5 ms·

To my understanding Damascus was indeed not needed anymore as sword fighting came out of fashion. For swords it was very useful to have flexible yet sharp blade

by n1000 8y ago

To my understanding Damascus was indeed not needed anymore as sword fighting came out of fashion. For swords it was very useful to have flexible yet sharp blades. Or has Damascus steel been traditionally used for knives too?

colechristensen 8y ago
The idea is that Damascus steel was a technology from before there was much metallurgy knowledge. These days we have a molecular knowledge of steel and can control and test the microstructure at that scale. If you really want the best knife you look to metallurgists not artisans. Whatever you could do with Damascus steel you could do better with modern alloys and science. There's nothing wrong with the old ways, but there is a lot of magical thinking about knives and swords that doesn't have much basis in reality. Buying in to the mythology can be fun as long as you don't get too attached to the myth and start confusing it with actual utility. In other words, nobody owns a Rolex because they think it'll do a better job at letting them know the time.
- mirimir 8y ago
  For swords, I gather that key features are 1) notching or shattering other blades, and 2) resisting being notched or shattered by them. Are you arguing that modern alloys and methods can do a better job at that than Damascus or other classical methods involving layering and folding?
  - ballooney 8y ago
    That is the case, yes.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Cool. I guess it's just that there's a lot more demand for gun barrels than swords in recent centuries. So there's not much practical experience, and the delusion persists that the old ways are better. But still, the patterns can be beautiful. I've seen blades with patterns that resemble engravings. Maybe the approaches could be merged, to yield modern performance with classic beauty.
      - roel_v 8y ago
        But why? The hypothetical people who would actually fight with such things today don't care about how it looks. Go to a gun show or AR15 enthusiast forum and compare how those guns look with those that people in the military or SWAT teams use. Playing with guns/swords is fundamentally different from actually relying on them not to die. And then you have the people who like knives/swords for how they look, and would like to be able to argue that 'their' sword/knife also has the most utility if it were to be actually used. But they already do that, and are fully convinced of it, too! And the lack of actual substantive evidence (even if one could devise a single optimum function by which to measure each knife/sword...) is what keeps all these people, and the whole industry, going. So it's in nobodies interest to have one single 'best' thing. (and that's even ignoring that the amount of idiocy and stubbornness in such communities is staggering - look at the comments on the OP!)
        mirimir 8y ago
        Yeah, I guess. Me, I just have a military-issue machete. It isn't pretty, but it's tough, and holds a good edge. All I've killed with it are weed trees, though ;)
  - colechristensen 8y ago
    Yes, but it's also difficult to say there is strictly a modern/classical dichotomy and which method or material would belong in which bin. Someone could certainly do some studies comparing methods and results, but anything of that matter would be very easy to bias. What is clear is that classical methods are being employed by artists and not scientists. Mythology and visual appeal are being used to sell things, not quantifiable facts.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Yes, I get that. What matters now is mostly appearance. And maybe vague stuff about ability to keep an edge. But back in the day, you were in deep shit if your sword shattered. Or even got notched, if that put you off the flow.
      - Pristina 8y ago
        What scenario am I in where I would have a sword, have it shattered and be in trouble? In war, people mostly use polearms. In a sword fight, as has been shown in many HEMA videos i have seen, it's over in a single exchange. At that point it doesn't matter if your sword is shattered or not. And the idea that your sword being notched will 'put you off the flow' just doesn't buy it for me.
        colechristensen 8y ago
        Basically whenever you are using a sword that isn't some ritualized combat. If you are using it in a battle and your sword breaks after the first exchange, what then? Here is an hour long documentary answering your question: https://www.pbs.org/video/nova-secrets-viking-sword/ https://www.pbs.org/video/nova-secrets-viking-sword/
  - pluma 8y ago
    > For swords, I gather that key features are 1) notching or shattering other blades, and 2) resisting being notched or shattered by them. You're thinking of theatrical fencing. All that cling-clang-cling makes for great visuals and sound but is undesirable in real combat. Unless you have two knights in full armor clobbering each other over the head (at which point a mace is probably more efficient than a delicate sword) sword-on-sword contact is a means of last resort when you can't move out of the way. Although D&D may have taught you differently, a "sword block" is a wasted counter-attack. Why bother binding your sword if you could have used the opportunity to slip out of the way and catch the opponent off balance and end him? In fact, blocking is what sidearms are for. Grab a dagger or a buckler and take down the opponent's sword without binding yours. If swords do touch in combat it's usually at an angle and just enough to deflect the blow without overcommitting too much to risk wasting a the chance to get in a counter. (full disclosure: I'm talking about European medieval swords and from having watched experienced HEMA fighters)
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Those are good points. From Stephenson's Mongoliad, I get that binding the opponent's sword, and closing, are key moves. But I'm most familiar with Japanese style, from studying Aikido. We sometimes practiced with wooden bokken. And yes, any blade-blade contact is glancing. But still, stuff happens.
      - pluma 8y ago
        Yeah, I think point 2 is still relevant, but intentionally damaging the opponent's sword is pointless. Ideally the fight doesn't last long enough for the accumulated damage to matter and focusing on damaging the sword is a worse strategy than focusing on incapacitating the person holding the sword (who by the way might still be dangerous without the sword).
        mirimir 8y ago
        Well, there is the move of capturing the opponent's blade against the guard, and then closing to stab with one's knife. The risk there is that your guard will fail. But if the opponent's blade breaks, they're likely in worse trouble.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Actually some people do go for Rolex because +/- 2 spd guarantees much less of a hassle than certain other mechanical watches' upper bound of +5, +6, or +10 spd.
  - roel_v 8y ago
    If someone wants to know the exact time, they don't get a mechanical watch. Everything else is post hoc justification.
  - qarioz 8y ago
    Cheap Casio has better accuracy than any mechanical watches.
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      This is not actually true anymore, but it might have been true a few years ago.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/citizen-finedevice-co-ltd/CM315D32768HZFT/300-8862-1-ND/5970278 https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/citizen-finedevice... http://cfd.citizen.co.jp/english/prod-tech/product/pdf/datasheet_TF/CM315D_E.pdf http://cfd.citizen.co.jp/english/prod-tech/product/pdf/datas... This $0.79 (yes, 79 cents) quartz crystal is specified at 5 ppm (parts per million), or 0.432 spd. That's its manufacturing tolerance by the way. With proper calibration, you can get it better than that. (Ex: a microcontroller tuned against an atomic clock, you can add / subtract cycles to get higher accuracy. Like, every million cycles, add or subtract a 5 cycle offset to correct for any manufacturing error). The temperature turnover point is guaranteed to be 25C +/- 5C. Which means the crystal won't drift due to temperature somewhere in the 20C to 30C range. Quartz crystal clocks from cheap Casio watches are basically all you need with modern technology. Low cost, low-drift, super cheap, high-reliability from manufacturing, cheap electronics (just a counter + a cycle offset if you calibrate), cheap calibration (atomic clock radio signals from any 1st world country is free). 32768 is the perfect number for 15-bit register. Move the second hand every 2^15 cycles (aka: every 15-bit overflow), possibly with a bit of offset if you have a calibration routine somewhere.

by n1000 8y ago

colechristensen 8y ago

The idea is that Damascus steel was a technology from before there was much metallurgy knowledge. These days we have a molecular knowledge of steel and can control and test the microstructure at that scale. If you really want the best knife you look to metallurgists not artisans. Whatever you could do with Damascus steel you could do better with modern alloys and science. There's nothing wrong with the old ways, but there is a lot of magical thinking about knives and swords that doesn't have much basis in reality. Buying in to the mythology can be fun as long as you don't get too attached to the myth and start confusing it with actual utility. In other words, nobody owns a Rolex because they think it'll do a better job at letting them know the time.

mirimir 8y ago
For swords, I gather that key features are 1) notching or shattering other blades, and 2) resisting being notched or shattered by them. Are you arguing that modern alloys and methods can do a better job at that than Damascus or other classical methods involving layering and folding?
- ballooney 8y ago
  That is the case, yes.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Cool. I guess it's just that there's a lot more demand for gun barrels than swords in recent centuries. So there's not much practical experience, and the delusion persists that the old ways are better. But still, the patterns can be beautiful. I've seen blades with patterns that resemble engravings. Maybe the approaches could be merged, to yield modern performance with classic beauty.
    - roel_v 8y ago
      But why? The hypothetical people who would actually fight with such things today don't care about how it looks. Go to a gun show or AR15 enthusiast forum and compare how those guns look with those that people in the military or SWAT teams use. Playing with guns/swords is fundamentally different from actually relying on them not to die. And then you have the people who like knives/swords for how they look, and would like to be able to argue that 'their' sword/knife also has the most utility if it were to be actually used. But they already do that, and are fully convinced of it, too! And the lack of actual substantive evidence (even if one could devise a single optimum function by which to measure each knife/sword...) is what keeps all these people, and the whole industry, going. So it's in nobodies interest to have one single 'best' thing. (and that's even ignoring that the amount of idiocy and stubbornness in such communities is staggering - look at the comments on the OP!)
      - mirimir 8y ago
        Yeah, I guess. Me, I just have a military-issue machete. It isn't pretty, but it's tough, and holds a good edge. All I've killed with it are weed trees, though ;)
- colechristensen 8y ago
  Yes, but it's also difficult to say there is strictly a modern/classical dichotomy and which method or material would belong in which bin. Someone could certainly do some studies comparing methods and results, but anything of that matter would be very easy to bias. What is clear is that classical methods are being employed by artists and not scientists. Mythology and visual appeal are being used to sell things, not quantifiable facts.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Yes, I get that. What matters now is mostly appearance. And maybe vague stuff about ability to keep an edge. But back in the day, you were in deep shit if your sword shattered. Or even got notched, if that put you off the flow.
    - Pristina 8y ago
      What scenario am I in where I would have a sword, have it shattered and be in trouble? In war, people mostly use polearms. In a sword fight, as has been shown in many HEMA videos i have seen, it's over in a single exchange. At that point it doesn't matter if your sword is shattered or not. And the idea that your sword being notched will 'put you off the flow' just doesn't buy it for me.
      - colechristensen 8y ago
        Basically whenever you are using a sword that isn't some ritualized combat. If you are using it in a battle and your sword breaks after the first exchange, what then? Here is an hour long documentary answering your question: https://www.pbs.org/video/nova-secrets-viking-sword/ https://www.pbs.org/video/nova-secrets-viking-sword/
- pluma 8y ago
  > For swords, I gather that key features are 1) notching or shattering other blades, and 2) resisting being notched or shattered by them. You're thinking of theatrical fencing. All that cling-clang-cling makes for great visuals and sound but is undesirable in real combat. Unless you have two knights in full armor clobbering each other over the head (at which point a mace is probably more efficient than a delicate sword) sword-on-sword contact is a means of last resort when you can't move out of the way. Although D&D may have taught you differently, a "sword block" is a wasted counter-attack. Why bother binding your sword if you could have used the opportunity to slip out of the way and catch the opponent off balance and end him? In fact, blocking is what sidearms are for. Grab a dagger or a buckler and take down the opponent's sword without binding yours. If swords do touch in combat it's usually at an angle and just enough to deflect the blow without overcommitting too much to risk wasting a the chance to get in a counter. (full disclosure: I'm talking about European medieval swords and from having watched experienced HEMA fighters)
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Those are good points. From Stephenson's Mongoliad, I get that binding the opponent's sword, and closing, are key moves. But I'm most familiar with Japanese style, from studying Aikido. We sometimes practiced with wooden bokken. And yes, any blade-blade contact is glancing. But still, stuff happens.
    - pluma 8y ago
      Yeah, I think point 2 is still relevant, but intentionally damaging the opponent's sword is pointless. Ideally the fight doesn't last long enough for the accumulated damage to matter and focusing on damaging the sword is a worse strategy than focusing on incapacitating the person holding the sword (who by the way might still be dangerous without the sword).
      - mirimir 8y ago
        Well, there is the move of capturing the opponent's blade against the guard, and then closing to stab with one's knife. The risk there is that your guard will fail. But if the opponent's blade breaks, they're likely in worse trouble.
SamReidHughes 8y ago
Actually some people do go for Rolex because +/- 2 spd guarantees much less of a hassle than certain other mechanical watches' upper bound of +5, +6, or +10 spd.
- roel_v 8y ago
  If someone wants to know the exact time, they don't get a mechanical watch. Everything else is post hoc justification.
- qarioz 8y ago
  Cheap Casio has better accuracy than any mechanical watches.
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    This is not actually true anymore, but it might have been true a few years ago.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/citizen-finedevice-co-ltd/CM315D32768HZFT/300-8862-1-ND/5970278 https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/citizen-finedevice... http://cfd.citizen.co.jp/english/prod-tech/product/pdf/datasheet_TF/CM315D_E.pdf http://cfd.citizen.co.jp/english/prod-tech/product/pdf/datas... This $0.79 (yes, 79 cents) quartz crystal is specified at 5 ppm (parts per million), or 0.432 spd. That's its manufacturing tolerance by the way. With proper calibration, you can get it better than that. (Ex: a microcontroller tuned against an atomic clock, you can add / subtract cycles to get higher accuracy. Like, every million cycles, add or subtract a 5 cycle offset to correct for any manufacturing error). The temperature turnover point is guaranteed to be 25C +/- 5C. Which means the crystal won't drift due to temperature somewhere in the 20C to 30C range. Quartz crystal clocks from cheap Casio watches are basically all you need with modern technology. Low cost, low-drift, super cheap, high-reliability from manufacturing, cheap electronics (just a counter + a cycle offset if you calibrate), cheap calibration (atomic clock radio signals from any 1st world country is free). 32768 is the perfect number for 15-bit register. Move the second hand every 2^15 cycles (aka: every 15-bit overflow), possibly with a bit of offset if you have a calibration routine somewhere.