Heavy inflexible blades vs. light blades with good flex

[TrueSwordsman]

From most of the people I have talked with the general populace currently believes a sword must be thick and heavy to be strong. Recently, I have been working with a smithy to make a lighter thinner blade that is tempered three times to give it a flex that is unbelievable. It will flex 5 degrees from true and spring straight again.

After much work to find a flexible strong sword, it is rejected by most sword enthusiasts in the US, because they don't understand that a sword does not have to be thick to be strong. It requires good steel and a good tempering process.

If you were to choose a sword would you pick a thick heavy blade or a light flexible blade?

:Orc: :battle: :fight:

[Orc]

well, I suppose it depends on what I'm looking for...

In a rapier or small sword, lighter is definately better. In hand and a half and two handers, that's a bit iffy. I suppose it depends on how much ligher? If we go back to basic physics, F=MA or Force equals Mass times Acelleration. I don't know if you'll get enough extra acelleration out of a weapon, which is greatly limited by the wielder, to make up for the lesser mass. If I'm trying to cleave through armour or a dwarve's thick skull, I want to have that extra mass for more force upon impact.

For me it always goes back to the feel of the weapon. Without being able to pick it up and feel it's ballance, it's hard to make a real judgement call on it.

What do you mean by "tempering three times"? As I understand the tempering process, you would actually loose hardness each time you temper the blade. Is he annealing between each temper - i.e. anneal - quench - temper - anneal - quench - temper - anneal - quench - temper? If so, wouldn't the all the temperings except for the last one be useless as the annealing process basically normalizes all of the metal to one structural form? I have heard of people performing several annealings in a row to 'normalize' the metal throughout the blade to aquire as uniform structure as possible. This basically involves heating the metal to it's critical temperature and allowing it to cool very slowly by burying it in sand or ash. This is supposed to provide for better tempering as the metal is less likely to develop stress fractures. I'm definately curious about this process and it's effects on the structure of the metal.

[TrueSwordsman]

Orc, it is always good to hear what you have to say.

When time allows I will provide you with a detailed response to the tempering process.

[Orc]

Cool. I really look forward to learning about this tempering process!

:Orc:

[TrueSwordsman]

Did you notice I had a little guy stabbing an orc at the top?

[Orc]

pfbbt

[azimaith]

Flexible enough but it must not overflex. Naturally it must return true. Inflexible blades are prone to snapping under duress, parry poorly, and all in all tend to be too heavy, UNLESS of course its something from the later renaissance used for fighting plate armor. By this I mean estocs, rapiers (yes rapiers were quite rigid and nowhere near as whippy as movies make them, they were designed to pierce flesh and bone, not whip people) often true two handers of the renaissance. After all, a sword that bends under its own weight is not a good sword at all. Risers are usually not needed but I wouldn't use a blade with so many flukes and fullers that it drooped while being held laterally.

[Nilion Elentano]

Triple Tempering is oft described mostly in knife making techniques, I have some material that talks about it, but I must say that in straight blades it usually doesn't have as good results as you would expect, flexibility is much appreciated, but it works best with curved blades since it adds speed and mobility, but it deffinately doesn't help when it comes to strenght...tho it is all down to the skill of the bladesmith...remember that many terms are often used by people who only end up putting mouthfulls of words in their mouths and compromises the result that will be placed in the hands of their customers... triple tempereing when not properly performed can be as bad as not tempering at all, and it is never accurate, but when you have a close approximation to what you want the result is superb <makes mental note to start posting all the bladesmithing material he posseses> :idea: soon very soon!:thumbs:

[Elfdaughter]

I've just started fencing, so at the min, I prefer a lighter blade like a foil. I've worked with larger epees as well, but I find them difficult to handle - I can do more point work with a foil. Being unused to working with blades, I prefer something that I can keep steady, and not kill my arm after five minutes of holding it at guard position and ten thrusts! At least with a foil, I can do up to 50 or 60 thrusts before my arm starts to ache - then I change and carry on with my off-hand.

[azimaith]

Sorry if I sound condescending but really, a fencing foil isn't a sword. Swords are meant to kill while foils are meant specifically not to kill. (But they can hurt) so tip work really wasn't too prevalent with armor on the scene. And in the later renaissance the blades tended to be quite stiff as I mentioned before, rapiers were stiff blades, not bouncy whippy movie blades, same with estocs because they needed to pierce flesh and bone and a blade that had too much give simply couldn't penetrate far enough into muscle.

So inflexible isn't necesary a bad trait, thats why they have risers after all. It just depends what kind of sword it is and how inflexible it is.

[Elfdaughter]

No, don't worry, you don't sound condescending! lol I agree. I'm just answering the question - if you were to choose a sword.... You see, I don't think I made my point clear - that was - it depends what you were to use the sword for. I know lots of heavy fighters who like to fight with more flexible blades - for the same reason that I like foils - they're lighter and easier to wield.

[azimaith]

Ah I see what you mean.

[TrueSwordsman]

Though I have been away from the boards for sometime, I have been doing some study and looking into the various swords available.

After handling two similar swords (same length and style), one with a lighter more flexible blade and one with a thicker blade, I have come to the conclusion that I prefer the heavier blade.

Both swords were hand and a half and designed to be used one or two handed. Historically they would have been used in the late 1400’s to the end of the 1500’s. At that time armour became thicker and more protective. The heavy armor provided the protection, so the shield could be dropped and a sword with a two handed grip used, which would allow a two handed grip to provide the strength and power to penetrate the armor of an opponent.

My findings were as follows:

First I used the lighter more flexible blade (weighing about 2-1/2 pounds) (and I do realize the primary function would have been to thrust through armor rather than cut). I stood a 56x14x12 empty box on end and attempted to cut through it in one blow (cut was diagonal from upper right to lower left). The sword made it half way through before stopping. I then attempted a second cut on a new box trying to build up more speed. Once again I only made it just over half way through. During the cut the blade had considerable flex that I could both see and feel.

I then accomplished the same test with a thicker heavier blade (weighing just over 5 pounds). My first cut went through the box with such force that I actually hit the tip on the ground. Just for fun a cut another box and once again went through it with ease.

I have come to the conclusion that in battle I would definitely choose the heavier less flexible blade.


:aragorn:

[azimaith]

heres the problems of cutting a box vs combat though.
1: The box doesn't fight back naturally, in combat you would be maneuvering the blade far more and therefore you would get tired faster with the heavier blade.
2: The box has no arteries or internal organs, you don't need to chop someone in half to kill them, just pierce a kidney or cut to the bone which has arteries wrapped around it.
3: Heavy inflexible blades tend to break more in combat with parrying, the blade you were using should not flex under its own weight which could lead me to doubt the quality of the blade. It should remain straight and true unless you apply pressure to the end of the blade, in that case it should be able to bend 45 degrees and return true.
For cutting things tougher than flesh consitency a heavier blade will indeed cut farther but a lighter more flexible blade will do the job with equal lethality and less tiring.

Thats just my anaylsis of course.

[TrueSwordsman]

Very well put.