The Armour Archive

Secrets of Viking Sword PBS 8pm central Oct 10.
So did anyone else watch this? Your thoughts.

I think I DVR'd it, not sure how much I got of it though. We had a bad rain storm up here last night and the Dish lost local channels right at the begining of it. I went to bed. I didnt check to see how much had taped.

I feel asleep 1/3 of the way through it.
Not a statement about it, more about me.

I was set to pick it apart. I was pleasantly surprised. Time well spent.

Peter Johnsson on the My Armoury message boards made the comment that he was involved in the initial stages of production, but said he was a bit confused as to why they kept pressing the issues of the swords being made by the scandenavians, when by all characteristics they appear to be frankish make. Also, supposedly Clements also didn't want to do the Katana bit, but the producer and/or director insisted on it. P.Johnsson also makes some interesting comments on the origin of the name on the MyArmoury post.
Even after reading about some of the misrepresentation of information (such as there is no evidence that the H+T ulfberhts are the "original") The manufacture of the cruicbal steel and the sword by Furrer had me riveted.
Anyhow the My Armoury thread is a short but interesting read on the show.

-Cian

I think a sweet dirnking game could be made of it for every time they say "Ulfbert"

MJBlazek wrote:"Ulfbert"

DRINK!

hey guys my wife let me drink any more. You owe be both a quarter everytime you drink. ;p

How many times can you be quartered? (And I don't mean domiciled!)

Only once, after that it's eighthed and sixteenthed.

For those that missed it, is it online anywhere?

Very nice. Thank you Adam.

Just watched it. Very interesting. Back in my early years in the SCA (late 80's) a friend of mine and I fooled around with doing some forge work. While it didn't really hold my interest, it did give me a huge amount of respect for quality blacksmiths out there.

Cian of Storvik wrote:Peter Johnsson on the My Armoury message boards made the comment that he was involved in the initial stages of production, but said he was a bit confused as to why they kept pressing the issues of the swords being made by the scandenavians, when by all characteristics they appear to be frankish make.

My guess would be that someone got onto the premise that the steel was imported down the Rus riverine trade routes...Rus were Viking...ergo...

I also didn't get the notion that nothing with a cross on it would have been produced in Scandinavia 'cause they were all pagans. I guess no one told them that Christians were not exactly unknown in the North before the 10th century.

Here is what should be bugging the heck out of people and was never mentioned in the program. If indeed the swords are crucible steel and IF this also means as they imply that it is Wootz steel then it is between 1 and 2 percent carbon. If you watched carefully and know standard smithing temperatures then it jumps out at you that the dull red heats the smith was using to work the steel are correct for working wootz. Which is worked below normal forging temperatures at the dull red. Each forging heat is taken at a similar and from what I have read slightly LOWEZr temperature in order to protect the qualities of the steel.

Normal steels are never worked at that temperature. Wrought Iron is worked at almost white heat. Normal steel at orange heat.

What they should have asked was: If it is really crucible steel then how did a European figure out how to work it. They were completely unable to during the crusades.
Think about it. Your European smith used to working at high heats would immediately destroy the properties of wootz the first time he heated it in his forge to what he considered "Normal" forging temperatures.

I find it extroidinary that they could have succeeded. I need to check out Williams book and see if he goes into any more detail on this part of the explanation.

Mark

You can destroy the first few samples, but then you find the right way. Those people while not having a scientific knowledge of what they did, had a great first hand and pratical experience doing their work. They experimented and learned and developed, otherwise we would not have seen the evolution in their production processes.

How long do you keep trying with expensive materials before you conclude that "This won't work" and give up, though?

Marshal wrote:How long do you keep trying with expensive materials before you conclude that "This won't work" and give up, though?

Maybe the guys who sell it to you tell you "Work this at a lower heat than you are accustomed to...here, watch.."

Why assume that materials travel but information stays localized?

Yes, we know how eager medieval craft guilds were to share their trade secrets.

It's possible that the information, the knowledge, was traded for, as well as the steel itself.
Individuals or whole families may have emigrated, been assigned as embassy, or simply gone as merchants themselves.
Who's to say, really? Information travels.

MJBlazek wrote:"Ulfbert"

Uff Da!

Informational assets were sometimes taken as loot or sneaked out.

In one of the History of Western Technology (MIT Press) I have, I remember the red metal turners guild of Nuremberg forbidding a member to leave the city due to his knowledge of "trade secrets". But also look at how the Royal Armory at Greenwich was founded.

And I remember a tale of a famed middle eastern swordsmith who was captured during a local war. He was housed with that kings swordsmith with the provision that he was not to be freed until they could not tell their work apart---whereupon he was set free with substantial gifts.

My TIVO happened to grab the program. I found it very interesting. Makes me want to try blacksmiting. Also, it always stuns me when I see asian treasures in viking hoards.

Marshal wrote:Yes, we know how eager medieval craft guilds were to share their trade secrets.

sigh.

So assuming that rather than learning how it was done, someone would make an attempt or two and then just give it up is the logical conclusion?

Consider the proverbial break requested.

With rare and unusual resources how do you know they *had* enough to make a large number of tries with it?

Not to mention what happens when *you* tell your boss you are going to stop working on your current work and start doing something that make take you a year or two to succeed at---with no guarantee that you will succeed and will take expensive resources to boot? Most of us tend to get pretty hungry pretty fast after that.

I've actually had the luxury of talking face to face with Al Pendray on making wootz and he and Verhoeven had a lot of time and effort and resources in trying to figure it out even with modern knowledge and resources. (I was Al's assistant when he Demo'd at Quad-State---his demo project was forge welding alternating chevrons of wootz and pattern welded steel like an extant far eastern example...)

I don't think a task like that would be taken on the shoulder of the last of the helpers without the involvment of the master.
And you can't think the economic burden was on the shoulder of the weapons smith, and you can't think weaponsmith were poor in any way. they were a quite powerful lobby, and the lord who made business with them were very interested in technological advancements, so much to trow a lot of money at new technologies.

Donal Mac Ruiseart wrote:

MJBlazek wrote:"Ulfbert"

Uff Da!

What I want to know is: What happened to Ulfernie? Those two are inseparable.

Kilkenny wrote:

Marshal wrote:Yes, we know how eager medieval craft guilds were to share their trade secrets.

sigh.

So assuming that rather than learning how it was done, someone would make an attempt or two and then just give it up is the logical conclusion?

Consider the proverbial break requested.

Yes, I get which of the two you consider more likely. But that doesn't actually make it more likely. Or are we to trust probabilities instead of evidence in history now?

That problem with "assuming" runs both ways.

A third possibility? Someone just stumbled upon it while trying to do something else.

There are probably even more possibilities of which neither of has thought. But AFAIK no evidence for any one of them...

Donal Mac Ruiseart wrote:

MJBlazek wrote:"Ulfbert"

Uff Da!

ULFbert was just discovered to the Great great many times great grand father of DilBert. So the information "secret sword method" is the secretarys in box waiting to be distrutited.

Jasper wrote:

Donal Mac Ruiseart wrote:

MJBlazek wrote:"Ulfbert"

Uff Da!

ULFbert was just discovered to the Great great many times great grand father of DilBert. So the information "secret sword method" is the secretarys in box waiting to be distrutited.

I thought they only produced giant spoons?