I watched it again, and after a second review I am gonna have to disagree with the general consensus here. I absolutely did not like the show, there are just way too many problems. A short (incomplete) list.
1. The origins/which variant came first problems covered already. This one is more an issue to someone big into late viking swords swords like myself. Too much is presented as fact that is still in dispute or questionable.
2. (This is a big one, and should bother all of us here IMO) They continually refer to the "inferiority" of all non-crucible European swords. Its just not that simple, there are plenty of European bloom steel made swords that are of very high quality, it just depends on how much time the the smith spent refining the iron and the quality of the source.
I can assure what a unfamiliar viewer will take away from this was every other European sword sucked. By extension its feeding the myth that European swords were inferior to eastern designs.
3. The quenching of crucible swords. While there is definite evidence of quenching in the so called "inferior" copy +VLFBERHT+, AFAIK there is no evidence for quenching in the crucible steel H+T variants. In fact, quenched crucible steel could end up quite brittle without proper tempering.
As a sub area to this is the cutting of grooves for the letters. All testing I am aware of so far has shown deformation under the letters consistent with them being forged in directly, without metal being removed... Also, why did he mess up the shape of the V? Every +VLFBERHT+ uses a V not the letter U. (minor quibbles I know)
Sure, I appreciate that they are doing a show on swords, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna give them a pass... Especially on gripe 2
| Robin Smith wrote: |
| 2. (This is a big one, and should bother all of us here IMO) They continually refer to the "inferiority" of all non-crucible European swords. Its just not that simple, there are plenty of European bloom steel made swords that are of very high quality, it just depends on how much time the the smith spent refining the iron and the quality of the source.
I can assure what a unfamiliar viewer will take away from this was every other European sword sucked. By extension its feeding the myth that European swords were inferior to eastern designs. |
I have to second this. One of my big pet peeves with a lot of documentries is the whole "What were talking about is the greatest thing ever and what its comparied to is absolutly terriable" No middle ground, and they always looks for the most extreme examples.
On the other hand when they weren't talking about how teerible every other sword was the show was interesting.
i was scratching my head as well when the program touched on inferior steel practices in europe. i have an earlier post where i was talking about the non inclusion of a mention of pattern welding in the program. that may be big enough for an entire argument in itself, but i know that the practice of damascus steel was still in use during the 1st crusade in which knights coined the phrase 'damascus' steel.
anyone who has been able to study artifacts could tell us, that there are swords of exceptional quality, but there are just as many (if not more) of poor quality from which we have to study. thats not just in reference to swords of the european world, but all blades in general. to qualify that one practice is superior to another, is hard to justify because you may have a single craftsman that stands out among the rest and makes a few dozen masterpieces that survive to this day mingled with hundreds of other works that are just average.
anyone who has been able to study artifacts could tell us, that there are swords of exceptional quality, but there are just as many (if not more) of poor quality from which we have to study. thats not just in reference to swords of the european world, but all blades in general. to qualify that one practice is superior to another, is hard to justify because you may have a single craftsman that stands out among the rest and makes a few dozen masterpieces that survive to this day mingled with hundreds of other works that are just average.
Hi Daniel
In part you write
Do you have a solid period reference for that, or are we just expecting that to be common knowledge?
In depth, I think you will find most involved with the day to day life and warring had little knowledge of Damascus or any connection to any weapons seemingly mystical.. The City of Damascus really had little to do with the first crusade (either the Prince's or People's crusade in the 11th century).
Which knights are you speaking of that "coined the phrase"? Please be specific (for my own peace of mind anyway).
Cheers
GC
To add and this may have been posted earlier in the thread of raised eyebrow contention, here is an article that kind of says exactly where I am getting at Daniel. It points to the use of the term noted in some other contexts and timelines while pretty much debunking the crusaders connection.
http://asoac.org/bulletins/96_feuerbach_damascus.pdf
In part you write
| Quote: |
| ......... use during the 1st crusade in which knights coined the phrase 'damascus' steel. |
Do you have a solid period reference for that, or are we just expecting that to be common knowledge?
In depth, I think you will find most involved with the day to day life and warring had little knowledge of Damascus or any connection to any weapons seemingly mystical.. The City of Damascus really had little to do with the first crusade (either the Prince's or People's crusade in the 11th century).
Which knights are you speaking of that "coined the phrase"? Please be specific (for my own peace of mind anyway).
Cheers
GC
To add and this may have been posted earlier in the thread of raised eyebrow contention, here is an article that kind of says exactly where I am getting at Daniel. It points to the use of the term noted in some other contexts and timelines while pretty much debunking the crusaders connection.
http://asoac.org/bulletins/96_feuerbach_damascus.pdf
| Robin Smith wrote: |
| I watched it again, and after a second review I am gonna have to disagree with the general consensus here. I absolutely did not like the show, there are just way too many problems. A short (incomplete) list.
1. The origins/which variant came first problems covered already. This one is more an issue to someone big into late viking swords swords like myself. Too much is presented as fact that is still in dispute or questionable. 2. (This is a big one, and should bother all of us here IMO) They continually refer to the "inferiority" of all non-crucible European swords. Its just not that simple, there are plenty of European bloom steel made swords that are of very high quality, it just depends on how much time the the smith spent refining the iron and the quality of the source. I can assure what a unfamiliar viewer will take away from this was every other European sword sucked. By extension its feeding the myth that European swords were inferior to eastern designs. 3. The quenching of crucible swords. While there is definite evidence of quenching in the so called "inferior" copy +VLFBERHT+, AFAIK there is no evidence for quenching in the crucible steel H+T variants. In fact, quenched crucible steel could end up quite brittle without proper tempering. As a sub area to this is the cutting of grooves for the letters. All testing I am aware of so far has shown deformation under the letters consistent with them being forged in directly, without metal being removed... Also, why did he mess up the shape of the V? Every +VLFBERHT+ uses a V not the letter U. (minor quibbles I know) Sure, I appreciate that they are doing a show on swords, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna give them a pass... Especially on gripe 2 |
I also agree with this, I think on balance the show was a disapointment, probably more because of the producers than the experts involved.
J
thank you for the article Glen, its very enlightening to expanse of trade with other regions that damascus was a part of - and the generalized term of 'damascus' steel.
i have to eat more than a few of my words i used the phrase 'i know' rather than 'did not' and pose a question more than a fact. you are correct in that there is no chronical that i have read through that coined the term or attributed a patterned blade to the Muslim forces - i was regurgitating information that was from 'general' historys of the crusades and more modern writings. its also something that i've never looked into from the aspect of the period writings as they are very vague as to how the armys were equipped.
i have to eat more than a few of my words i used the phrase 'i know' rather than 'did not' and pose a question more than a fact. you are correct in that there is no chronical that i have read through that coined the term or attributed a patterned blade to the Muslim forces - i was regurgitating information that was from 'general' historys of the crusades and more modern writings. its also something that i've never looked into from the aspect of the period writings as they are very vague as to how the armys were equipped.
Just caught the last 15 minutes of the show when it replayed tonight. The narrator did mention that there was a dispute as to whether or not these swords were quenched hardened. He said that it was Ric's opinion that they were. As to whether or not the other blades were inferior, that's a relative term and inferior does not mean useless, just not as well made in some manner than others.
| Doug Lester wrote: |
| Just caught the last 15 minutes of the show when it replayed tonight. The narrator did mention that there was a dispute as to whether or not these swords were quenched hardened. He said that it was Ric's opinion that they were. As to whether or not the other blades were inferior, that's a relative term and inferior does not mean useless, just not as well made in some manner than others. |
I didn't take issue with the quenching part, since I think they made clear enough that it was the smith's opinion. While they may have conveyed as fact some issues that are still in debate, I don't think that was one of them.
However I do think that even though *technically* the word "inferior" is relative and does not necessarily mean bad, most viewers aren't so interested in the semantics and may unfortunately jump to a poor conclusion. That was the part that upset me most - the implication that VLFBERHT was a big fish in a little pond.
Hey, just wanted to let people know that this is available on Netflix Instant Watch now, for anyone who is interested.
| Sean Flynt wrote: |
| The average viewer will come away with the following information:
• Historical swords are, or can be, extremely complex in design and manufacture, and we don't know everything about these weapons that their makers knew. • The study of swords is a serious academic specialty. • Arms and armour developed in conflict with each other, and fighting techniques adjusted to new technologies. • A master smith is smart, well-informed, technically expert, adventurous and extremely hard-working. In the absence of a major misstep, any single one of those would make for a valuable program. To have them all in a single program is exceptional. Hooray for PBS! |
Watched this last night on Netflix. I agree with Sean's comments above. In comparison to the vast majority of crap put out by the "Mystery Channel," PBS did a phenomenal job. Concerning issues and disagreements, I would submit that very few of us can read, view, or listen to something without disagreeing on at least one point. As with anything of substance, it's much better to discuss the issues than to complain about what we disagree with.
A guy at work was trying to sell me on "Ancient Aliens" and it reminded me that I should be grateful when a network puts something decent out, even if I disagree with some of it.
Why are we talking about Ancient Aliens?
Where was it mentioned, and why was that necessary? If you should laugh about anything the HC done it should be about rednecks hunting alligators, and lumberjack dramas. That is what I call irrelevant to history. Where is all the historical events that Ancient Aliens refer to?
Ancient Aliens talks about all the different cultures of mankind's past, and you choose it as your example to put down the History Channel, rather than shows of nothing but 'Shoot dat gator!' and 'Daw he's not tying logs good enough for me, I'm so pissed!...'
But yeah, anyways, I saw it as well. I think NOVA did pretty well. I wish they didn't use cheap Indian mail though for that thrusting test. That sword pierced far too easily into it, even for as quality a blade it was. If it were quality mail, wouldn't it have not gone through like butter, if not stop it?
Where was it mentioned, and why was that necessary? If you should laugh about anything the HC done it should be about rednecks hunting alligators, and lumberjack dramas. That is what I call irrelevant to history. Where is all the historical events that Ancient Aliens refer to?
Ancient Aliens talks about all the different cultures of mankind's past, and you choose it as your example to put down the History Channel, rather than shows of nothing but 'Shoot dat gator!' and 'Daw he's not tying logs good enough for me, I'm so pissed!...'
But yeah, anyways, I saw it as well. I think NOVA did pretty well. I wish they didn't use cheap Indian mail though for that thrusting test. That sword pierced far too easily into it, even for as quality a blade it was. If it were quality mail, wouldn't it have not gone through like butter, if not stop it?
This was on again last night. I really enjoyed it
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-viking-sword.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-viking-sword.html
| Bob Haynes wrote: |
| Why are we talking about Ancient Aliens?
Where was it mentioned, and why was that necessary? If you should laugh about anything the HC done it should be about rednecks hunting alligators, and lumberjack dramas. That is what I call irrelevant to history. Where is all the historical events that Ancient Aliens refer to? Ancient Aliens talks about all the different cultures of mankind's past, and you choose it as your example to put down the History Channel, rather than shows of nothing but 'Shoot dat gator!' and 'Daw he's not tying logs good enough for me, I'm so pissed!...' But yeah, anyways, I saw it as well. I think NOVA did pretty well. I wish they didn't use cheap Indian mail though for that thrusting test. That sword pierced far too easily into it, even for as quality a blade it was. If it were quality mail, wouldn't it have not gone through like butter, if not stop it? |
My issue with that test was not the mail in and of itself as it was probably there to just be a target, but that it was portrayed by the narrator as "Viking Era mail". As far as I have read, no samples of mail found at Birka at the very least bear a resemblance to what they tested. The Birka finds are all round sectioned round rivet rings that are considerably denser than the wedge riveted mail they tested on the show. Sort of like with the swords, there is no middle ground and the implication is that all Viking Era mail could be pierced by a tapered point blade.
Absolutely the worst part of that show is the large number of viewers who now feel qualified to argue the fine points of viking sword construction on places like youtube, yet prior to seeing this show they had never heard of an VLFBERHT. :mad:
Robin shared his opinion with us when he wrote, "Absolutely the worst part of that show is the large number of viewers who now feel qualified to argue the fine points of viking sword construction on places like youtube, yet prior to seeing this show they had never heard of an VLFBERHT. "
If you'll excuse the lame pun, media coverage is almost always a double edged sword. In my experience when they're dealing with any field of specialized knowledge the media will almost inevitably get things wrong, frequently utterly backwards. It's like open faced sandwiches falling face down on the floor, a rule of life if not physics.
The upside of these media attempts to penetrate history or technology is that they get some people (generally a very few) interested enough to explore the topic more deeply. The ones who are disinterested will forget about the whole thing in a day or two in any case.
There is, I'll grant, that class of hopelessly, stubbornly ignorant people that hold on to their ignorance regardless of anything one can say or do. The best thing to do is to avoid them.
Casting oneself as one of the anointed and heir to the "real truth" will only result in marginalization, better to accept the interested newbie and educate him.
If you'll excuse the lame pun, media coverage is almost always a double edged sword. In my experience when they're dealing with any field of specialized knowledge the media will almost inevitably get things wrong, frequently utterly backwards. It's like open faced sandwiches falling face down on the floor, a rule of life if not physics.
The upside of these media attempts to penetrate history or technology is that they get some people (generally a very few) interested enough to explore the topic more deeply. The ones who are disinterested will forget about the whole thing in a day or two in any case.
There is, I'll grant, that class of hopelessly, stubbornly ignorant people that hold on to their ignorance regardless of anything one can say or do. The best thing to do is to avoid them.
Casting oneself as one of the anointed and heir to the "real truth" will only result in marginalization, better to accept the interested newbie and educate him.
| Ken Speed wrote: |
| Robin shared his opinion with us when he wrote, "Absolutely the worst part of that show is the large number of viewers who now feel qualified to argue the fine points of viking sword construction on places like youtube, yet prior to seeing this show they had never heard of an VLFBERHT. "
If you'll excuse the lame pun, media coverage is almost always a double edged sword. In my experience when they're dealing with any field of specialized knowledge the media will almost inevitably get things wrong, frequently utterly backwards. It's like open faced sandwiches falling face down on the floor, a rule of life if not physics. The upside of these media attempts to penetrate history or technology is that they get some people (generally a very few) interested enough to explore the topic more deeply. The ones who are disinterested will forget about the whole thing in a day or two in any case. There is, I'll grant, that class of hopelessly, stubbornly ignorant people that hold on to their ignorance regardless of anything one can say or do. The best thing to do is to avoid them. Casting oneself as one of the anointed and heir to the "real truth" will only result in marginalization, better to accept the interested newbie and educate him. |
Finally got a chance to see this special ...
I must say I was expecting a bit more about ALL Viking Swords and not just a
discussion / experiment surrounding a particular one, but considering that
particular one appeared to be a ground-breaker of sorts, I wasn't disappointed ...
there's so few quality programs / dvds on such topics as it is, or at least what
I'm aware of.
What I found fascinating ?
At the beginning, and I paraphrase, when the gentleman swordsman suggested
" sharpness " might be an over-rated characteristic. That is, he did some mat cutting
with a Japanese-style sword -- with its legendary reputation -- and then cut a similar
mat with a dull " medieval bastard broadsword " -- which he showed as such by
running it edge over the palm of one hand, suffering no injury.
" A really good sword is not just about cutting with a really sharp edge ... " ( Made me
wander if the sharp swords I own REALLY need to be as sharp as they are ... )
But every instant Mr. Furrer was on seemed pretty profound ...
Gathering the ingredients and preparing the crucible; the brick-oven it would go into;
seeing the bright-orange hot crucible removed; being broken down until the dull-orange
hot ingot of steel was born; watching him and his assistant start the hammering process;
even hearing how this particular steel's internal-interlocking-pattern was so fused by the
process that it was incredibly difficult to work with. The sword taking shape, the letters
inserted, the quenching, the polishing started ...
Very cool. And while time-elements were but briefly mentioned -- I think it was 11 hours
they hammered on the ingot before they had a bar-shape that would next be worked
into a blade-shape ( please correct me if I'm wrong ) -- it became obvious this was NOT
a speedy process when the work is done by hand.
I'd watch it again if I get the chance ....
I must say I was expecting a bit more about ALL Viking Swords and not just a
discussion / experiment surrounding a particular one, but considering that
particular one appeared to be a ground-breaker of sorts, I wasn't disappointed ...
there's so few quality programs / dvds on such topics as it is, or at least what
I'm aware of.
What I found fascinating ?
At the beginning, and I paraphrase, when the gentleman swordsman suggested
" sharpness " might be an over-rated characteristic. That is, he did some mat cutting
with a Japanese-style sword -- with its legendary reputation -- and then cut a similar
mat with a dull " medieval bastard broadsword " -- which he showed as such by
running it edge over the palm of one hand, suffering no injury.
" A really good sword is not just about cutting with a really sharp edge ... " ( Made me
wander if the sharp swords I own REALLY need to be as sharp as they are ... )
But every instant Mr. Furrer was on seemed pretty profound ...
Gathering the ingredients and preparing the crucible; the brick-oven it would go into;
seeing the bright-orange hot crucible removed; being broken down until the dull-orange
hot ingot of steel was born; watching him and his assistant start the hammering process;
even hearing how this particular steel's internal-interlocking-pattern was so fused by the
process that it was incredibly difficult to work with. The sword taking shape, the letters
inserted, the quenching, the polishing started ...
Very cool. And while time-elements were but briefly mentioned -- I think it was 11 hours
they hammered on the ingot before they had a bar-shape that would next be worked
into a blade-shape ( please correct me if I'm wrong ) -- it became obvious this was NOT
a speedy process when the work is done by hand.
I'd watch it again if I get the chance ....
| Matthew G.M. Korenkiewicz wrote: |
|
I'd watch it again if I get the chance .... |
It's now available to stream on Netflix.
| Roger Hooper wrote: | ||
It's now available to stream on Netflix. |
Yep, that is where I saw it. I enjoyed it. Watched it with my wife. She has a bit better understanding of my hobby now. Anything to 'grease the wheels' of my purchases.
Page 3 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum