Talk:Sword

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sword is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
August 25, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Remove Famous Swords Section?

We've already got a seperate list of swords here on wikipedia. Arguably, we can keep the Swords in History and Swords in Mythos/Legend, but the Swords of Modern Fiction? Like I said, we've already got a list of famous swords, this is just a very tiny excerpt of that list, and I think we should get rid of it. If you agree/disagree, say so right here. Otherwise I think I'll just remove it in a few months [or whenever I get back to this article and have the same revelation again]. ARBlackwood 10:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with removing most or all of the 'Swords in Modern Fiction' section. Listing every sword that has appeared in a video game or adventure story adds nothing to the article, and easily wanders into fancruft. I recently performed a similar excision on falchion. --Clay Collier 11:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh... I was cleaning it up right now and then read this comment. A few more minutes... — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 11:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

clean it up and remove the swords from modern fiction, post a lazy link to the full article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.0.237.66 (talk)

It was cleaned. There are now only a hand full, and the link is there. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 23:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Picture Link

My browser cannot view the picture of the Roman Spartha replica. Perhaps it would be a good idea to check the link and see whether it works. --UberNauf 14:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


"Humans have manufactured and used bladed weapons from the Bronze Age onwards." So what about the stone age? They made knives even small swords.

what was the small and long sword made of?


I've noted that the proper name for the Aztec weapon which is a wooden "paddle" with obsidian "teeth" set into the edge", is a maquahuilt. - WK.


Iron has more carbon than steel. Look it up.

[edit] iron verses steel

Iron has more carbon than steel. The artical is flawed in this one area.

Iron is an element. Carbon is an element. Neither 'has' neither, pure iron has no carbon at all. Steel otoh is not an element but a term that covers various mixtures of iron, carbon and other elements. Now, if the carbon content is too high to do any good, it is common to speak of "iron" again, just in the sense of "inferior to steel", and not with any chemical accuracy. dab (ᛏ) 07:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't print this article because the Asian characters mess up my printer. I'm using Internet ExploDer 0.6 with an HP Laserjet 6p

I understood that making steel was heating and adding carbon to iron? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.154.49 (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reorganization

we may want to re-organize this article a bit. The "types of swords" section is not very helpful, and it is pointless to have independent great sword, broad sword and long sword articles. Rather, we could have main articles on the individual Oakeshotte types (the myarmouries articles are very good examples for that), and redirect broadsword etc. here for more accurate classification. dab (ᛏ) 08:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think great swords and "long swords" should be the same article. Or great swords and hand-and-a-half swords for that matter.
The underlying concepts are very different. Hand-and-a-half swords are much more like ordinary arming swords than great swords.
However, arming swords (and other types of swords, too) are generally too similar as that seperate articles for each Oakeshotte type could be justified.
I guess keeping seperate articles on the basic types of swords makes sense. Articles on the individual swords of each period could either be included in those or created independantly. -- Ashmodai 14:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

articles on each Oakeshotte type does make sense, as shown by the myarmoury articles, if you only research enough detail. This article is about 'swords' in general, and should treat each type, briefly. If there is a section "longswords" on this article, there is no harm in redirecting longsword here. There is hardly a point in having separate longsword and spadone articles. arming sword, great sword, broad sword etc. could all redirect either here, or to a single one-handed sword article. Let me try and work out a scheme along these lines. The situation as it is is very confusing and unsatisfactory. dab (ᛏ) 16:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


I've attempted some cleanup, but it's not finished, of course. The main articles on sword types should go to

All enumeration of various names for swords should go to these articles, and on list of swords (e.g. a Spadone is essentially an Italian Bastard sword).

Special attention must be given to the articles great sword, long sword and broad sword. They are confusing. They should either be disambiguation pages, or discuss terminology, referring to these other articles for the discussion of the swords themselves. dab (ᛏ) 15:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] phallic symbol

Article states:

The connection between the phallus and the sword is no more clearly shown than in the Latin word for the natural covering of the penis, the sheath.

Well I would argue that the German Word Scheide is even more graphic, as it stands for scabbard as well as for vagina.
--BjKa 08:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

that's quite nonsensical anyway. Nobody disputes the sword is a phallic symbol, but the terminology is quite innocent, both in German and Latin. We need better resources to explore the phallic nature of the sword, so far that's just random observations. dab (ᛏ) 08:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

According to [1], vagina stands for a scabbard in Latin as well, and did not have the anatomical meaning in classical times. However, the etymologies of 'penis' [2] and 'phallus' [3] do not immediately suggest any direct analogies with swords and scabbards. Naphra 14:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wavy-edged swords

Can someone write a section of wavy-bladed swords? --User:Angie Y.

Reply: There is such information in the article titled Flame-bladed sword.

[edit] Symbol of power

'Swords also have served as symbols of power. As they required great strength to wield properly, much like the Norse battle axe, a large broadsword demanded respect in Medieval Europe. They were often incorporated into family crests with this same purpose.'

They don't require great strength. And larger swords like zweihanders were more often used by mercenaries, not those who had great power. removing addition Sethwoodworth 21:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I had it in mind to do that myself. --M.J.Stanham 21:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brittleness of Iron

I understand it, pure iron isn't supposed to be brittle, totally the opposite, in fact. I've heard several historical accounts of instances where soft iron swords would blunt themselves so quickly in battle that they'd be used as blunt objects instead of cutting weapons. One account even mentions warriors hurriedly retreating so that they could stamp their dented and bent weapons straight again under their feet.

Steel is actually much more likely to be the culprit in brittleness. The more carbon there is in a steel, the harder and less flexible it becomes. It's very possible to have such a thing as 'too much' carbon in a steel, especially concerning swords, where the sudden impacts that come with the occupation could easily snap a high-carbon blade in half.

A case where iron might be brittle rather than soft and malleable is if impurities in the iron ore hadn't been smelted out, and messed with the normal properties of the metal, which could be certainly be possible in the Iron Age's infancy. But it's misleading to say iron was put aside for steel because of its brittleness, since this really isn't the usual case.

I don't know. Take it with a grain of salt, and keep in mind I started off with 'As I understand it...' --J rathjens 06:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaking the temper of the metal for the general quality of the metal. A cast iron tub will shatter if you smack it hard enough. Rebar tie wire is soft enough to be bent by hand. The difference is in how the metal is cooled. There is evidence of very good differential hardening and temper in swords of the roman period.Sethwoodworth 16:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...well, I may be missing your point entirely, but cast-iron wasn't an option till the Industrial Revolution, wasn't it?

I'd always understood that the problem with early iron was keeping it hard (because they hadn't realized the benefits of quenching the metal over air-cooling). Maybe I've gone a bit too far back, and the dilemma the article tries to point out is the ancient people's struggle to perfect the quench after they'd used it to make the mettle too hard.

Maybe you could clarify. I admit my ignorance of pre-steel quenching technique. (Thanks for the response, I thought noone would answer!)

J rathjens 06:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


All right, I did a little more research. I think we may have both been misled by the term 'cast iron'...it wasn't until just this morning that I got to thinking about it, and realized that pure iron has a much high melting point than steel. That would mean that industries were spending an great deal more energy trying to melt iron when working with low-carbon steels. Cast iron's apparently an industry term that just got ran with, when in fact it has more carbon than most steels. That may have been what misled the anonymous poster in 'Iron Versus Steel' into thinking iron had more carbon than steel.

http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/Art63.htm

As a matter of fact, looking around I see that other wikipedia articles contradict this article's brittleness argument. This [4]shows that cast iron is subject to even more carbon and has a higher potential for being brittle compared to steel (to address the cast-iron tub's example of brittleness). This [5] contends that iron didn't take well to quenching, and that the development and adoption of steel was because of the softness of the metal.

I'd agree that quenching is critical in steels and other carbon/iron alloys, but I can't see that there's a whole lot of evidence to show that there was a problem with brittleness in plain-vanilla iron weapons, unless, like it was mentioned before, smelting wasn't quite up to par and there were impurities still left in the metal.

J rathjens 19:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fachkunde Metall ISBN 3-8085-1153-2 makes it very clear that cast iron is not suited for tools facing shock forces, but rather tempered steel is used. The adding carbon story is nonsense. You get the carbon out of the cast iron to produce steel. Early Celtic steel, mentioned above with the bending swords, had very little carbon and was not tempered. Wandalstouring 20:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the information, but what I'm trying to address is whether an iron (in the pure-element sense, not an industry term like pig or cast iron) sword would really have problems with brittleness, given that it had been smelted of most impurities.

By pointing out cast iron's properties and the fact that it's actually a very high-carbon steel I meant to show that cast iron can be brittle, because, in steels quenching is paramount and determining whether a metal is fragile or durable.

What I'm getting at is, I'm fairly certain iron swords, which don't contain carbon and don't receive much benefit in edge-retention from quenching, would have more problems with softness and too much ductility than brittleness. That's mentioned in the section "Iron Swords" in the 'Sword' article:

Early iron swords were not comparable to later steel blades; being brittle, they were even inferior to good bronze weapons, but the easier production, and the better availability of the raw material for the first time permitted the equipment of entire armies with metal weapons, though Bronze Age Egyptian armies were fully equipped with bronze weapons.

Ultimately, it won't matter much to the casual reader whether "brittle" becomes "soft" or "ductile", but if you've ever played with iron, you know that the softest iron can practically be dented with a thumbnail. I was almost considering buying an anvil online, when I noticed a comment by a conscientous smith pointing out that the product, being iron (and not of the 'cast' or 'pig' variety), was going to spread, smear, and distort along the face within the first few hammer-strikes.

So, for accuracy's sake I'm bringing the brittleness fact up for review. I'm very new to Wikipedia; I don't think I'd feel very comfortable making the change arbitrarily and out of the blue. If one of the editors who follows the article's progress sees an inconsistency and will make the change, I think it might clear up a small mistake in what appears to be a good article. Maybe the person who researched/contributed the 'brittleness' fact in the article could explain their reasoning or give their sources?

J rathjens 04:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Iron and 'cast iron' are two very different things. The process of heating iron to a high enough temperature means you are going to introduce large amounts of carbon (mixing charcoal with iron to fire it hot enough and to keep it from oxidizing rapidly in the massive heat) which pushes it past the 'steel' stage. Pure iron is incapable of being heat treated to a noticeable degree, this is because the properties derived from heat treatments comes from the (usually carbon) crystal structure inside the iron structure. At different temperatures these structures change differently. The goal of heat treatments, annealing, quenching, and tempering, are all to change this structure in a controlled way to get the hardness, and springiness you want. Pure iron. Very hard to come by, for the most part can be deemed useless Cast iron. Very high carbon content, brittle, hard to weld by most means. (haven't worked with cast iron) Wrought iron. Semi soft, nearly steel, not really heat treatable. This would be what early iron age swords are for the most part. Modern 'wrought iron' is usually a higher carbon content than a lot of historic stuff, making it mild steel. Steel. Iron with a carbon content of 0.8 to 1.7% (lower bound is likely wrong, upper can be disputed I'm sure) If no one else can provide proper cited works, I'll dig out my tech manuals after exams are over. I'm new and don't like to actually edit.--Talroth 04:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I can relate to your hesitancy with editing. Thank you for the input, but beyond the scientific properties of steel what I'm looking for is, is there historical and/or scientific evidence to justify the article's prior claims that (to paraphrase) early iron swords were brittle, and inferior to bronze?

Like you pointed out, pure and minimum-carbon iron is soft and doesn't take well, if at all, to heat-treatment. Knowing that, the first conclusion I came to was, Hmm, you'd think it'd be more malleable than brittle. Brittle implies hardness, and that would mean carbon, which wasn't recognized to enhance iron's properties until steel rolled around.

Now, though, as I think about it, there could have been some other explanation. Impurities was something I brought up: enough slag or other foreign chemicals and the metal might shatter when asked to endure the sort of impacts territorial to its business. It's easy enough to gauge a metal's properties when you're just working with ratios of iron to carbon; five or six playing off each other would be something else altogether for Bronze Age man. I'm going to revert that edit I made to what it was before (if someone didn't change it back already) and let the masses figure it out. Regardless of how we understand iron and steel to work now, it was a bit cart-before-the-horse for me to make the edit when it's within the realm of possibility that historical cirumstances could have been much less clear-cut. --J rathjens 04:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One of the few weapons that wasn't derived from a tool?

Shouldn't we add that the sword was one of the few weapons invented that wasn't derived from a tool or later evolved from a weapon into a tool? For example, the knife eventually led to the dagger, but both were used for hunting and other uses besides killing other people. The spear was both a hunting device and a weapon. Guns could be considered tools and weapons, since they are used for both hunting and warfare, but guns were invented as weapons before becoming tools of hunting. Only the sword and weapons of mass destruction are the only weapons (I can think of) that have never been used as tools and are still used mainly as devices to kill another human.

SCGhosthunter1 22:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Says who? Chemical weapons come from the same place as insecticides. A sword is just a long knife. Mainly today they are used as ornamentation or for martial arts practice. Mostly the first. Sethwoodworth 10:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Theblindsage 09:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)theblindsage

If you look far enough back into backsword typologies, such as the falx, or falcata, you begin to see associations with a scythe. A lot of swords also evolved from machete like tools, which are effectively axes.

What about missiles? They were never tools, only ever weapons. Yet, they're neither sword nor WMD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.232.189 (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Excalibur image

I'm removing the Excalibur image from the Famous Swords section; it strikes me as merely illustrative (with a lot of D&D-style artistic license) instead of informative. And I'm not too sure about the value of the Ravana painting, either. Naphra 20:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Got Copied?

I couldn't find anything regarding the radius of curvature on curved Chinese blades, so I went looking on Google, and, lo and behold, another place has an article that's almost word for word, probably an earlier revision of this article. [[6]] What happens now? 67.180.178.97 00:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is also possible that the website you referred to copied from Wikipedia. I'll try and get in contact with the webmaster of that page until then I will place a copyvio notice on the page.--Joe Jklin (T C) 07:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This link clearly shows (at the bottom) that THEY copy from WP (without proper GFDL markings apparently). Somebody should tell THEM. They even took this image. I am not an admin, so not restoring, but noted it on the copyvio page too. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 12:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Good job, I was looking for some sort of Wikipedia reference. The individual pages should really reference Wikipedia with the GFDL guidelines on them. I haven't heard back from the webmaster yet but when I do I will let him know.--Joe Jklin (T C) 13:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC
If you look at the last link of the copy under "REFERENCES and LINKS" there is a link named "Wikipedia GNU credit" which links to the "Wikipedia" page with Jimbo. That page clearly states: "PLEASE NOTE: there are many articles on this website which include content sourced from wikipedia and other copyright free websites, the credit for which is hereby awarded and otherwise recognised by a link to this page, or to the Wikipedia or other wiki site itself, in accordance with the GNU free documentation license." That page further has two links to the text of the GFDL. Also, next to the "Wikipedia GNU credit" link on the copy, there is a link to the original article page on Wikipedia. As far as proper credits and references go, that is about as decent as you can get.  --LambiamTalk 14:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the webmaster appears to have updated the indiviual pages in the last week or so. His links used to be the same as ours (the last one on that page was a wikibook link). So its really not an issue anymore.~ Joe Jklin (T C) 18:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree. I'm fairly sure that link was NOT there originally, the page was, and I had verified there was no link to it from Sword before stating above that they copy from WP. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justice

The article says that the sword of Lady Justice is a symbol of her neutrality. Well, I would like to dispute that. I had learned from other sources that her symbol for neutrality is in the scales she holds. The sword meaning is that the will of Lady Justice must be carried on no matter who might be displeased by it - in other words, the veredict given by a judge is final and must be done, whether the parts involved like it or not. -Renan Sousa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.8.249.120 (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

The scales do indeed represent neutrality, but it is the blindfold which symbolizes that all are equal under the law. The sword represents punishment. Tsuka 09:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed junk

There was some vandalism that claimed that the middle ages never happened, and talking to "Nate". Just before the "Bronze Age Sword" piece of article. I removed it. 209.180.232.189 18:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stormbringer

I think adding a reference to Stormbringer (Elric of Melnibone's Sword)would be ideal under "swords in Modern Fiction" because of the vast impact it has had in fantasy.

[edit] Legality

What is the exact legal status of a sword? Taking guns as an example: you can own them/carry them but you require some sort of papers and registration. Would police have a viable cause to arrest you for carrying a fully-sheathed(although visable)sword in public? --Wilson 18:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added "Misconceptions" section

Sorry if it's not cited right. I figured adding a "references" section and adding only that one site would confuse people into thinking the only reference for the ARTICLE was that one thing.
And sorry if it's not quite Wiki style. But the info's sound, I'm sure on that. Kennard2 10:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] first sentence

How about: "A sword is a long-edged piece of metal once used as a cutting and/or thrusting weapon in many civilizations throughout the world." (the first sentence without the word "once" implies (to me) that it is still used widely throughout the world as a weapon -- my changes emphasize the historical aspect of the use of the sword)

Why in God's name talk about the lingustics of the word sword at the intro??? Thats the least important info to read about. Make a chapter about it at the bottom, and tell people WHAT a sword is at the intro, WHEN it was first made, and WHERE it first came about! swert, sverd, sword... get at lauguage book og dictionary.. its not an encylopedic intro.

I agree with...umm...this...person? 'Once' has been added. would fix the second part but I havn't the time. Sign your comments,plz --Wilson 01:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iron/Steel Sources

http://info.lu.farmingdale.edu/depts/met/met205/annealingstages.html http://info.lu.farmingdale.edu/depts/met/met205/fe3cdiagram.html I was under the impression that the the swords of antiquity were just bars of iron hammered flat and sharpened. Longer swords, such as the Spatha, became possible with the advent of pattern-wielding, which involved' 'braiding' a series of iron bars of different carbon contents together to get something that could be both sharp and strong. If I remember my engineering chemistry correctly, it is not the % amount of carbon that matters, but the form that carbon takes. Refer to the chart in the second link to see what I mean. The carbon within the iron can exist in the form of Fe3C, or as pure carbon dissolved in an iron matrix in a body-centered cubic arrangement. The use of different metallurgical processes were used to obtain the different arrangements. The making of damascene, or Wootz steel, follows a very different procedure which does not involve forging or tempering, but rather some process that adds massive amounts of carbon. It does not involve casting (in the sense of pouring molten metal) or tempering. Japanese swords are made using this method. They are, however, (I believe), annealed (Link 1), where all but the edge is covered with clay, and heated to allow crystal growth, allowing for greater hardness but greater brittleness. The process of 'cold working' and repeated refolding of the metal is used to generate a 'laminate' structure with layers of different hardnesses, and breaks the crystal structure, something that the process of annealing repairs. -TheBlindSage

[edit] late copper age

shouldn't there be at least a brief mention of the swords found at arslantepe? 80.132.97.21 05:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weight

Can somebody check up on the weights? My garden rake weights about 2 kilos, and it has a 1.1 m handle made of light weight wood, and the rake part is made up of thin strips of aluminum (less than a millimeter(. Surely a hunk of iron and wood weights more than my rake. (september 29 2007, 5:45 PST)

A Fast Approximation

Quoted weights of 2-4 pounds (1-2 kg) are accurate. Medieval longsword might be 47 or so inches long (call it 1.2+ meters), but its thickness is in the 1/8th inch (less than a centimeter)range at its thickest, which tapers to a very thin edge. Most of the weight is in the pommel, handle and cross.

Run the numbers: Assuming a flat steel rectangle 1.2 meters long, 5 centimeters wide and 0.5 centimeters thick, you get a volume of 0.0003 m3.

Density equals mass divided by volume. So, D = m / v. Solving for m, we get m = Dv. The density of steel is about 7800 kg/m3. Plugging in the numbers for density and volume yeilds a mass of 2.34 kg.

However, the volume formula describes a uniform rectangle, which does not represent a real sword's shape. It ignores the tapering of the blade from its center to its edges. This formula does not account for the thickness of the blade decreasing along its length as it approaches the point. Also, the edges of a sword blade converge as they approach the point. This model ignores the fact that the portion of metal in the handle (the tang) is usually not as wide as the blade. It has to be a little narrower so you can wrap your hand around the grip. So, this approximation will give a mass that is rather greater than expected from a real longsword.

Bummer1999 (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A Better Approximation

Assume that a sword consists of a rectangular tang portion tacked on to a blade portion, which is shaped like a rhomboidal prism. Adapting the dimensions given above, the tang would be 0.3 m long, 0.03 m wide and 0.005 m thick. Similarly, the blade would be 0.9 m long, with a rhombus at each end. Each rhombus would have diagonals measuring 0.05 m and 0.005 m.

Volume of the tang is an easy lwh:(0.3)(0.03)(0.005)= 0.000045 m3.

Volume of the blade = Area of base times length of blade. So we need to find the area of the base. Area of rhombus = 1 / 2(D1xD2) Substituting in, the area of the rhombus equals 0.000125 m2, multiplying by length yields a volume of 0.0001125 m3.

Now, to get a quick and dirty account for the distal taper of the blade, assume the blade is a pyramid with a rhombus as its base.

The volume of a pyramid you take one third of the base area times its height. Sub in the numbers and get 0.0000375 m3. Add the volume of the rhomboidal prism to the volume of the pyramid and divide by two to get an average of the two volumes. This should be a reasonable approximation of the true shape and volume of a sword blade. Sub in the numbers and get 0.000075 m3.

Total volume for the sword is equal to average blade volume plus tang volume. Sub in numbers to get 0.00012 m3. Use density formula above to yeild a mass/weight of 0.94 kg.

What did we forget? Two big things: the cross and the pommel.

A typical cross is a bar of steel 0.20 m long, 0.01 m wide and 0.01 m thick, volume is 0.00002 m3, mass/weight is 0.156 kg.

Typical pommel is a cylinder of steel: radius 0.03 m, thickness 0.025 m; volume is 0.000071 m3; mass/weight is 0.5538 kg.

Total mass/weight for the sword is 1.6498 kg, or about 3.6 pounds

Bummer1999 (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Further Details

And if you want to get picky, you have to subtract another 0.082 kg from the total weight of the sword.

Why?

The cross and pommel are both slotted to allow their fitment on the tang. The amount of mass that is removed from these two pieces equals 0.082 kg. So the total predicted weight of the sword is 1.5678 kg or about 3.4 pounds.

Bummer1999 (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flexibility

The History Channel has a great program about early Chinese military technology, which shows a 2200-year-old chrome-plated 36-inch long Chinese sword which was still uncorroded today. They described a modern plant making swords today by a similar process which were very flexible, and showed a person easily bending the sword 35 degrees or so over one hand. The question is... WHY is it so important for a sword to be that flexible? What's the advantage to it? Plus it's directly contrary to the "I-beam construction for rigidity" described in the article. 70.15.116.59 02:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is quoted from the article Hey, Mister,...is that sword real? by John Clements, which was accessed at the following URL on Dec 14, 2007:

http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/heymr.htm

"One frequently misunderstood characteristic of a sword is its necessary flexibility. A fighting sword as a lethal tool had to not just deliver strong cuts or solid thrusts but withstand the rigors of combat deflecting blows and clashing against armors and other weapons. All this is reflective of the quality of its steel and tempering. Heat treating itself is an art that has to be just right to produce a resilient blade and is one of the distinguishing marks of a talented bladesmith."

"But a modern myth is that in order to show “good tempering” in a sword it must be capable of bending considerably and returning true. [emphasis added] Real historical weapons are in fact typically quite stiff, in particular foyning blades such as rapiers, small-swords, and duelling epée’s. There are even variations in the stiffness of different blades designed for cutting at different materials, those for cutting and thrusting, and those designed for thrusting only."

"Most importantly, each time you bend a sword to “test its flex” or “show its quality” you cause micro-fractures in its molecular structure. It’s one thing to give a sword an initial flex to see whether it is too rigid or too soft –but remember this is an initial test to determine its quality for resisting blows without snapping too easily or staying bent afterward. Repeating the process over and over only weakens the blade. In actual use, a sword, whether designed for dedicated cutting or determined trusting, did not need to be flexed over and over. Only in the 18th century did they begin to utilize especially flexible practice blades1 [emphasis and footnote added] and, thanks to Hollywood, this mindset of needing swords to be able to safely go “boing” over and over against an opponent in the classroom has seeped into the public’s conception of what makes a good sword blade."

1. I believe Mr. Clements is referring to the early versions of the foil. Over time these practice weapons were adopted for use in modern fencing. The foil is very flexible in order to prevent injury.

Bummer1999 (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Junk

Aparently there are stiil jokers around that edit wikipedia pages simply to insert nonsense. At the end of the Sword article it's this: "Swords are constructed to be this lightweight not only because it is necessary for their use, but also because a sword has to be made deliberately fat and useless in order to weigh much more" Can anyone understand the meaning of this junk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fillosaurus (talk • contribs) 19:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed the sentence. When you see something like this, you can take care of it! -->WP:Be Bold. Dougz1 (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd Information

for some reason, it says that the dao sword can fire 100 rounds per minute. its at the end of the iron age portion of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.239.130 (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. VMS Mosaic (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BC/AD vs. BCE/CE

This article first used BC/AD dates (and consistently used them for some time thereafter), so per WP:DATE it should consistently use BC/AD instead of BCE/CE. It is a violation of WP:DATE to change it. Either format is perfectly valid on Wikipedia per WP:DATE. VMS Mosaic (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism

Who in their right mind edited the first bronze section, it looked terrible. I fixed most of the damage but don't know what MAY be missing - I'm not an expert on swords, this articles is getting vandalised almost every hour - I request that it be locked for a few days. LOTRrules (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)