smack it, and it breaks.
Cast iron has never been used as an element of weapons - the *sole* exception to that being cannon balls. where that whole breaking thing works rather well to make them even more lethal.
If you're referring to a cast _steel_, then that's better, but still no-where near suitable for a blade - its good for small objects that arent being flexed - like woodworking chisels, punches, that sort of stuff.
>>27965135
Thanks for the info. It makes sense, I assumed sand molds or stone or wood or open tops mold would be easier to produce.
Would slowly heating the stones with the metal prevent heat shock? Similar to heating the mold before pouring.
>>27967258
I would be very sceptical about it.
heating stones to that degree is likely to change their colour, at the very least (Google "heat treatment of ruby/sapphire/diamond" for examples)
In all honesty, I'd say its a wiser approach to simply do exactly what jewellers do - make a bezel or claws and set the stones afterwards. Bezels can be a little tricky to roll, but claws are idiot-proof. just make a little prodder tool from brass or the likes, with a concave tip to press them in with, which wont scratch the surface and is less likely to slip.
>>27960404
Because it's funny...
>pic related
>>27966986
DESU it looked like what you would get from a first run in a bloomery.. rocks full of iron and slag.
But I've also seen someone make steel from what looked like dirt.
And I've said it wouldn't be entirely cast- there would be forging involved. And I've said OVER AND OVER the goal is just to make a sword that's better than a bronze one. We didn't go from making bronze swords to making the Roman Gladius. There has to be an "in between" time when they were figuring things out.
>>27967092
So you could make a cast steel axe but not a sword?
>>27966991
Good point... but isn't what makes cast iron brittle is the carbon content moreso than crystallization?
>>27967395
That was a funny read.
OP here.... I'm gonna mspaint what I was thinking because I cannot into communication
BRB
OK OP HERE
This is exactly what I mean.
The cylinder represents the high carbon steel ingot I saw that dude pull out of a crucible.
The sword shaped ingot represents this stupid bullshit Im arguing.
THERE.
Make sense?
>>27967580
>So you could make a cast steel axe but not a sword?
depending on what sort, yes.
An estwing style hatchet with an integral haft, no - something where its a complex shape where the forces aren't in a simple linear direction isnt going to be particularly reliable.
but a simple axe-head on a wooden haft, cast steel is entirely practical to make in a cast steel.
Infact, a quick search shows a host of such heads from the 19th and 20th C still crop up at auctions - see pic.
this sort of cast tool steel was used for thousands, millions of workshop tools all the way into the 1950's and even the 1960's in England - a lot of "Sheffield steel" tools were still made with cast steel.
As a completely "pulled out my arse" rule of thumb, I'd say that if its something with a blade where its long and thin, like a knife or sword, and when its something that's bent, like a crowbar or spanner, that's where a casting isnt really suited, eventually it will fail. Instead, its steel that's been forged out to length that is needed.
But if its something that's short and stout, like a wedge or an axe, a punch or a or to a lesser degree, a chisel or plane iron (which is thin, but sell-supported , then it can be made with castings. in chisels you can get away with it because they're not usually bent in use.
As a note, for quality of these sort of cast tools, In fact, I have a big stock of cast steel drill bits that I inherited from my grandfather, made by Mathieson of Glasgow. They're better cutters for drilling carbon steel than many modern HSS tool bits or Ti Nitride coated bits. Absolutely brilliant things.
>Good point... but isn't what makes cast iron brittle is the carbon content moreso than crystallization?
bit of both. the carbon content causes that sort of crystallisation, the crystallisation causes brittleness.
>>27967762
The answer is still no.
See the previous however many replies for why.
It doesnt work like that
>>27967762
Different anon here. The bladesmith you were arguing with knew EXACTLY what you were talking about, as did everyone else lurking or posting ITT.
The reason it will not work is because steel MUST be worked extensively anyway. Think of it like this, the steel is going to need x hours of heating and forging before the crystalline structure is what you need. Casting, molding, or shaping a crucible into what vaguely looks like a sword CAN NEVER reduce the value of x because most of the work IS NOT ABOUT JUST CHANGING THE SHAPE OF THE STEEL. You work the steel to affect the molecular structure just as much as you do to shape it.
Bladesmiths have actually perfected their art so precisely that they can shape the steel AND develop necessary crystalline structures in exactly the same number of hits and time in the fire. Casting, or whatever you imagine next, any shape other than a basic ignot would ADD to the work, not make anything easier.
As for Conan, the furnace tech did not exist. But let's imagine it did. The blade resulting from your method would be INFERIOR to bronze because of the poorly developed molecular/crystalline structure in any iron product which hasn't spent the minimum required amount of time being forged.
>>27967935
>>27967580
and because its piqued my interest, I've been doing a little bit more research on cast steel tools - I know cast steel was used in sawblades, which is thin and flexy - so been checking on a number of companies I know.
from what I can tell, cast steel was also used on very thin items, but was effectively forged out, in rolling mills first. A rolling mill's stretching and elongation is very similar to forging in terms of its mechanical adjustments to the steel grain - so that explains why it was used on steel for saws etc. I suspect that plane irons were also rolled from thicker stock in that case.
I wish I had more time for antique tool-making, and the study of the old companies who made them. its a fascinating subject. and they really dont make 'em like they used to.
>>27960020
i fucking loved the scene where a conan is told o throw his sword over a rift. he throws a sword and an other sword fell to the ground on the other side. XD fucking golden
>>27968075
YES EXACTLY. Lots of high quality sword makers use stock and the only forging its received was from rollers.
I think I said this already..
>>27967974
But with both ways you're still breaking apart the grain and forging it
>>27968175
oh, so did I... way back at >>27960923
but I wasn't aware (or didn't remember, more accurately) that rolling mills were used for sawblades and similar thin "cast steel" items in the 19th and early 20th C. Fun stuff to learn.
I use steel pretty much every day as a bladesmith - most of the knives I use are about 90% stock removal, its far more efficient, I only use forge-work to curve and shape bits that would be wasteful otherwise, and to punch in detailing that's impossible by other means.
I tend to find it laughable when you get the people who don't make things saying "only forged knives are good" as they really don't know what the difference is between a forged knife blade, and a stock removed one is . all the rolling work to get the steel to shape, before its forged means that the actual difference are so minimal they're completely indistinguishable at a structural level.
Big differences if you're making a Z shaped crankshaft, yes... but no difference at all in a straight blade.
>>27968185
what part of "No, it does not work like that" is so difficult for you to understand?
>>27968296
Thing is....
You're saying you're smart and that you know a lot about metals...
But those rollers aren't operating at a PSI... the rollers are stationary.
>>27968389
I'm very stubborn.
>>27961309
TRUTH
R
U
T
H
>>27968472
I was about to type a reply to your roller comment lambasting your stupidity but then I decided this image was much better.
>>27968472
Stubborness is refusing to do something when asked.
Stupidity is refusing to learn when someone teaches you a fact 10 fucking times.
>But those rollers aren't operating at a PSI... the rollers are stationary.
I'm struggling to decide if you're a moron, or a gifted troll.
Have a photo of a rolling mill. Look in particular at the 3-foot wide hydraulic pistons at the top of the rolling presses that press the rollers into the steel.
Here's a description of one in operation:
"The primary function of the Hot Strip Mill is to reheat semi-finished steel slabs of steel nearly to their melting point, then roll them thinner and longer through 12 successive rolling mill stands, driven by motors totaling 77,000 hp.
The Hot Mill rolls slabs weighing up to 30 tons between 30 and 74 inches wide. Steel slab 8 to 9 inches thick and up to 36 feet long is rolled into strip as thin as 1/16 inches and up to a half-mile in length. Coils are produced with a 30” inside diameter (‘eye’) on one of two coilers, with outside diameter limitations of 72” and 74”, corresponding to 850 and 1000 pounds-per-inch-width (PIW), respectively."
850 pounds per inch. on a 72"roll, that equates to 61200psi of force.
that's the sort of force used in a modern steel mill to roll out stuff.
>>27968522
Yes, I'm being a bastard.
>>27968761
I didn't know... well who isn't a little stupid anyways?
I meant to say the rollers aren't pounding or forging the steel.. but I'm pretty sure they work it enough to break up its grain structure which is why stock can be used to make a great sword.
>>27961309
I missed your comment when sleeping, >>27968520 made me take a look.
>"hand-forged authentic sword" by any maker? Started as a bar of stock.
I fucking HATE that shit. I hate people get away with cheating like that. Just like how all that "made in America" stuff... the vast majority was made in China or something.
People have no integrity anymore. I guess we never did and I'm just naive..
Yea I refer to what that dude did in secrets of the viking sword a lot. There's another video on YouTube called "steel from dirt" that's pretty cool.
>>27969176
You're a fucking idiot
>>27969224
He's clearly pretending to be pretending to be retarded at this point
>>27969176
>I meant to say the rollers aren't pounding or forging the steel.. but I'm pretty sure they work it enough to break up its grain structure which is why stock can be used to make a great sword.
you have no clue about the processes you're talking about.
May I suggest you do some baking, and try using a rolling pin.
>>27969256
this image comes to mind for describing them...
>>27969303
That's different. See the rollers in >>27968761? THEY ARE STATIONARY. If the rollers moved you'd get wavy sheets of steel.
>>27969321
Classic.
>>27969224
>>27969256
My intelligence level isn't really up for debate. If life was like a video game that must mean I've got a shit ton of points invested in something else. But it sure as fuck isn't strength, luch, or charisma.
What do you think my stats are?
>>27968761
>>27969176
>>27969589
That's not true. There are many mill designs for various applications but the rollers are in constant movement on the in and out sides of the mill adjusting to maintain the correct tolerances for that pass. Now what learned blacksmith anon is saying is that they are moving by rolling and the pressure on the steel is achieving the same thing as hammering. What other anon thinks moving means is the rolls are not hammering which is true but they are spinning and they are moving up and down but hammering is not necessary. And I am being pedantic, basically. Now there are many things that can be done to a strip as it passes both intentional and not with many very interesting defects possible like mounds and splits and s shapes etc all caused by different things. Intentional wise a mill can add surface finishes or different coating by running through a bath etc and can run any material from aluminum plate down to foil to brass for symbols to gold for coins.
>>27969589
you know, fuckit, life's too short to waste any more time explaining stuff, when the person its directed toward is dumber than a sackfull of spanners.
