Truth Hits You Like Katana Bricks (from Fail Quotes)

[R.E.H.W.R.]

I am getting so sick of katana fanboys using this video as proof that katanas are better than european blades.

[Ibrahim90]

[R.E.H.W.R.]

I'm really starting to hate asianphilies.
I really hate how people dump on anything European.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

hard to say. it depends on the skill of the user I guess, and the efficiency of the design: the more efficient, the easier it is to cut with, but skill can compensate. that's why that Clements guy cut that tatami in two with a blunt bastard sword.

Do you know of any historical sources on how Composite recurve bows did in wet humid weather?
I'm getting some people saying that they will be less effective and people who say it won't affect them.

[Ibrahim90]

Do you know of any historical sources on how Composite recurve bows did in wet humid weather?
I'm getting some people saying that they will be less effective and people who say it won't affect them.

no explicit mentions, but I know of this:

people in India often swapped traditional composite bows for steel bows. Glues back then weren't waterproof (at least in the context of bows), and the materials were all organic, so in a very humid and rainy place (e.g. India), a bow would quickly fall apart. A steel bow didn't do that, and the technology did exist to retard rusting, so such a bow would be effective in India.

[Skm1091]

no explicit mentions, but I know of this:

people in India often swapped traditional composite bows for steel bows. Glues back then weren't waterproof (at least in the context of bows), and the materials were all organic, so in a very humid and rainy place (e.g. India), a bow would quickly fall apart. A steel bow didn't do that, and the technology did exist to retard rusting, so such a bow would be effective in India.

Steel bows eh? Those required a lot of strength to draw, am I right?

[R.E.H.W.R.]

Steel bows eh? Those required a lot of strength to draw, am I right?

According to this article, the draw weight of this steel bow was 50 lbs.
http://www.atarn.org/letters/ltr_dec04.htm

[evensgrey]

According to this article, the draw weight of this steel bow was 50 lbs.
http://www.atarn.org/letters/ltr_dec04.htm

There's lots of ways to change the draw weight of a steel bow. Fundamentally, it's just a spring, after all. Even if you can't control the carbon content of the steel precisely (which you can't with crucible steel, precisely predetermined carbon content in steel didn't come along until the Bessemer Process in the 19th century) you can still alter the temper and geometry of the bow in subtle ways to change the draw weight.

The only thing that's really different than what was done in Europe is Europeans mostly switched to crossbows before adopting steel bows to make them more compact.

Incidentally, I can't locate the draw weight for the steel bow on that page. The 50 lb. draw weight on that page is for the composite bow.

[Ibrahim90]

Steel bows eh? Those required a lot of strength to draw, am I right?

if you built it like Europeans did, yes.

but the Indians wanted something that could be drawn by hand like a normal bow, so one thing you'll notice is that the steel bows are very thin front to back compared to normal examples--basically a long, sturdy sheet. besides, they had the means to get the right type of steel, though as evensgrey said it was not easy prior to the Bessemer process. (what the Indians did  was likely to make the crucible steel, and then beat out or rub in the needed carbon content till they got what they wanted--in this case a low carbon steel that was very springy--like the Ulfbehrt swords).

people forget that India was host to some pretty extreme metallurgic skills for centuries: during the Gupta period for example, they made iron pillars, some of which still stand today, after almost 1500 years:



in the Arab world in fact, the finest swords were not locally made (themselves of good quality), but imported from India or produced in Indian Style smithies in Oman and Yemen.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

if you built it like Europeans did, yes.

but the Indians wanted something that could be drawn by hand like a normal bow (simple or composite), and they could be pretty precise for their day in how to achieve it, though as evensgrey said, they couldn't be exact before the bessemer process.

people forget that India was host to some pretty extreme metallurgic skills for centuries: during the Gupta period for example, they made iron pillars, some of which still stand today, after almost 1500 years:



in the Arab world in fact, the finest swords were not locally made (themselves of good quality), but imported from India or produced in Indian Style smithies in Oman and Yemen.

Well, Europeans were sticking said Arms on crossbows, with tools to pull it back the arms. Had crossbow not become popular in Europe  who knows how bows could have advanced.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

Incidentally, I can't locate the draw weight for the steel bow on that page. The 50 lb. draw weight on that page is for the composite bow.

Oh, really? I must have misread that.

[evensgrey]

if you built it like Europeans did, yes.

but the Indians wanted something that could be drawn by hand like a normal bow, so one thing you'll notice is that the steel bows are very thin front to back compared to normal examples--basically a long, sturdy sheet. besides, they had the means to get the right type of steel, though as evensgrey said it was not easy prior to the Bessemer process. (what the Indians did  was likely to make the crucible steel, and then beat out or rub in the needed carbon content till they got what they wanted--in this case a low carbon steel that was very springy--like the Ulfbehrt swords).

people forget that India was host to some pretty extreme metallurgic skills for centuries: during the Gupta period for example, they made iron pillars, some of which still stand today, after almost 1500 years:

I just watched a documentary on those Ulfbehrt swords the other day, and they seem to have been made out of ordinary crucible steel. Of course, if the steel isn't right, then the whole thing would probably have cracked at any of the numerous points in the process where you have to do something to it that might crack it. The only thing to do then is smash it to bits and start over with a new crucible. (One of those delicate stages is first getting the crucible ingot to start forming under the forging blows, which is tricky because the stuff us extremely hard due to how it cools. Hit it too hard, and it cracks like a block of glass.)

What I find most impressive about that pillar is that it's still in obviously near-pristine condition (the detail looks quite crisp and clean in the image) despite 1500 years in what is obviously a rather moist climate (judging by the healthy-looking trees and grass in the background, showing no indications of chronic water stress.  Is that the metal itself (which seems unlikely, as only stainless steel creates it's own protective coating, and that pillar surely isn't stainless), or is it some really good paint (and there were really good paints in that time, we just forget that in the west because we tend to only think of Europe, where technology went to hell after Rome fell apart)?

[R.E.H.W.R.]

What I find most impressive about that pillar is that it's still in obviously near-pristine condition (the detail looks quite crisp and clean in the image) despite 1500 years in what is obviously a rather moist climate (judging by the healthy-looking trees and grass in the background, showing no indications of chronic water stress.  Is that the metal itself (which seems unlikely, as only stainless steel creates it's own protective coating, and that pillar surely isn't stainless), or is it some really good paint (and there were really good paints in that time, we just forget that in the west because we tend to only think of Europe, where technology went to hell after Rome fell apart)?

I ripped this from the wikipeda page.
"The pillar has attracted the attention of archaeologists and metallurgists and has been called "a testament to the skill of ancient Indian blacksmiths" because of its high resistance to corrosion.[1] The corrosion resistance results from an even layer of crystalline iron hydrogen phosphate forming on the high phosphorus content iron, which serves to protect it from the effects of the local Delhi climate"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_pillar_of_Delhi

[evensgrey]

I ripped this from the wikipeda page.
"The pillar has attracted the attention of archaeologists and metallurgists and has been called "a testament to the skill of ancient Indian blacksmiths" because of its high resistance to corrosion.[1] The corrosion resistance results from an even layer of crystalline iron hydrogen phosphate forming on the high phosphorus content iron, which serves to protect it from the effects of the local Delhi climate"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_pillar_of_Delhi

Now I'm even more impressed. That stuff must have been a bugger to forge. Phosphorus makes iron brittle, and a piece that size is hard enough to work in the first place.