Terry Pratchett's Self-Made Meteorite Sword

jamie writes "Fantasy author Sir Terry Pratchett says he was so excited after being knighted by the Queen that he decided to make his own sword to equip himself for his new status... the author dug up 81kg of ore and smelted it in the grounds of his house, using a makeshift kiln built from clay and hay and fueled with damp sheep manure."

Comments

Original Article

[bjorniac]

The article on which this news story seems to be based, complete with picture of Sir pTerry and his sword is at
http://www.paulkidby.com/news/apr2010.html

Re:Original Article

[fast turtle]

It appears to be in the Gladius Style (Roman Legion) and is a Short Sword. Keep in mind, this isn't the size of Excalibur or what Conan would use. Instead it's based on a practical design developed by the roman legions for use by Centurions in their shield wall formation. Practical and short enough not to interfere with your neigbors sword.

Re:Original Article

[L4t3r4lu5]

Partly correct. The Gladius was favoured by the Legions because it was short enough for the scabbard to be hung on the same side as the wielding hand. This prevents the act of drawing the sword from taking any more room than one man standing upright, maintaining their tight shield wall formation.

Clever buggers, they were.

Re:Original Article

[Colonel Korn]

Where this myth came from, I have no idea, but I've yet to see any real world evidence that it's anything other than a myth, and that includes demonstrations from Roman reenactors trying desperately (and often hilariously) to justify it.

Ignoring the argument of why the Romans wore their scabbards on the right, there's plenty of conclusive evidence that they in fact did so.

Roman art is, as usual, our best source of information on Roman culture.

Look at this, for instance: http://www.romanarmy.net/images/Pages/articles/artweapons/artwep2.jpg.

Re:Original Article

[Caerdwyn]

It's as much metallurgy as anything else. Until pattern-welding became widespread around 800AD, blades much longer than 24" just didn't have the strength needed in combat, particularly for swords intended for slashing motions.

There are some excellent websites for smiths doing reproduction historical swords with well-researched historical techniques which make for a fascinating read (to nerds like myself anyway). Start with Patrick Barta at www.templ.net and Jim Hrisoulas at www.atar.com, then move on to www.myarmoury.com for hands-on reviews and photos.

Re:Original Article

[wanax]

It depends on your definition of phalanx.. is the key factor the overlapping shields, many ranks deep with close order, fighting in a single line or using spears? In the classical hoplite phalanx met all four criteria, with everybody fully armored in bronze, each soldier had a spear (~10ft) and short thrusting sword, and were typically arranged between 6 and 24 men deep with the most experienced soldiers in the front and the back rows (to prevent less experienced soldiers from fleeing). Battles were typically decided by whose front rank broke first, which was more a function of pushing from behind than individual skill up front. It was not uncommon for bodies to be wedged upright from the pressure until one side broke. The spears were essentially double tipped, which would give you two shots if you're spear broke, which was fairly common. The hoplite was named for his shield, the hoplon, which was large, and and designed to overlap with his neighbors, making a shield wall. As the Greek empires expanded into Thrace and Asia minor, where most of the soldiers were likely to be professional rather than land-owning citizens, the amount of armor was decreased while the spear grew in length. This made the formation cheaper and more maneuverable, but these phalanxes had to be supported by sling and javelin equipped auxiliary troops since there armor wasn't sufficient to protect against ranged attack.

That eventually evolved into the Macedonian phalanx (by way of Thebes), where professional, drilled soldiers wearing breastplates and chain skirts, who carried ~18ft pikes and short swords in an 8-deep formation. They were drilled to not let opposing infantry close under their pikes, and as long as they could do this, they were extremely effective. However, due to the size of their spears, they used much smaller shields, which did not fully overlap (so fit 3 of the 4 possible criteria). Back rank soldiers holding their pikes upright or at an angle also served to break up incoming missile fire. The problem with these formations was they were not very maneuverable, and their cohesion could be broken up by rough terrain. This was fine for the Macedonians, who used phalanxes to hold enemy infantry in place while their cavalry flanked it, but ran into problems when they were used by Greek armies without excellent cavalry or skirmisher support.

The early roman legions were essentially an evolution against phalanx and shield wall formations employed by the Italian tribes. Originally legions were arranged into three cohorts: hastati (poorest, youngest and least experienced, with usually without full armor), principes (prime troops, usually equipped with chain mail) and triarii (veteran solders, all excellently equipped). Prior to the Polybian reforms, all these troops fought with hastae (short spears, ~7ft) and the gladius short swords. The main difference was the organization: instead of having one line of phalanx, the Roman formation was organized into three lines (hastati, principes, triarii) in which each line was further subdivided into 60 or 120 man units who fought as shallow (6 ranks) phalanxes, with large overlapping 'scuta' shields (this also fits 3 of the 4 criteria). The enemy would first have to fight through the hastati, who retired behind the principes, and then if necessary the triarii. The main advantage of this formation was that the front-line of troops didn't have to fight throughout the battle, and it was easier to keep small units together while maneuvering. These formations turned out to be ineffective against Macedonian and Carthaginian phalanxes, so Polybius reformed them so that the hastati and principes carried several pilums (throwing javelins) rather than thrusting spears, which could break up the Macedonian phalanxes from beyond the range of their pikes and allow the shallow Roman formations to close quickly, or flank as required. The Triarii still fought as a traditional phalanx. This essentially replaced the pike with a longer ranged weapon, without changing the essence of the close order form

Re:Alzheimer

[Amarantine]

Actually, the man himself told us during the recent Discworld convention that he did this. As for the alzheimer: he seemed remarkably strong and clear, and fortunately in much better (mental) shape than i expected him to be.

Re:Energy density of 'damp sheep manure'

[confused one]

Coal is a convenience. Long before coal was widely available, they used to use wood, charcoal, and peat. In a pinch you could use anything that will burn. The trick is to add oxygen (air) with a bellows, without which it's hard to melt iron even with anthracite coal.

Re:It's made of magic

[Thanshin]

Owning a sword isn't illegal, though carrying one in public usually is.

In Spain, carrying a sword in public is legal if it's not concealed. But you've got to have a reason to be carrying it, like "I just bought it and I'm taking it home", "I'm going to my bastard sword class" or "I'm going to the woods to take pictures of my sword collection".

You can also carry a non concealed hunting knife of any size or form, including two bladed.

What you can't carry is any pocket/concealed weapon over 11cm, two bladed or with an automatic aperture system based on internally stored force (mass, for gravity or inertial automatics is ok).

Re:It's made of magic

[thoromyr]

Some rapiers were *very* stylized (the ridiculous blade lengths that became popular among courtiers, for example). But "deep bellied" or "broad bladed tip" designs are not the only form for effectual swords and chopping is not very efficient for defeating armor, thrusting is. And for thrusting a triangular blade is desired.

One place to start educating yourself about swords and the various types is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakeshott_typology

You will notice that Type X "taper toward the tip" rather than becoming broader. Or the Type XII which is improved for thrusting. Or the Type XIII which, while not especially adapted for thrusting, fails to have the "broad toward the tip" design you aver is the only functional sword type. Note when and how common this sword type was.

In fact, you won't find much in the way of sword blade types meeting those limited criteria.