Earl Writes
Anyway, something occurred to me: it seems to me that the definition of sharp should be considered in a relative context. Let us assume, as is likely, that European weapons were never as sharp, in an absolute sense, as Japanese ones. However, there are many European period illustrations showing people using swords to cleave helms and skulls and lop off limbs. Even allowing for poetic license, I think that it is safe to assume that there is some truth to these illustrations and that swords had edges that could cut things.
For example, in the late 14th century, a battle took place at Visby on the island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea. (I think its Gotland, anyway. Can't remember if it's Danish or Swedish, though). The dead were hastily buried in mass graves, some still in their armor. The excavation of these graves gave researchers much insight into the armor and weapons of the period.
One thing they found was a preponderance of bladed-weapon wounds in the lower legs and at the junction of the neck and shoulder, indicating that these were favorite targets. Some bodies had one or both of their legs entirely lopped off, perhaps by two-handed swords (could have been glaives, who knows).
Anyway, a blade is as sharp/strong as what it is up against. A European weapon may not be able to keep its edge against a harder blade (Japanese, Viking, Wootz, or other) but would probably have been servicable against a weapon with similar limitations; that is, within its context, and against the weapons and armor it was designed to face, it would have been "sharp".
***********************
This is actually an interesting topic Earl.
The European weapons were not routinely differentially tempered. There are no recorded methods that they used to do this that I am aware of, nor did the steel they used exhibit any sort variance in carbon between the edge and the body. This would obfuscate the contention of a differential tempering process.
1. If we presume this was true in the majority of cases, then at what point did the ultimate yield of the weapon , and it's limitations, dictate technique? And..............
2. Was the quality of the weapon a trade off for the avaliable technological limitations? Or, did the techniques drive the designers to "keep up," as was the supposed recorded case of the Japanese Ken?<
3. Another topic is the discussion of edge geometry. A distinction I appear to be the only one talking about. People seem to talk about Blade geometry (a function of balance and a contributory factor in ultimate yield) but have not discussed the types of edge geometry as a design parameter and indicator of intended use.
I find the whole discussion rather intriguing.
Did
Form (techniques)
follow function (functional limitaion of the steels used)
We have probably put everyone but us to sleep with all of this
Dan
[Edited by Dan Harden on 01-17-2001 at 10:28 PM]