Reasonable Construction Times

[Vondy]

I'm wondering if any of the history buffs in heroland can assist me:

 

I'm trying to determine how many swords a master weaponsmith/armorer with several journeymen (say 3-5) and laborers (3-5 more) could produce per month in a normal midieval (say 8th-10th century) forge? By that same token, what about plate armor?

 

And then, by that same token, a latter midieval forge, with a water powered bellows, and water powered triphammer (for pounding the blooms)?

[Curufea]

Re: Reasonable Construction Times

 

Well, Plate armour is easy - zero. It didn't start to be used until the 12th century onward, that's when you get the transitional plate happening (mail with bits of plate strapped to it).

 

Swords would be limited to sax, scramasax, viking sword and possibly norman longsword (no two handed swords or exotic weapons - but you could have 2 handed axes). I'd have to look it up- but wouldn't be suprised if a competent blacksmith could not produce at least one per day.

Ideally, however - axes and spears are the fastest weapons to build.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Reasonable Construction Times

 

A little bit I found on a cursory 'net search.

 

First, a sword was rarely made by ONE person. The smith would forge and heat treat the blade several days to a week). A cutler would spend days (up to a week) grinding the blade. An artificer or a hiltsmith would engrave and add the furniture which might be cast, forged or a mixture of the two. In any case, there would be days of filing and carving. In the end the merchant that contracted the various steps (and probably obtained the raw materials to start) would sell the finished product.

 

The farther back you go the longer it took. As early as the 1300's (probably earlier) cutlers had water powered grind stones. There would be several on a heavy wood shaft. Each would have a plank for the cutler to lie on and rest his arms while he ground the blade on the slow turning wheel for hours and hours. These old soft white natural stones were nothing like modern abrasives.

 

Before water powered grind stones they were hand powered and much slower. . . Lots of child labor was involved in powering such tools. Hand scraping (another slow process) was also used to shape and finish blades.

 

The perverse thing about the history of technology is that a modern bladesmith is more likely to do the entire job than an ancient one would have. Specialists evolved VERY early in civilization and made good use. The difference today is that the maker generally cannot afford subcontractors and modern machinery reduce much of the labor once done by hand. The exception is engraving. Most top engravers do nothing but and the rest is done and paid for by someone else. And many bladesmiths that use modern alloys sub out the heat treating.

 

 

And another much shorter answer;

 

… 3 days to smelt, 1 week to forge, 3 days to planish and shape…

The time estimate was based on average 10-hour days.

 

Hope it helps.

[Curufea]

Re: Reasonable Construction Times

 

Ah - I was presuming you had the metal already, rather than just the ore - and you wanted usable weapons, not pretty weapons (ie you were outfitting an army).

 

Which is basically - beating it into shape, some grinding, hardening - and only rudimentary hilts of wood or leather. Swords in that era were not big on crossguards either, and pommels were also fairly simple.

 

Oh, and another edit - 10th century and earlier is the Dark Ages, before the times mentioned in your quote. So think vikings, saxons, normans, celts, picts, etc..

[Fitz]

Re: Reasonable Construction Times

 

Strictly speaking, any time from about Charlemagne's time is Early Medieval. The term "Dark Ages" is deprecated these days, and the period it could reasonably be applied to is shrinking all the time as we learn more about it.

 

After the withdrawal of Rome, it's highly unlikely that any European ruler would be supplying a whole army with swords -- they're just too expensive and labour-intensive to manufacture. Spears, maybe long knives like the scramasax, would be the weapons issued to the grunts, with swords being reserved for the elite troops (or those who inherited their great-grandaddy's sword, or picked one up off a corpse -- for most of the Medieval period there were more "inherited" swords in use than new ones).

 

One of the major perks of being the winner of a battle was that you got to keep all the expensive weapons and armour from the corpses of the losers, while losing a battle could be disastrous not only for the warriors lost, but for the equipment that would have to be replaced.

 

Note: the Swabians were famous for using huge two-handed swords in the 9th to 11th centuries, so you could include them in the list of potential weapons if you liked. As far as I know, they were just up-sized versions of the standard European straight broadsword, unlike the the specialist zweihanders of the late medieval/renaissance period

[Vondy]

Re: Reasonable Construction Times

 

I am aware of the Earth tech timeline; while it serves as a useful baseline, its just that, a baseline. Also, I don't think much of the term Dark Ages. People in the midieval period were more sophisticated, and knew far more, than most people give them credit for. Further, the 8th-10th century knew many cultures. Normal England isn't the only baseline for a fantasy campaign. Metal smiths in Italy and Syria were more advanced than those in Western Europe, and the smiths in Toledo were beginning to develop their remarkable techniques. By 1099 El Cid was weilding the most famous toledo blade (a broadsword) ever created.

 

As for my campaign, which is magic-rare and fairly accurate historically, aside from jousting harnesses (unweildy breasplates with gabardine), there is no plate armor. The broadsword (a nice generic term for cavalry swords) is the normative chivalric arm. Chain is the rule of the day. Indeed, forges using firebrick are extemely rare, meaning the average sword in my campaign has an iron-core (probably brittle) lamenated with steel (since actually forging full steel blades requires higher, more consistent temps, and more advanced techniques).

 

While the party has no mages (they've never even met one and I'm not sure they ever will), they do have a Leonardo. A man whose ideas are well ahead of his time. He has plans for a firebrick forge, a water-powered bellows and triphammer, and an idea for a new fangled sword (essentially a Toledo blade). Hence, I asked about construction times for specific items, and not whether they existed or not. I didn't think a dissertation on the intricacies of my campaign was required.

 

I'm feeling prickly this morning - I had to walk a mile in driving wet snow to get from the bus stop to work.

 

CRANKY WARNING:

 

I didn't ask what weapons and armor you felt were available for my game.

 

I asked if anyone knew how long it would take to construct specific items that will debut in my game.

 

The answer seems to be: 3 days to smelt, a week to forge, 3 days for finishing.

 

And no one knows about plate.

[Old Man]

Re: Reasonable Construction Times

 

You could try figuring from there, at about 10 days per body part. I'm also fairly certain that the wearer had to be available for fittings during construction. Not everyday but every so often so that the armor would fit properly.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Reasonable Construction Times

 

I found one reference that said an armorer and his assistants (a "small number", presumably 3-5) a year to make plate armor for a horse for King Ferdinand and his son. The reference doesn't say whether the armorer was continuing with other work at the time.

 

Still, six months for armor for a single horse. I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume a quarter of that amount of time for a a man-sized suit. Add time for embellishments and such, and add more time if the armor is to be fitted (as opposed to general measurements).

 

I'll keep lookin'.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Reasonable Construction Times

 

Not sure if this is helpful or not, but here's another tidbit:

 

"It depends on whether you're talking about plain stuff or not, and whether you want to address the time spent by the various specialists - plate armour makers didn't smelt their own metal, nor make their own hinges and fasteners, nor strap or glove their own work. They didn't do a lot of the decoration, either, unless those specialists were part of the shop, which they were in the late 16th c. I don't think they were in the 15th c., but I'm not sure. Big Italian shops routinely turned out an average of one full armour a day, which they started doing in the 15th c. and continued through a good bit of the 16th c., as noted on p. 23 of 'Heroic Armor of the Italian Renaissance' by Pyhrr and Gody. In the late 16th century, no more than a dozen men could do it. As more care was lavished on an armour, the time would naturally increase. Swords were very similar. A plain weapon of the 16th c. could be made in hours. "

[Outsider]

Re: Reasonable Construction Times

 

It isnt plate but....

 

Starting with wire it takes me about 200 hours using hand tools to form the rings and fit them to make an unriveted hauberk. If I were riveting the rings, I would have to add another manipulation of the rings (prepare them to receive rivets by heating & flattening the ends), I would have to make the rivets themselves, then I would have to actually rivet the rings. Probably another 3-400 hours. This is working alone, of course.

 

So my estimate is that a mail hauberk, well linked and rivetted, would require 600 hours labor, though much of it could be done by apprentices.

 

And what I've heard is that plate armor (unadorned) was faster to make than mail.

[Ner0Sputnik]

Re: Reasonable Construction Times

 

And another much shorter answer;

… 3 days to smelt, 1 week to forge, 3 days to planish and shape…

 

So, for a fantasy campaign, Tolkien-esque. Saying two weeks for an "off the rack" sword. An extra week for customizations and probably double it for anthing intricate. Sound about right?

 

Good to know!

[Gary Ciaramella]

Re: Reasonable Construction Times

 

I caught part of a documentry on discovery yesterday that said a modern armorsmith takes about 9 months to make a complete suit of plate armor by himself... reduce that appropriately if he has assistants.

[Outsider]

Re: Reasonable Construction Times

 

I caught part of a documentry on discovery yesterday that said a modern armorsmith takes about 9 months to make a complete suit of plate armor by himself... reduce that appropriately if he has assistants.

 

What sort of plate, though, and starting from what point?

 

Fully articulated Maximilian style fluted plate starting from ingots or ore, using all hand tools?

[The Hyborian]

Re: Reasonable Construction Times

 

I cant give you a realistic time frame for plate, but would toss in the fact that it had to be made to order and fitted to the wearer. You dont go into a shop and buy a set of platemail, as has happened in so many D&D campaigns. If its not made to fit your body it probably would do more harm than good (transfering the force of the blow squarly into your collar bone, that kind of thing). My semi-informed guess is that you are looking at a several weeks work at least for a master and some assistants, but thats half guess.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Reasonable Construction Times

 

I cant give you a realistic time frame for plate' date=' but would toss in the fact that it had to be made to order and fitted to the wearer. You dont go into a shop and buy a set of platemail, as has happened in so many D&D campaigns. If its not made to fit your body it probably would do more harm than good (transfering the force of the blow squarly into your collar bone, that kind of thing). My semi-informed guess is that you are looking at a several weeks work at least for a master and some assistants, but thats half guess.[/quote']

 

It didn't have to be made to specifically fit a single person, actually, but general measurements would help (like buying a suit off the rack as opposed to a tailor-made one). Tailoring a suit of plate to one person would indeed take longer than a standard breastplate-and-greaves sort of thing.

 

However, the smith usually only hammered out the plate. The padding, fixtures & fastenings & buckles, and any decorative finishings would usually be done by other people. Also, it would depend on whether the armorer was working on anything else at the time.

 

By the way, Hyborian, that's a lot of rep

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Reasonable Construction Times

 

I'm wondering if any of the history buffs in heroland can assist me: (snip)

The Harn gurus didn't know???

 

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Reasonable Construction Times

 

While the party has no mages (they've never even met one and I'm not sure they ever will)' date=' (snip)[/quote']Oh, my character is actually a mage as well. Did I forget to mention that before? Very powerful...

I'm feeling prickly this morning - I had to walk a mile in driving wet snow to get from the bus stop to work.

 

CRANKY WARNING:

Oh...

 

Sorry... turn will be submitted tomorrow, oh great GameMaster!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It snows in Isreal?

[Markdoc]

Re: Reasonable Construction Times

 

Sorry to resurrect an od topic, but there seem to be some pretty wild misconceptions running about, so it might be worth addressing...

 

OK, first off, weapons (specifically, swords). There's two ways to make a sword. If you are starting from scratch, you need to smelt and purify your ore (normally a weaponsmith would not do this, but would buy stock already prepared). In the feudal era, though, stock wasn't always available. I've watched this being done at Gammel Lejre, here in Denmark, using only period tools. To prepare enough stock from ore, will take about 4-5 person-days, IF the person knows what he is doing.

 

Once you have your stock, the two ways to make the weapon are:

1. simply melt your stock, pour it into a sword-shaped mould and once it has cooled, grind the edges, and add a handle. Total time, about 6 hours. Swords made this way are cheap, and show it. They break and bend relatively easily, but we know (because the moulds remain) that Feudal era smiths in Scandanavia, the UK, and Northern Germany made them this way. It was used all over to make axes and spear heads, which are far harder to bend, which is is why these weapons were so much cheaper than swords.

2. Heat (but do not melt) your stock and beat it to shape, with hammers. This process normally also included tempering (exposing the metal to flames made with different amounts of charcoal during firing to incorporate or remove carbon. Normally the stock would be beaten out and reheated multiple times during this process. Some cultures used blades made from a single piece of stock, and provided cutting edges and a flexible core by heating and reheating, beating out (and removing carbon, to give steel) then folding the metal back on itself many times then reintroducing carbon to the thinner cutting edges as the last phase. This is the secret behind the famous Toledo steel, but individual pieces made this way have been found all over Europe, so the process was reasonably widely known. A quicker method is to beat your stock into a core and fire it with low charcoal to make a steel core, then fuse it with edges prepared seperately in a high charcoal firing (pattern welding). To make sword using refolding could take anywhere from a couple of weeks to several months for an armourer and several assistants depending on their tools, the quality of the metal, how anal the smith was about quality, and so on. Making a pattern-welded blade would take about one third to one quarter of the time. Note that this is the time to make a serviceable blade for combat - polishing, engraving and embellishing could easily more than double the time.

 

Likewise armour can be made two ways: blacksmithing and whitesmithing. Blacksmithing is similar in some ways to the cheap way of making swords (though there's no melting). Instead, you heat a sheet of metal precut to shape in a big forge and then use a roller or a maul to beat it to shape, using a form. This is fast (using period tools, about 4-5 days for a smith and several assistants to make a full suit of plate). It has the same weakness though as fast, cheap swords - the metal is stressed during pressing out and the armourer has no control over metal structure. So the piece may have defects and is prone to cracking. Also in this process, you don't spend a lot of time working the edges, so the armour will be weaker (no reinforcing), wear faster and it may crack, given a good hit.

However, armour was made this way - the big armouries of Italy and Austria (particularly at Graz) churned out munition plate armours by the thousand, every year, through the high medieval period. Contrary to what was stated, plate armour does NOT have to be fitted to the individual. Munition plate was made to basic forms.

Whitesmithing, in contrast, uses graduated tempering, similar to what was described above - the metal is heated in a limited area in a small forge, and worked with a hammer multiple times - much of the basic shaping is done without heating at all, which is of course much more labour intensive. In addition, multiple firings are required. However, the advantage is that the metal can be precisely controlled - a flexible steel core and a hardened, less flexible surface makes the armour far more durable. I have to admit we don't actually know how long this process took. Modern armourers, using period techniques can make a full suit of plate in a few weeks (one smith, several assistants) but fluting, rolling the edges and so on can easily double that time (or much more!). Also modern armourers have access to much more consistent metal so time spent on firing is probably reduced. Still, if you said a month, you probably would not be far off. Again, embossing, gilding, engraving and so on, would greatly increase that time. That's why royal armours could take months to make!

 

Cheers, Mark