WI: Damascus Steel in Rome
- Thread starter Cheer
- Start date
Well, Damascene steel reputation is a bit conflated : at the very least it was less about it being a super-weapon compared to other contemporary mettalurgies (while Crusaders are praising Damascene steel, Arabs are doing the same for Franji's swords).
Not that a Roman wootz is impossible to get, and it could change some things especially with a standardization of the production of IOTL Roman steel (of lesser quality and not really systematized).
Note, that said, that Romans did knew about seric steel (Seric labelling a vague regions, including India and China) and that it get importated, in fairly small numbers.
The simpler way would be to get wootz steel more present in Persia, and then getting more present in Romania as a military device (as cataphractarians were, trough transmission). Then you'd had a Seric Steel production in Romania (probably eastern parts).
But, I've to stress, while it would have significant (while not world-changing) influence on the devellopment of Late Antiquity and Medieval mettalurgy, it won't be so militarily, at least strictly so.
Not that a Roman wootz is impossible to get, and it could change some things especially with a standardization of the production of IOTL Roman steel (of lesser quality and not really systematized).
Note, that said, that Romans did knew about seric steel (Seric labelling a vague regions, including India and China) and that it get importated, in fairly small numbers.
The simpler way would be to get wootz steel more present in Persia, and then getting more present in Romania as a military device (as cataphractarians were, trough transmission). Then you'd had a Seric Steel production in Romania (probably eastern parts).
But, I've to stress, while it would have significant (while not world-changing) influence on the devellopment of Late Antiquity and Medieval mettalurgy, it won't be so militarily, at least strictly so.
Probably not. Roman weaponry was far superior to that of their enemies on the northern frontier for a very long time anyway, and the technology transfer that eventually remobed much of that advantage was social as much as metallurgical (the barbarians got Roman forms of organisation that allowed them to acquire the needed weaponry and skill). Assuming the Romans had superior imported steel to make their blades, they would still be facing better organised and wealthier enemies equipped to a large extent from Roman military sources.
Technological edges need to be very large in order to overcome logistical and organisational advantage. Better steel alone is not going to do it (aside from the question how much better the steel is going to be, reliably. Surviving Roman swords were all over the chart, but some were incredibly good.)
Probably not : Seric steel in Rome means that either trough trade (in spite of the legal ban), diplomacy and clientelisation, plunder or mercenaryship, Barbarians would have access to it nevertheless.
Remember that IOTL, Barbarians* weaponry went only more importantly Roman, mixed with their own traditions (the alleged Roman superiority there should be greatly nuanced, when one knows they largely borrowed their military equipment, such as the spatha)
* Not as a "horde", this depiction being really outdated as an historical depiction, but as Romanized peoples, already present and having a symbiotic relation wth Romania
One of the advantages of Indian iron was the natural impurities made better steel than most ores. I don't remember the precise details.
I also vaguely remember a 'proverb' about the best swords being Indian metal forged by a Damascus swordsmith...
I also vaguely remember a 'proverb' about the best swords being Indian metal forged by a Damascus swordsmith...
As far as I know, it is Rome's fault why there was even a crusader.
I don't think weapon difference would have made a difference as long you kept the same otl leaders. The Romans would have still lost Manzikert, they would have still squabble among themselves after Manzikert. and if Alexios won, he would still called for the Crusades.
The same thing would have applied if you meant western Rome. Rome's strength relied on its organization and people. Take away all that your weapon tech advantage means nothing if your being lead by an incompetent general, your quarreling among yourselves.
I don't think weapon difference would have made a difference as long you kept the same otl leaders. The Romans would have still lost Manzikert, they would have still squabble among themselves after Manzikert. and if Alexios won, he would still called for the Crusades.
The same thing would have applied if you meant western Rome. Rome's strength relied on its organization and people. Take away all that your weapon tech advantage means nothing if your being lead by an incompetent general, your quarreling among yourselves.
Better steel isn't going to save Rome, or even delay the inevitable, as Rome's problems weren't something they could solve with military might; the empire was rotting away from the inside and nobody could (or would) do anything to stop it.
Now, if Roman smiths had learned to make Damascus steel (provided that it's a product of the process, rather than the metal, used) that could have an impact on Post-Roman Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, as anybody with such a smith in their employ would hold an advantage in equipping their armies (to a degree) over opponents who don't have it. Fortunes could be radically altered in some places; if post-Roman Britons, for example, had a bunch of skilled warriors, with Roman legionary discipline and tactics and training and organization and Damascus steel weapons, Britain might have ended up repelling waves of migration for far longer than OTL. That would cause some major ripples in how the history of the world shakes out right there.
Now, if Christian monks wrote down the process (as Christian monks were wont to do on a number of things that had nothing to do with theology but did add to man's knowledge base) that would have been a net positive for future scholars, as it'd be one less mystery to solve and, also, it'd broaden our understanding of just how knowledgeable and resourceful ancient man was.
Damascus steel can't save Rome, but it can shape the post-Roman world, perhaps in profound ways.
Now, if Roman smiths had learned to make Damascus steel (provided that it's a product of the process, rather than the metal, used) that could have an impact on Post-Roman Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, as anybody with such a smith in their employ would hold an advantage in equipping their armies (to a degree) over opponents who don't have it. Fortunes could be radically altered in some places; if post-Roman Britons, for example, had a bunch of skilled warriors, with Roman legionary discipline and tactics and training and organization and Damascus steel weapons, Britain might have ended up repelling waves of migration for far longer than OTL. That would cause some major ripples in how the history of the world shakes out right there.
Now, if Christian monks wrote down the process (as Christian monks were wont to do on a number of things that had nothing to do with theology but did add to man's knowledge base) that would have been a net positive for future scholars, as it'd be one less mystery to solve and, also, it'd broaden our understanding of just how knowledgeable and resourceful ancient man was.
Damascus steel can't save Rome, but it can shape the post-Roman world, perhaps in profound ways.
Zero effect. Damascus steel is actually the European name for Wootz Steel i.e. Southern Indian steel that was exported to Damascus and frequently reforged their before being either sold on into Europe or used by the local Arabs against Europeans. So first of all the Romans absolutely could and did import high quality steel from the East, though they called it Seric Iron (wrongly thinking it came from China). Secondly they absolutely couldn't have started making it in Rome because from what little we know about the process from making Wootz steel it simply couldn't be copied in Europe. For example Bamboo wasn't available to increase the carbon content of Roman steel nor were unique wind furnace, driven by the monsoon winds and providing very high temperatures very practical in the Mediterranean.
Even if the Romans had acquired more Seric Iron than OTL it wouldn't have done them much good, the Western Romans essential problem was that a series of key points (Crisis of the 3rd Century, aftermath of Adrianople) they were too busy fighting Civil Wars and allowed barbarians* over the border and rapidly fell into a viscous circle of losing land to barbarians, which reduced their tax base and manpower which made them less able to fight off the next set of barbarians. The Eastern Roman Empire didn't fall, it survived until Manzikert and the 4th Crusade set it on a downward path.
*who by the late Empire were mostly fairly Romanised and Christianised not very barbarous
Even if the Romans had acquired more Seric Iron than OTL it wouldn't have done them much good, the Western Romans essential problem was that a series of key points (Crisis of the 3rd Century, aftermath of Adrianople) they were too busy fighting Civil Wars and allowed barbarians* over the border and rapidly fell into a viscous circle of losing land to barbarians, which reduced their tax base and manpower which made them less able to fight off the next set of barbarians. The Eastern Roman Empire didn't fall, it survived until Manzikert and the 4th Crusade set it on a downward path.
*who by the late Empire were mostly fairly Romanised and Christianised not very barbarous
Last edited:
Lucius Verus
Banned
Damascus steel's quality came from the ore, which originated in India and not the process. Before the beginning of modern chemistry metallurgy was just guess-work tampered with experience and the technique wouldn't matter if one did not understand nor recognize the differences in iron ores. So unless they would a consistent supply from India they were out of luck.
Think most monks stayed put where they lived. I have trouble seeing them traveling years far from home, leaning languages, learning or creating terms that would be understandable for processes in creating something, specifying types of fuel, hear, time, the makeup of the minerals... Of course anything they gave would help give us ideas, but I don't see them going out of their way to discover trade secrets in order to find how to produce weapons. Though they did use monks to steal tea and silkworms, right? Thinking it might have been Byzantine monks , though. Meh.