The equivalent of some person buying what we now call a 'sword like object' (better known as a wall-hanger, those 'swords' one can buy from a Mall for 50 bucks).
The problem is, using a sword-like-object in real combat against someone with a real sword must have been a very quick way to die.
Maybe that's why in times of yore Japanese sword smiths would have their Katanas tested by seeing how many arms it could cut through at a time (gladly provided by prisoners ....the very best were allegedly tested using torsos). But then again, Katanas were never used for sword-against-sword combat ...it would be rare for Samurai to clash blade against blade, if at all. European swords on the other hand not only did meet blade to blade sometimes, but there was also the whole armor issue. A weak sword would not have lasted long.
The interesting thing from the article, for me anyways, was the part where they said the best swords then had much more carbon steel than the inferior ones (an obvious point), BUT ALSO that MODERN carbon steel is twice as better as that in the best olden swords. I am assuming that means that a well-made modern carbon steel swords (not a 'sword like object,' but rather one of the few pieces made by the few modern swordsmiths that go for a pretty penny) would be substantially better than the best legacy blades (be they japanese or Damascus or whatever) from olden times.
> The interesting thing from the article, for me anyways, was the part where they said the best swords then had much more carbon steel than the inferior ones (an obvious point), BUT ALSO that MODERN carbon steel is twice as better as that in the best olden swords.
I found that interesting, too.
What the article misses out is that Viking swords are not made of a single homogenous type of steel but, like Japanese swords, they usually use two or more. Usually a hi-carbon steel and a lo-carbon steel.
Unlike the Japanese, who hammer-weld-and-fold the steels on top of each other multiple times, the viking swordsmith lays the steel bars side-by-side and braids-and-twists-and-hammer-welds them together, so that throughout the sword you get tough lo-carbon steel alongside hard-and-sharp hi-carbon steel.
That is how the swords are able to take significant shock while maintaining an edge. And that is also why some viking swords have a “flame” pattern etched into the blade: that is the effect of the braiding-and-welding.
Don't fret, I did that myself once (about two days ago, right here in fact).
What it tells me is that 'negotiations' for a sword should properly begin with "excuse me while I hammer this thing against whatever affords itself in the next ten or fifteen minutes"
Hmmm....should I buy the GM Mal-Abu, the Honda Miseri-Accord, or go for the Be(ss)emer Blade.
The swords were pattern welded from strips of iron and edged with steel. The reason besides a scarcity of steel, the softer iron absorbed the shock of a blow, much like a hammer is hard and soft.
A real Viking always parried with the flat and never with the edge.
With advent of really good armor (plate and plate-reinforced mail) the sword fell out of use as a battlefield weapon against equally armored opponents. The knights used maces, warhammers and poleaxes against each other. Swords were still useful against levies, archers, etc.
During that period and for a while afterward, people carried swords like we carried pistols and for the same reasons.