The economics of a sword

[Carl Rosenberg]

The Economics of Swords

On the surface a sword appears to be an incredible waste of resources. A spear is better for thrusting using less metal while being much simpler to construct. This is likewise true for an axe for cutting and a dagger for slicing. Each one of these objects can be constructed much more rapidly than a sword. A master Smith is needed to create a functional sword. The spearhead axe and dagger require far less skill to make with associated lower labor costs. The axe and the dagger have versatility increasing their overall economic value. The spear is less functional but can at least be used in hunting. Maintenance of a sword is much more difficult than maintenance of any of the other objects. Many cultures faced these simple economic facts. Swords were not their primary weapons.

The sword is expensive to make and expensive to maintain. The question is why bother with the sword. Or in economic terms, what additional value does the sword have making it more valuable (or least equally valuable) to the spear, axe, and dagger alone or all three in combination. Recall that value can take many forms: 2 pounds of iron are worth more than 1 pound, a simple wooden throne has greater value than a simple wooden chair (brand name recognition), the versatility of an object may increase its value and sometimes the value is solely in the perception of the society i.e. the Dutch Tulip Craze.

One example is the katana after 1700. Japan was unified. Japan removed firearms from the general society. No matter how valuable or beautiful the sword is today, the major economic value of the "two swords " at that time, was in its brand name recognition. It identified a samurai no matter how poor or shabbily dressed.

I want to be careful in looking at this question. A throne may be valuable because of its gold, jewels and silver. Yet, the extra value comes from the intrinsic value of the gold silver and jewels. These items would be just as valuable on the chair or off of it. I want to evaluate the value of the sword independent of its rich trappings. Golden thrones are rare, chairs are not. The sword was as ubiquitous as the chair. My question revolves around the simple sword, simple axe, simple spear and simple dagger. I look forward to your answers.

(I am new. Please direct me to the appropriate thread if this discussion has occurred.)

[Sal Bertucci]

There are a couple of things in your thesis I think are incorrect.

1. "The axe [has] versatility increasing [its] overall economic value." This is not really correct b/c the war axe is different than the wood axe. It is much lighter and has a different blade geometry. While you COULD use one in the other situation (wood in war or war on wood) it wouldn't get the job done nearly as well.

2. "Maintenance of a sword is much more difficult than maintenance of any of the other objects." Not necessarily true. A well maintained sword is just as easy as any of the others, unless you want to count footage. Sure if you beat the CRAP out of your sword it can be a pain to fix up, but that's a worst case scenario. You should also remember that the sword in Europe didn't receive the same spiritual status as other parts of the world. It was a valuable, but disposable, tool. (Admittedly I don't have a reference for this one, but I remember running across it somewhere. Sorry.)

3. "Many cultures faced these simple economic facts. Swords were not their primary weapons." Name 5 cultures that had the metallurgical abilities to make swords, and DIDN'T.

4. "The question is why bother with the sword." When it comes to war, the sword is the most versatile weapon there is. Apart from that it is less prone to breaking when compared to wood. Include that fact that for centuries all of Europe was a war zone, and therefore the prominence of the sword shouldn't be that surprising.

5. "A master Smith is needed to create a functional sword." Also not technically true if I remember correctly, but this is way out of what I deal with. I believe I even heard of Journeyman bladesmiths doing simple swords. If anyone could help me out on that I'd appreciate it.

[Stacy Clifford]

Sal is right about the sword's versatility. While a spear, axe and dagger might be better suited to individual tasks, fighting is an extremely dynamic environment where the needs of the moment can change quickly and constantly. In a military environment you can dedicate troops to certain types of weapons to maximize their advantages because those troops reinforce each other. In more individual circumstances you can't try to wield a spear, an axe and a dagger all at the same time, you need a light, carryable weapon that gives you as much offensive and defensive capability as possible to defend yourself. The sword fulfills that role. Defense shouldn't be forgotten - it is very difficult (not impossible, but difficult) to ward off a spear with an axe (not agile enough), an axe or spear with a dagger (too short and light), or the reverse, to fend of an axe or dagger at close inside range with a spear. A good sword is capable of, and meant for, defending against any other weapon at multiple ranges. If you could only carry one weapon for self defense or battle, wouldn't you want to carry the one that gives you the most benefit with the least burden? That weapon is the sword, and clearly most societies of the past felt that its versatility more than justified its cost.

[CalebChow]

Until easy sword reproduction came around, it's cheaper to equip 10,000 soldiers with a spear and a knife than equipping 1000 with swords, isn't it? I can see where Carl is coming from when I think about how to equip an army cost-effectively.

As Stacy mentioned the sword is best for the individual circumstances--probably something an officer/noble would use rather than the average grunt.
Since it's a weapon someone of higher status would be using, he could afford (and would WANT to afford) the cost of a more-versatile and less specialized weapon.

That also leads the the sword being a status symbol and such, which can also add to its value and appeal.
I mean, as children--how many of us associated halberds or maces with knights more than swords?

[Sal Bertucci]

Caleb,

While there can be no question that polearms are the preferred weapon of war, I would have anyone with doubt about the wide spread use of the sword go and look through our art section, and you will note that even in the ones that show pike formations almost every man ALSO has a sword at their side.

This would imply that the people funding these troops thought that the troops needed swords in spite of already being equipped with a polearm.

[Benjamin Abbott]

Like so many things, the prevalence of swords depends on the period. By the fifteen century if not earlier, swords do indeed become standard gear for any warrior. Things were different in the tenth century. Then that economic factors discussed here might have applied.

[Sal Bertucci]

Yes, but one would assume that anyone asking on our forum would be intended to aim within our time frame of study, which goes from the late Medieval period through the mid-17th century.

[Carl Rosenberg]

I would like to thank all who have viewed this topic with special
appreciation to those who have commented.

The economic value of the sword is proven by its long history and use in almost every culture. My question is "why". The relative cost of a sword decreased over time as societies became richer and technology advanced (Consider how the cost of computers have fallen) and more people had swords.

I proposed my question because of the intimate relationship between swords and their respective societies: defining what type of sword, how it might be used and how said use changes. I believe that understanding the above is one of ARMA's goals.

Again thank you. I shall be more concrete in a later post and appreciate your patience.

[Jonathan Hill]

Just to throw in a few different thoughts. I do not believe swords were all that expensive, just like today with any tool there is the common tool that any person will have access to and then there is the top of the line tool. We have Hanwei’s and Albions, and they are both swords, yet one is slightly more expensive. If you only look at the top of the line perfectly balanced and made blades and think that is the example of the typical blade, you are going to draw bad conclusions. It doesn’t take a master blade smith to make a sword it takes a master blade smith to make a good sword.

The roman army equipped every soldier with a Gladius, not just commanders, or nobles. Vegitius wrote “For the Romans not only made a jest of those who fought with the edge of that weapon, but always found them an easy conquest.” This indicates that enough of their enemies carried swords to make it worth noting over other weapons like spears or axes. So while economics would be a factor even in the 1st century tribal Europe apparently have the economics to equip their fighters with swords, and better blades than Rome was kicking out as the spartha replaced the gladius when it could be acquired.

I have also read around this forum or others that we average cost of a sword was closer to about 1 weeks wages of a soldier, not months or years. I am not one for book research so I cannot quote this for you but many others are better at that aspect.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

A master Smith is needed to create a functional sword.

Definitely not true; if we look at the Roman gladius--the product of a society that used the sword more extensively than medieval Europe before the 14th century or so--the striking fact is that they often had mediocre quality and workmanship. It was as if, having made the sword just good enough to do its job, the Roman weaponsmithing workshops did not see any reason to put any further effort towards improving the average legionary's sword.

Another source you might be interested to check out with regards to variations in sword quality (and in the skill of swordsmiths) is this paper on the sword industry in a Sudanese town: http://www.vikingsword.com/ethsword/hunley/kassala.pdf


One thing that strikes me as a particular advantage for the sword is that it may be the biggest weapon that can be conveniently worn around in a sheath, thus allowing it to be carried in addition to another (preferably even bigger) weapon like a bow, a crossbow, or a polearm. In this way the warrior can have a powerful primary weapon as well as an important secondary weapon (i.e. the sword) that compensated for its relative lack of power and/or range (compared to the primary weapon) by being rather more versatile. A sword also adds an extra "layer" of safety so that a soldier armed with it wouldn't have to go directly to the dagger or even bare hands if he lost his primary weapon or got into a situation where the primary was no longer as useful (for example, a longbowman engaging in hand-to-hand combat).

[CalebChow]

Another source you might be interested to check out with regards to variations in sword quality (and in the skill of swordsmiths) is this paper on the sword industry in a Sudanese town: http://www.vikingsword.com/ethsword/hunley/kassala.pdf

Interesting, great link! Thanks.

[Carl Rosenberg]

I want to thank everyone who participated in this thread. But first, I must apologize: I have been slow to reply. I have been "on call". As an old Professor, I asked my question to stimulate debate. Near retirement, I give myself the privilege of saying: I was very impressed. There is no definitive answer.

The possible answers are a function of time and place. As Mr. Clements wrote (Medieval Swordsmanship 1988, reprint 1999, p32) " In the early Middle Ages weapons and armor were almost prohibitively expensive ( a sword alone might be worth 7 to 20 cows." However , just like PC's, the cost had substantially dropped with the mechanization and technological advances of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance.

The value of a sword had both utilitarian and social (Goodwill in accounting terms) values. No other weapon was as versatile. it could be used in training, battle, law enforcement,and personal protection. It was an indication of wealth and station. Note that the "goodwill" of the sword decreased as the actual cost decreased. Overall, the sword was a valued investment at any time.

Any tool that has been desired for over 3000 years must have value. We learn much about the use of said tool, "sword", in any time and society by considering its value then and there. This "truism" does not change whether it be a Kopis or a Rapier.

Again thanks to all, contributors and readers alike.

[shane wink]

LafayetteCCurtis beat me too the parry as it were but I a a hobby blacksmith and i can easily make a "usable" sword, however the word usable is subjective. So many words in our conman tongue mean many different things or rather conjure up different meanings in our heads when we read them. Usable and steel are no different.

Steel is a matrix of iron and carbon. Iron is an element that under heat and pressure can be formed into a malleable metal. Bronze is an alloy of copper and tin. Three different metals and all three will make cutting weapons but each metal will determine the potential size and shape of the weapon made.

Flexible, tough and hard also mean different things to a smith than the avg person. Flexible is the amount of cast it can take before taking set or breaking. Hard refers to the temper hardness and tough refers to how well it will hold its edge or resist abrasion

The metals used then can not compare not surpass the metals used in forging today. To produce the high end quality weapons of the period we think of does requires a master smith and several highly trained assistants working together controlling many variables and if just one of them is off by a few 100 degrees it is all for nothing.

A poorly made flat piece of metal will take an edge and bend when used but will still do the job. It may not be able to do the job as long as a flexible hard, tough weapon made by a master.

Sry if I went overboard but I love talking shop

[Carl Rosenberg]

All of the above are valid points, Mr. Wink. I believe you are connecting the "value" of a sword to the excellence. or lack of, in the swords construction. An individual would obtain the best sword possible were his life to depend on it. "Obtain" includes cost, availability and the time needed to get it: One cannot wait for a perfect sword when the wolves are at the door.

There is also the "goodwill" of the sword. Consider that a sword, rusted and pitted, of weak metal and fraying hilt, could have great value because it was the weapon carried by the founder decades or centuries ago, thus confirming legitimacy.

Another is the parade sword, encrusted with jewels and gilded. Great value but worthless for defense.

Swords were most often individually obtained in the Medieval and early Renaissance period. Only a very wealthy city i.e. Venice or nation-state had the resources to create the infra-structure to equip its soldiers. (The development of wealth and the nation-state varied in the West by location and overlap of methods is expected.)

I should have been more careful in phasing my question: In the West, given the time and reasonable wealth, how did a well made sword provide value to the purchaser and how much? (But being explicit would have been less fun.)

I think that the many considered posts have gone far in addressing this question. I shall leave this thread to other should they wish to continue.

[shane wink]

I apologize I just wrote too much. I was trying to say that a master smith was not need to forge a sword that would work. A master smith was needed to make a sword that would survive longer than it's user.