Swords and Shields

[cinzia8]

In regards to whether swords like the Spatha and Gladius can be considered steel, I found this paper that would definitely indicate that these swords were definitely made of iron, with very little to no properties that would be considered steel. I think these swords should be referred to as metal or iron swords and any reference to steel is inaccurate.

 

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/h-carnegie-steel.htm

 

A Brief History of Iron and Steel Production

by

Professor Joseph S. Spoerl

Saint Anselm College

[caldrail]

The good professor focuses on steel production and ignores the examples of steel produced crudely and individually from as early as 4000 years ago in Turkey. The Romans themselves referred to steel, and I notice they describe the qualities of the best spanish swords whose tradition of steel manufacture goes back to at least the 4th century BC.

[cinzia8]

The good professor focuses on steel production and ignores the examples of steel produced crudely and individually from as early as 4000 years ago in Turkey. The Romans themselves referred to steel, and I notice they describe the qualities of the best spanish swords whose tradition of steel manufacture goes back to at least the 4th century BC.

 

I think my confusion stems from the fact that to outfit legions (someone mentioned that soldiers could buy their swords from the government cheaper than privately) there had to be some sort of mass production. Wouldn't raw materials like charcoal and iron have to be stockpiled? Does anyone know of any ancient historians writing about swords with a clear reference that indicates that general knowledge thought in terms of "steel" or a metal superior to iron? Is there a Latin term for steel?

 

Thank you all for your insights. It's a lively and interesting discussion.

 

Cinzia

[Melvadius]

I think my confusion stems from the fact that to outfit legions (someone mentioned that soldiers could buy their swords from the government cheaper than privately) there had to be some sort of mass production. Wouldn't raw materials like charcoal and iron have to be stockpiled? Does anyone know of any ancient historians writing about swords with a clear reference that indicates that general knowledge thought in terms of "steel" or a metal superior to iron? Is there a Latin term for steel?

 

Thank you all for your insights. It's a lively and interesting discussion.

 

Cinzia

 

Although I don't have a Latin version to check; my copy of N.P. Milner's translation of Vegetius: Epiiiitome of Military Science IV.8 states on page 124 that 'For making arms, iron of both tempers and coal are kept in magazines.' (N.B. Sim incorrrectly referred to this as being in Vegetius De Architectura in his book 'Iron for the Eagles]

 

Now in the footnotes Milner clarifies the reference to 'iron of both tempers' as:

 

'iron and steel, it remains unclear whether Roman blacksmiths knowingly added carbon to harden iron into steel , although they managed to produce it.'

 

On the basis of this quotation I would say that the Roman's did know how to produce some quantities of steel BUT it probably was only done by a few specialists as a difficult process which they only thought of as producing 'differently tempered' pieces of iron. If they had a specific name for 'steel' rather than as a type of tempered iron it has not been identified in surviving Latin texts.

[caldrail]

Iron isn't well suited to military use, being a relatively brittle material. Swords made of iron would readily snap for instance. As for Milners rationalisation, I would be wary of assuming that the quotation means 'iron and steel'. Tempering is a treatment of metal intended to improve its qualities, and iron isn't tempered as a rule - I don't think it ever was as a standard practice. What it probably does refer to is ductile or hard material qualities.

 

The writer used the phrase 'iron' because he didn't know any better. Steel is not manufactured for sale as a commodity in the ancient world - there are no steel mills until the Industrial Revolution - but that iron is a saleable commodity and 'steel' is created from it during the item manufacture process on a local individual basis, assuming the artisan had a forge capable of generated the temperatures needed and had the requisite skill, which I assume many did, because otherwise the Romans would not have been using Noric steel for instance.

[Melvadius]

Iron isn't well suited to military use, being a relatively brittle material. Swords made of iron would readily snap for instance. As for Milners rationalisation, I would be wary of assuming that the quotation means 'iron and steel'. Tempering is a treatment of metal intended to improve its qualities, and iron isn't tempered as a rule - I don't think it ever was as a standard practice. What it probably does refer to is ductile or hard material qualities.

 

The writer used the phrase 'iron' because he didn't know any better. Steel is not manufactured for sale as a commodity in the ancient world - there are no steel mills until the Industrial Revolution - but that iron is a saleable commodity and 'steel' is created from it during the item manufacture process on a local individual basis, assuming the artisan had a forge capable of generated the temperatures needed and had the requisite skill, which I assume many did, because otherwise the Romans would not have been using Noric steel for instance.

 

An interesting contention, elements of which I have already indicated I would tend more to agree with than disagree. I have no problem with a view that small quantities of what analysis has shown is effectively 'steel' were created for specific tasks by blacksmiths in ancient times, even if not by 'modern' mass production method.

 

Where we differ however is that you have not provided either firm evidence for the Romans having a specific term for steel or sources for your statement that the Romans used Nor(d?)ic 'steel'. With this last can you confirm the ancient sources say 'steel' as opposed to 'iron' or is this a modern interpretation of available literature/ analysis?

[caldrail]

I think my confusion stems from the fact that to outfit legions (someone mentioned that soldiers could buy their swords from the government cheaper than privately) there had to be some sort of mass production. Wouldn't raw materials like charcoal and iron have to be stockpiled? Does anyone know of any ancient historians writing about swords with a clear reference that indicates that general knowledge thought in terms of "steel" or a metal superior to iron? Is there a Latin term for steel?

 

Sorry Cinzia, I missed this post. Good question. Actually the need to stockpile materials isn't what you might imagine. For much of the time the world is at peace, everyone is equipped, and the campaigning season only lasts six to eight months. Factories (called fabricae) only emerge in Roman culture in the late empire, and then only because the tax regime precludes the personal purchase of weapons - never mind the unenthusiastic soldiery of the time)

 

For most of the Roman period, if large numbers of weapons were required, then local smiths were asked or required to produce them. So unless materials could be acquired quickly, it was a matter of 'while stocks last', and perhaps having to travel further afield to find more artisans if the material shortages emerged. It is possible that sometimes the Romans arranged for materials to be provided for large item orders but in all honesty, I haven't seen any evidence of that. Given the numbers of weapons manufactured I would suspect that some weapon-smiths premises must have resembled small primitive factories anyway, but I'm not sure how much material they would have stockpiled for a rainy day. Those were valuable commodities to the Romans, and sat there inert, earning nothing for their owners.

[cinzia8]

I'm concerned mostly with the 5th century. If by then Fabricae where producing arms, I imagine there would be some "blueprint" or "formula" for buying (they would have to know what and how much), housing and producing materials. Romans were ordered, so wouldn't they think in terms like what do I need to produce 100 spatha a month, or year to be ready for the next campaign? So, there might be evidence that they were acquiring carbon and iron to use, or at least iron.

 

Also, it seems possible that soldiers also bought from smaller smiths like I might buy a bracelet from a local artisan or distinctive jeweler to get that specialty piece and here is where they might have possibly been able to get "steel" swords, possibly coveted and at a higher price. It just seems odd that there seems to be no clear reference to something as superior as a steel sword or real evidence.

 

This topic reminds me of the time I asked on another forum wasn't it odd that Aetius who spent his formative boyhood years with the Huns never thought to introduce the stirrup to the Roman army, especially when the Huns carried the reputation for being superior riders. <g> That was a storm unleashed!

 

Cinzia

[caldrail]

Stirrups didn't reach europe until the 6th century. Bear in mind that the Romans were never great cavalrymen and that their traditional four-pronged saddle supported the rider adequately. Even if Aetius encountered primitve rope stirrups, it's unlikely he saw any real advantage to them. The ability of the huns as riders was a matter of skill rather than equipment.

 

Regarding the fabricae, the addition of carbon to iron in the manufacturing process was incidential - though it's possible the more observant metal workers realised there was a connection between the two materials in making steel weapons. No evidence? The Romans pointed at spanish swords in the accounts of the Hannabalic Wars and tell us that the test of a superior sword was to lay it on the head and pull the extremities down onto the shoulders and then have it spring back into shape. That's the behaviour of 'spring steel' rather than ductile milder steels, and iron might well simply snap if so used.

[cinzia8]

Stirrups didn't reach europe until the 6th century. Bear in mind that the Romans were never great cavalrymen and that their traditional four-pronged saddle supported the rider adequately. Even if Aetius encountered primitve rope stirrups, it's unlikely he saw any real advantage to them. The ability of the huns as riders was a matter of skill rather than equipment.

 

Regarding the fabricae, the addition of carbon to iron in the manufacturing process was incidential - though it's possible the more observant metal workers realised there was a connection between the two materials in making steel weapons. No evidence? The Romans pointed at spanish swords in the accounts of the Hannabalic Wars and tell us that the test of a superior sword was to lay it on the head and pull the extremities down onto the shoulders and then have it spring back into shape. That's the behaviour of 'spring steel' rather than ductile milder steels, and iron might well simply snap if so used.

 

Good point about the stirrups. After what I read about Aetius and the Huns, it was just a question that came to my mind. Why not imitate a method that made mounting easier? I was tremendously assured on the forum that they were not used until much later.<g>

 

I guess you have me convinced that steel swords were being used, maybe not in uniformity but they existed and were not uncommon. What a subject, but it fascinates me!

 

Cinzia

[Gromit]

I have to disagree with the statement that iron is brittle. CAST iron is hard, brittle and unworkable by blacksmith techniques. Even when it is white-hot, pounding on it will cause it to shatter. This is because cast iron is very high in carbon content; as iron is heated towards its melting point, it combines with carbon from the air and especially with available carbon from the fuels used to heat it. Making steel required not just mixing carbon with iron, but limiting and controlling the carbon content, and that was technology the Romans did not possess.

 

The Romans produced their iron through a "bloomery" smelting process that involved mixing iron ore in the form of hematite or bog iron nodules with charcoal. They introduced enough air into the burning charcoal to keep its temperature up, but part of its combustion air came from the oxygen driven off from the iron oxide, which left behind metalic iron. This process takes advantage of the fact that the impurities lower the melting point of the iron they are mixed with to a "eutectic point" that is less than the melting point of pure iron, and it thereby reduces its tendency to take up free carbon and become unworkable. The product from this was iron "blooms" consisting of a spongelike mass of metalic iron with bits of charcoal and other impurities embedded in it. This picture shows an iron bloom that has been sectioned to show these voids:

 

Roman - and later - blacksmiths had to re-heat and work these blooms in a process called "fettling", hammering the blooms and gradually working out the large impurities and voids to produce a wrought-iron billet. This was the basis for all of their iron implements, from swords to nails. This iron still contained impurities, mainly silicon, and this led to worked pieces having a characteristic grain-like internal structure. This picture illustrates this, showing a bent and broken piece of wrought iron with its grain structure: Roman-era swords would likely have bent this same way rather than breaking as steel would.

 

We have some examples of Roman-era wrought-iron from the first century AD in the cache of over 800,000 Roman nails that were recovered at Inchtuthil, in Scotland. You can read more about that at this link: Inchtuthil Roman nails.

 

Wrought iron is not brittle, but like other soft irons it is not flexible, either. It bends and stays bent. An example of this that everyone is familiar with are common nails, which are generally made of soft iron. They are easily bent and do not spring back - you have to straighten them, and I expect that Roman armorers had to straighten gladii frequently. We know that pilum shafts were intended to bend and stay bent; flexibility would have defeated their purpose. It also meant that an iron sword would require frequent sharpening and was more susceptible to rusting than a steel one would have been.

 

The Romans may have used a method known as carburizing to case-harden iron blades. This involved heating the piece to a high temperature in the presence of carbon, so that the surface layer would take up carbon and become similar to cast iron, very hard and wear-resistant. But the internal structure of the piece would remain ordinary wrought iron.

 

Bottom line is that making steel is not as simple as one might believe, and I do not believe that the Romans made it other than accidentally. They were very adept at producing wrought-iron and working it into blades, armor, and many other kinds of implements.

 

 

Gromit

[cinzia8]

The bent nail is a very good example for your opinion, and the links, illustrate quite nicely. Thank you. My engineer friend, would agree with you. He believes the Romans didn't have the technology etc. to make a "steel" product, but there has been some basis for arguing this view on this thread.

 

The notion that steel weapons and armor existed in this time seems to be bandied about in fiction and non-fiction. In this month's Military History an article about Trajan's Column refers to one of its details, "Into the Camp" with a description of the legionnaires wearing "steel lorica segmentata body armor..."

 

So, as a writer, if I use the term "steel" I have a feeling the accurate history police won't fine or discredit me.<g>

 

I am curious about what you said of the pilum, that they were intended to bend. Was this so a warrior could disengage the shaft from a shield, etc. so as not to become a victim?

Edited July 11, 2010 by cinzia8

[barca]

Even when it is white-hot, pounding on it will cause it to shatter. This is because cast iron is very high in carbon content; as iron is heated towards its melting point, it combines with carbon from the air and especially with available carbon from the fuels used to heat it. Making steel required not just mixing carbon with iron, but limiting and controlling the carbon content, and that was technology the Romans did not possess.

Gromit

 

Are you saying that cast iron has more carbon than carbon steel?

 

If the Gladius was made of this relatively soft iron, what made it superior to other swords of its age?

[Gromit]

The bent nail is a very good example for your opinion, and the links, illustrate quite nicely. Thank you. My engineer friend, would agree with you. He believes the Romans didn't have the technology etc. to make a "steel" product, but there has been some basis for arguing this view on this thread.

 

The notion that steel weapons and armor existed in this time seems to be bandied about in fiction and non-fiction. In this month's Military History an article about Trajan's Column refers to one of its details, "Into the Camp" with a description of the legionnaires wearing "steel lorica segmentata body armor..."

 

So, as a writer, if I use the term "steel" I have a feeling the accurate history police won't fine or discredit me.<g>

 

I am curious about what you said of the pilum, that they were intended to bend. Was this so a warrior could disengage the shaft from a shield, etc. so as not to become a victim?

 

I've had a lot of discussions about Roman "steel", and it all tends to stem from the idea that steel is just iron plus carbon, so what's the big deal? But even up into the 19th century a lot of wrought iron was used for constructing bridges, buildings, etc. Today, typical carpenter's nails, known as "common" nails, are soft iron as are railroad spikes, for example. It appears that the Chinese and Indians developed processes for steel making long before the West, but the technology was considered a military secret, not something that was freely shared with the rest of the world. There are pretty strong opinions I've read that "Damascus steel" was actually "Wootz steel" from India that was imported and sold through Damascus.

 

So if you use the word "steel" in writing about Roman armor, I'm among those who will detect that as most likely incorrect.

 

Now a Roman pilum was designed so that once it was thrown by a Roman legionary, it wouldn't be thrown back by the other side. There's some pretty good description of its design, along with pictures at this link: Roman Pilum. They were, in fact, designed to bend to render them useless as a weapon once thrown. In addition, they could penetrate an enemy's shield and then bend over, rendering his shield useless as well. One feature that is not mentioned in this article is the way the iron shaft was joined to the wooden portion - at least in some designs - using one metal pin and one wooden dowel to hold it in place. When the pilum struck, or perhaps when an enemy was fumbling around trying to disengage himself from it, the wooden dowel would break, leaving the iron shaft to swivel freely on the remaining metal pin. This design was instituted by Gaius Marius as part of his reforms when he created the professional Roman army around 107 BC.

[Gromit]

Even when it is white-hot, pounding on it will cause it to shatter. This is because cast iron is very high in carbon content; as iron is heated towards its melting point, it combines with carbon from the air and especially with available carbon from the fuels used to heat it. Making steel required not just mixing carbon with iron, but limiting and controlling the carbon content, and that was technology the Romans did not possess.

Gromit

 

Are you saying that cast iron has more carbon than carbon steel?

 

If the Gladius was made of this relatively soft iron, what made it superior to other swords of its age?

 

Cast iron typically contains around 2.1% carbon, while most steels have a carbon content of around 0.35%. You can read more details about this at Carbon Content of Steels.

 

I doubt that the Romans had any idea about carbon contents of iron and steel, but they probably learned that if you got iron so hot that it melted, it became unworkable and brittle, while if you smelted it in a bloomery at lower temperatures it could be worked by a blacksmith. The difference is that molten iron, particularly in a high-carbon atmosphere, will take up a lot of carbon in an uncontrolled way, while it does not do this at the lower temperatures required for smelting.

 

I don't know that the gladius was an intrinsically better weapon than other swords of the period. It was the organization, discipline and fighting techniques of the Roman army that made them a force to be reckoned with. For their fighting style, using the large scutum shield in close combat, the short gladius was the optimum weapon. However, I doubt that anyone else the Romans met in combat had weapons of better material, i.e. steel vs. iron, either.