The Late Roman to mid-Byzantine army

[frekk]

But really, why should the Romans care about that, if their main weapon (at least in the Republic and early Empire) was the big shield, which didn´t have to bend, only to withstand arrows and the enemy charge?
I still don´t understand.

Well, the Romans were mainly using Damascene steel for swords, and not much else. It was too expensive. Some wonder why they didn't get rid of guts etc for torsion on their artillery, and just use Damascene steel springs if it actually had the properties it was supposed to have had.

Other, inferior native steel was sometimes used for armour and shields though. It's lighter (always good), and it doesn't break as easily (also good during an enemy charge by crazed axe-wielding Germanics and Celts).

 

[zjl56]

Was the famous Roman short sword made of steel or iron?

 

[frekk]

In early versions, iron.

Later versions (iirc) were iron with layered steel on top.

It's suspected there are pure Damascene steel spatha, but none have been found.

 

[Plotinus]

The stronger your weapon, the easier it is to hack through enemy armour. The stronger and lighter your armour, the harder it is for the enemy to hack through it.

This is why iron is better for weapons and armour than bronze (much stronger) and why steel is better than iron (stronger and lighter).

 

[Princeps]

In early versions, iron.

No, Iron was NEVER used as weapon material; it was too soft. You see, iron is softer than bronze, but steel is harder than both.

Or thats what i've heard.

 

[frekk]

No, Iron was NEVER used as weapon material; it was too soft. You see, iron is softer than bronze, but steel is harder than both.

Or thats what i've heard.

Quench-hardened iron is fine for weapons, when you don't have steel.

Iron is certainly not softer than bronze! At least not ancient bronzes. Modern bronze alloys can be. Softness isn't always a bad thing anyway - stone is generally much harder than any metal, but it is so hard it becomes brittle. An impact delivered to a stone shatters it because it has no ability to absorb the energy of the blow (unlike a very soft material, such as, say, wet clay).

What they would do is quench-harden the iron, which makes it very hard (although a bit more brittle). After the iron is quenched, it is reheated again to a specific temperature and then allowed to cool - this removes some of the brittleness.

It is controversial whether the Romans used steel. According to Manning, “there is no evidence for widespread, regular, intentional production of steel in the Roman Empire,” (Manning 148). The problem is that the only essential difference between iron and steel is the amount of carbon in the metal. Regular wrought iron has a carbon content of about 0.5 percent and steel has a carbon content of 1.5 percent. It is possible that this much carbon was imparted to the blade by the charcoal used to heat the metal as the smith forger the blade. This contact between the metal and charcoal created a sort of outer layer of steel (Manning 148) in a process called carburization. It is doubtful that the Romans were aware that this process was taking place. They probably just observed that blades which were heated and reheated were stronger than those that were not (Healy 232). As the iron is reheated and hammered repeatedly, a strange thing takes place in the blade: it becomes an iron blade with thin strips of steel throughout. This works out very well because it gives the blade the strength of steel, with the “resilience of iron” (Manning 148). Once the blade meets the specifications of the blacksmith, it is quenched. This involves bringing the blade to white heat and then plunging it into a bucket of water. Quenching gives the blade its initial strength, and makes the metal quite hard. The problem with quenching is that it makes the blade quite brittle, so it must then be tempered. To temper a blade, it is reheated a final time to a very specific temperature. The temperature it is raised to determines the hardness of the blade, and how well it will keep its edge. The only way a Roman smith could determine the heat of the blade was through its color and his own experience. This is where the skill of the smith really came into play. According to Williams, however, the Romans preferred blades that were allowed to air cool after being tempered to those that were quenched (Williams 77-87).

Steel was also probably produced in the bloomery, where the ore was smelted with charcoal as the fuel. Aristotle noticed:

“Wrought iron indeed will melt and grow soft, and then solidify again.

And this is the way in which ‘steel’ is made. For the dross sinks to the

bottom and is removed from below, and by repeated subjection to this

treatment the metal is purified and ‘steel’ is produced.” (Healy 232)

So the question of iron versus steel is really a matter of perspective. The blades had steel in them because of their exposure to charcoal, but they were not made entirely of steel. Thus, it appears that the Romans did have steel and appreciated its qualities, and that a typical sword had many bands of steel in it, whether the steel was intentionally created or not.

From http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech...al/James_Hurst/THE_ROMAN_SWORD_IN_THE_REP.htm

 

[Princeps]

It was tested. By some team... I have to look for the article...

They made two swords one bronze and one iron, using the ancient weapon making techniques. Every one expected the bronze sword to break, but to every one's suprise it was the iron sword that was broken. They made the test many times. So, it was logical to think that the anceint iron-swords were always made of steel.

Also, ancient iron rusted very, very fast.

 

[frekk]

So, it was logical to think that the anceint iron-swords were always made of steel.

Not when all the surviving examples are iron, it isn't. They simply didn't have the technology to produce steel - so they couldn't have made pure steel weapons. Simple as that.

Also, ancient iron rusted very, very fast.

Lol ... iron is iron. Fe. Does ancient water evaporate faster than modern water?

 

[Takhisis]

an enemy charge by crazed axe-wielding Germanics and Celts

Hey frekk, Celts didn´t use axes much.

• The nobility preferred using iron longswords, becuse of their versatility and the status they implied.
• The commoners used mostly spears -sometimes bronze spearheads, sometimes iron ones-, and then shortswords, because they couldn´t afford iron longswords, which were very expensive sat that time.

 

[FriendlyFire]

No, Iron was NEVER used as weapon material; it was too soft. You see, iron is softer than bronze, but steel is harder than both.

Or thats what i've heard.

I think your talking about Wrought Iron as oppossed to Cast Iron
Wrought iron being the weaker version of Iron was in lighter, easier to manufacture, easier to repair but for it weight meant it was was weaker than bronze

It primary plus was its ability to be shaped into Long sword type blade which was not possible with bronze, and of course its lightless making it easier to weild.

 

[Dreadnought]

It was tested. By some team... I have to look for the article...

They made two swords one bronze and one iron, using the ancient weapon making techniques. Every one expected the bronze sword to break, but to every one's suprise it was the iron sword that was broken. They made the test many times. So, it was logical to think that the anceint iron-swords were always made of steel.

Also, ancient iron rusted very, very fast.

Post a link...I find this unbelievable!

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I don't know, I have always just liked the good old Roman Cohort.

 

[Generaltsao]

Yeah ancient bronze blades sword sized are kind of hard to believe. If you look at ancient bronze weapons such as spear points and axes they are useful because sharpness does not matter as much. I would say for the most part even calling something a "bronze sword" would be a misnomer because after several connecting blows it would be more of a bronze baton.

 

[innonimatu]

Yeah ancient bronze blades sword sized are kind of hard to believe. If you look at ancient bronze weapons such as spear points and axes they are useful because sharpness does not matter as much. I would say for the most part even calling something a "bronze sword" would be a misnomer because after several connecting blows it would be more of a bronze baton.

There were bronze swords, as well as iron swords, and the later replaced the bronze ones, chronologically, therefore we must assume they were found to be superior at the time.

 

[Generaltsao]

I should have said reliable in the same sense as an iron sword.