Replies

“So, you doubt the truth of the ancient Welsh, Galician and Breton royal annals?
That’s the real question here ~ not whether or not Arthur actually had a shiny sword that could cut other swords into pieces.”

I know some swords made out of weaker materials did/do break. That’s actually why I have admired Damascene steel. And Samurai swords/kitanas.

I don’t know if Arthur had such a sword, but it’s possible. If someone had a sword that sharp and strong, he would have been formidable. Same for a knife today. No?

Arthur's sword appears to have been both resilient and long wearing. The story begins with it having been plunged into some sort of rock and just stuck there to be attacked by acids for the ages. Then, in the end, it goes back into the hands of the Lady of the Lake to be rusted away.

So, rust free, stain free ~ sounds like it had some nickel and chrome in it, and probably that Damascene finish.

Since the final part of the Annals are written down just as the Dark Ages begin (circa 535 AD to 541 AD) it's possible we are hearing the news about someone somewhere developing that process ~ but about 200 years earlier than reported from Damascus.

The old boys in Ireland were making well-wearing tooth implants made out of iron in Julius Caesar's day ~ so it's not impossible for them to have had a superior steel technology that continued to develop for another half millenium.

You did know the vastly superior Roman Army never conquered Ireland. They were quite happy to just leave them alone ~ a small trading post was found a few years back that clearly indicated there was something in Ireland the Romans wanted but they would pay for it.

Bet you thought I'd never get around to linking the Roman Conquest of Britain to Mohammad, but there you have it.