What kind of sword was Excalibur?
Xwing884
but, let's hear some opinions on it.
chow!
Cbaldry
Best regards,
Cherith
Urania
xwin...@aol.com says...
In a sub-Roman culture, it was most probably a standard Roman army
GLADIUS or a local smith's attempt to copy same.
>
>
>
James Corveddu
facsimile and not very good without the quincux formation around me.
Gladius is meant for thrusting, not slashing ("Barbarians slash, Romans
thrust"). He might have used the Roman cavalry sword, a bit longer. I
forgot the Roman name but can look it up..
However, given the Celtic attachment to Excalibur, it was probably not
Roman in design at all...
--
Jim Corveddu
prot...@earthlink.net
home.earthlink.net/~protomega
"When they made me they broke the mold.
Then, they hunted down the mold-maker, dragged him through
the streets, put his hands through a meat-grinder, poked out
his eyes, drew and quartered him and hung the pieces from
gibbets where people could throw trash at them..."
Medrawt
>claymore,
>but, let's hear some opinions on it.
I don't think claymores existed in Arthur's day, nor did rapiers (as someone
else already pointed out.) This actually could lead to a very interesting
discussion on the origins of the Excalibur legend...I always imagine a Celtic
longsword, which is somewhat longer than the Roman cavalry spatha (About three
and a quarter feet, maybe?) While this sword certainly in the centuries BC, I
don't know if the type survived the Roman occupation, unless it did in Wales or
Cornwall. Also, Caledfwlch (one of the Welsh spellings for Excalibur) seems to
derive from Cuchullain's (sp?) sword Caladbolg in Irish, and all the Irish
swords I am aware of are gladius-length.
-medrawt
DReDD
said that Arthur's grandpa was the last roman ( and this is only conjecture)
the Britons would have adopted the romans superior weapons, however they
would have adapted the weapons to use in their own style, so a roman gladius
would have been made longer for slashing and hacking in the barbarian style,
with the strength and durability of the gladius. the Britons were meat and
milk eaters according to Caesar, of the romans who were primarily corn
eaters during campaigns, so the Britons were far stronger to wield larger
weapons. perhaps I am wrong, but I thought that Caledfwlch (one of the Welsh
spellings for Excalibur) means "cut steel" , which wasn't a method known to
the Britons, so if any one knows the origin of this method of sword making,
pipe up and let us know, if we could find the origin of excalibur. I also
believe as there was 2 swords to Arthur, and the first being a roman knights
sword, the second being a gift from the lady of the lake, that the second
was stylised in the roman knight fashion, but far stronger in build and a
far superior weapon all round.
--
"anti spam" remove spaces in my address to e-mail me
"Man is part of nature, not apart from nature"
ICQ:16544782
Urania wrote in message <76rim8$rfo$6...@uranium.btinternet.com>...
>In article <19990104181901...@ng-fu1.aol.com>,
>xwin...@aol.com says...
>>
>>Claymore... heavy two-handed... or wimpy rapier? I think it was a
>claymore,
>>but, let's hear some opinions on it.
>>
Steve Schaper
If there -was- an Excalibur, it would have been a Roman Spatha, typical
cavalry sword.
Steve Schaper
> I believe as the roman occupation ended before Arthur's time, and it was
> said that Arthur's grandpa was the last roman ( and this is only conjecture)
Perhaps the last Roman official appointed from Rome. But Roman
civilization in what is now England continued until at least A. D. 685
when Rheged finally fell to the Bernecians. They were stunned by the
well-maintained Roman walls and buildings, and aqueducts and fountains
that continued to function. It would have seemed Elvish (alfar) to the
Angles and Fries. This in fact may have helped give rise to the Camelot
myth, since Camelodunum can only have been one of many garrisoned
positions during the sixth century resistance that gave rise to the
legends.
Cbaldry
>They were stunned by the
>well-maintained Roman walls and buildings, and aqueducts and fountains
>that continued to function. It would have seemed Elvish (alfar) to the
>Angles and Fries.
The Angles and Saxons referred to the surviving Roman buildings, etc. as 'enta
geweorc', the works of giants.
Just a thought.
Cherith
Jason D Allard
>>Claymore... heavy two-handed... or wimpy rapier? I think it was a
>>claymore,
>>but, let's hear some opinions on it.
>
>else already pointed out.) This actually could lead to a very interesting
>discussion on the origins of the Excalibur legend...I always imagine a Celtic
>longsword, which is somewhat longer than the Roman cavalry spatha (About three
>and a quarter feet, maybe?)
The size estimate is about right. That's also the type of sword I would have
thought Excaliber would be. As for the magic of the sword, I've heard an
interesting theory somewhere about a smith having been commissioned to make a
sword for the warlord Arthur. He started working on the blade and made a
mistake, so tried again, but made another mistake, so he stuck the iron into the
furnace a third time and on his third attempt to make the sword he did well
enough to keep the blade. Now, back then the main metal was iron for weapons,
but suppose that firing the iron three times burnt out enough of the excess
carbon in the metal to forge it into steel. It would have been a slight be
lighter, and a whole lot stronger. It would have also kept its edge better.
Also, the smith's multiple tries at hammering it into shape on the anvil could
have produced a folded blade, much like the katanas of Japan, although folded
nowhere near as many times.
--
-Jason
"Courage to strengthen,
fire to blind,
music to dazzle,
and iron to bind."
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger."
-Trevor Goodchild, "Aeon Flux"
"He that can admit to being a fool has wisdom of the highest
order,"
-Chaplin, "Dominion Tank Police"
Phillip Sheridan
Jason D Allard wrote in message ...
>Now, back then the main metal was iron for weapons,
>but suppose that firing the iron three times burnt out enough of the excess
>carbon in the metal to forge it into steel
To make steel, you add carbon to iron. Iron is iron. Steel is iron plus
carbon.
A very mild steel (like 1008 steel) has as little as 0.08% of carbon (that
is 8/100'ths of one percent) in with the 99.02% iron (not accounting for
impurities in the metal which would lower the iron content).
A very hard steel, one which can break more easily under stress, (like 1095
steel) has only 0.95% carbon (this is 95/100'ths of one percent) and 99.05%
iron (and some impurities).
In the scenario of forging the blade three times could (and most likely
would) have increased the carbon content, therefore making a harder blade
with better edged holding capabilities.
-Eric Mayer on roommate Phil's account.
Jason D Allard
>
>Jason D Allard wrote in message ...
>
>>Now, back then the main metal was iron for weapons,
>>but suppose that firing the iron three times burnt out enough of the excess
>>carbon in the metal to forge it into steel
>
>To make steel, you add carbon to iron. Iron is iron. Steel is iron plus
>carbon.
>
Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I guess I misread my source on steel.
Now that I think about...adding carbon with fire makes more sense than buning
it out.
Mark Devere Davis
Jason D Allard (j...@hopper.unh.edu) writes:
> In article <7722dc$c...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Phillip Sheridan wrote:
>>
>>Jason D Allard wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Now, back then the main metal was iron for weapons,
>>>but suppose that firing the iron three times burnt out enough of the excess
>>>carbon in the metal to forge it into steel
>>
>>To make steel, you add carbon to iron. Iron is iron. Steel is iron plus
>>carbon.
>>
>>-Eric Mayer on roommate Phil's account.
>
> Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I guess I misread my source on steel.
> Now that I think about...adding carbon with fire makes more sense than buning
> it out.
>
You were probably thinking of "Pig Iron" which is the first product of the
blast (smelting) furnace.It contains a high carbon content,3 to 6 %,and is
very hard but brittle.Carbon must be removed from it before a useable iron
or steel is obtained.But the first primative blast furnaces in Western Europe
only appeared centuries after the period in question,about the Fourteenth
Century.Iron would have been obtained in the 6th century by the direct method
and the steels used would be either natural,i.e. a result of the ores used or
else made by cementation in the furnace.
With only carbon steel available,you would not want an entire sword blade
of steel.It would be too brittle (unless the steel was low carbon).Pattern
welding and blades with centers made of iron and edges made of steel welded
to it were the best.That gave the hardness and edge holding ability of
steel and the flexibility of wrought iron.Of course today with alloy steel
you can have a blade made entirely of high carbon steel.
Mark
Urania
last Jan 7 at 9.00pm ??
Highly relevant to this discussion.
Subject of this archaeological programme was a Saxon warrior inhumation
found on excavation to be complete with man, horse, spear, shield and
SWORD.
Grave dated to 7-8th centuries. This is not one of Arthur's knights, it
is his enemy !
All detail in programme excellent (esp. re horseharness) and relevant to
this ng, but most impressive was forging of replica SWORD by blacksmith
Hector Cole.
What struck me most about the final result was the colour of the blade.
When cleaned with natural (formic ? from ants ???) acid, it shone BROWN
like damask silk.
In Anglo-Saxon literature, swords are regularly described as BRUN (lit.
brown) or BRUN-ECG(brown edged) or BRUN-FAG(brownish). I was told by my
Anglo-Saxon tutor (way back in the 50s) that this was an inexplicable
word and it "really" meant shining. Now it is clear: this really *is* the
colour of the polished sword blade. c/f also the epithet "Bright Brown
Blade" of the Scottish Border ballads.
BBC has a book about the series and a web page
www.bbc.co.uk/education
after this go for Meet the Ancestors
and Series 2
Cbaldry
>I was told by my
>Anglo-Saxon tutor (way back in the 50s) that this was an inexplicable
>word and it "really" meant shining.
I was told this too. It seems a symptom of an attitude that used to be
prevalent but is perhaps changing now, that if e.g. people in the past or
indigenous people of an undeveloped country said something that contradicted
what we 'know' in the twentieth century west, they must be wrong. I think we
are now beginning to listen more closely to material preserved in oral
tradition, etc. At least I hope so.
But I missed the programme. <snarl>
Best regards,
Cherith