in the link Jake gave:
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/testingbladesandmaterials.htm
they broke a sword and a spike.
The spikes quality was suspected.
The sword came from a reputable company.
Was this just a fluke?

Scott

A sword will commonly break if it is (a) poorly made, (b) used in a way it wasn't intended to be (such as simple use with most modern reproductions), or (c) because it torqued bad once inside a target. In other words, you're more likely to break a "real" sword inside your opponent than against his weapon.

So it was sort of a fluke. See, it does happen, but not for the reasons that gamers look for.

Jake

Conquest last night was about axes.
In it spears, shields, and a sword where broken by axes while being held in the hands of people. Was this just flimsy construction? It is possible they purposly made weak arms so that the axe could look cooler.

Scott

A shield I can see being cleaved into neatly by a nice swing, the shaft of the spear ya.

A decently made sword? More likly to be sent flying out of the person's hands I'd think

Axes were made to break stuff. I'm afraid I'm *not* and expert on the details, though.

Jake

I've actually done a little reading on this about katanas. Some folks in another forum thought the average Japanese sword was a super-weapon. Don't know enough about western swords breaking.

All of the following quotes are from "Swords and Hilt Weapons" by Michael D. Coe, Peter Conolly, and more, 1993 from Prion Books Limited.

Japanese katanas chipped, broke, or bent on a regular basis. I'll follow with a few examples.

From the Kamakura period (1185-1392), p 157: "One defect of the ikubi tachi or 'bull-neck' sword was that . . . . if the point became chipped there was insufficient hardened edge left to reshape. It is said that during the Mongol affair many sword points were broken, and rudely reshaped and re-hardened on the battle field."

p. 168 : "During Hideyoshi's Korean campaign of 1592 there was ample opportunity to test swords. According to the Date Ke Tokenki . . . .during a meeting of officers to test swords a prisoner was presented who was as big as an ox. . . . The gathered samurai were rather reluctant to offer their swords for fear that the edge might chip on the bones of such a big fellow."

Around 1864, p. 170: "Kondo and a few of his Samurai chanced upon thirty or so of the enemy's best men. . . . Most of the swords used in the affray were found to have been chipped and bent during the combat, but Kondo's Kotetsu [the sword's name] was quite undamaged, tribute both to the blade and to Kondo's great skill."

These examples are all of samurai who were experienced fighters, with good quality equipment. Some people had swords of a lousier quality.

I'd be curious to know how often this was a problem with European swords. I know that Roman era and Dark Ages Celtic swords tended to bend after heavy use, but the quality of steel was low then. And 'rapiers' (a broad term) could be bent if they hit bone.

I love this topic.

Katanas are so sharp because they have essentially a crystalized steel edge. They can be so shart because they're so hard. The thing is that hard means brittle, hence the general paranoia among test-cutters in kenjustu and the like.

Euro swords did *not* have inferior metallurgy, but rather the requirements were different. Euro swords are flexible and are not too sharp, which means that the edge is less likely to chip. My experience (and reading) tells me that a euro sword might ding or burr on a rock or another sword edge (a thing to be avoided), but won't in normal cutting conditions even against hard woods and bone. The edge is too thick.

Niether sword is a super-weapon or inherently better (though I have my preferences), but rather they were made for entirely different conditions.

Jake