To my understanding Damascus was indeed not needed anymore as sword fighting came out of fashion. For swords it was very useful to have flexible yet sharp blades. Or has Damascus steel been traditionally used for knives too?
These days we have a molecular knowledge of steel and can control and test the microstructure at that scale. If you really want the best knife you look to metallurgists not artisans. Whatever you could do with Damascus steel you could do better with modern alloys and science.
There's nothing wrong with the old ways, but there is a lot of magical thinking about knives and swords that doesn't have much basis in reality. Buying in to the mythology can be fun as long as you don't get too attached to the myth and start confusing it with actual utility.
In other words, nobody owns a Rolex because they think it'll do a better job at letting them know the time.
Are you arguing that modern alloys and methods can do a better job at that than Damascus or other classical methods involving layering and folding?
But still, the patterns can be beautiful. I've seen blades with patterns that resemble engravings. Maybe the approaches could be merged, to yield modern performance with classic beauty.
Someone could certainly do some studies comparing methods and results, but anything of that matter would be very easy to bias.
What is clear is that classical methods are being employed by artists and not scientists. Mythology and visual appeal are being used to sell things, not quantifiable facts.
What matters now is mostly appearance. And maybe vague stuff about ability to keep an edge. But back in the day, you were in deep shit if your sword shattered. Or even got notched, if that put you off the flow.
In war, people mostly use polearms. In a sword fight, as has been shown in many HEMA videos i have seen, it's over in a single exchange. At that point it doesn't matter if your sword is shattered or not. And the idea that your sword being notched will 'put you off the flow' just doesn't buy it for me.
If you are using it in a battle and your sword breaks after the first exchange, what then?
Here is an hour long documentary answering your question: https://www.pbs.org/video/nova-secrets-viking-sword/
You're thinking of theatrical fencing. All that cling-clang-cling makes for great visuals and sound but is undesirable in real combat.
Unless you have two knights in full armor clobbering each other over the head (at which point a mace is probably more efficient than a delicate sword) sword-on-sword contact is a means of last resort when you can't move out of the way.
Although D&D may have taught you differently, a "sword block" is a wasted counter-attack. Why bother binding your sword if you could have used the opportunity to slip out of the way and catch the opponent off balance and end him?
In fact, blocking is what sidearms are for. Grab a dagger or a buckler and take down the opponent's sword without binding yours. If swords do touch in combat it's usually at an angle and just enough to deflect the blow without overcommitting too much to risk wasting a the chance to get in a counter.
(full disclosure: I'm talking about European medieval swords and from having watched experienced HEMA fighters)
But still, stuff happens.
I dunno, I did a bit of fencing and I know there are all sorts of ways to bind the blade and counterattack simultaneously.
In fact, the a HUGE portion of the Die Blume des Kampfes (historical weapons manual) clearly includes a variety of sword-binding techniques. See the pictures yourself if you don't believe me:
http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Die_Blume_des_Kampfes#Sword
It would seem that binding, blocking, and counter-attacking is a fundamental skill of historical sword fighters.
In my experience, it is virtually impossible to avoid the opponent's blade like a Hollywood sword master. Swords are surprisingly light when held with two hands (even a 5lb Claymore moves very quickly, even in the hands of a weakling!!), far faster than you can move your torso or even legs.
EDIT: Lots of other stuff here, but I was ranting. So I deleted it.
The reason the 5lb sword still moves swiftly is that it's not used for a Hollywood cleave.
But about those Claymores. You're right that they'd be slow for cleaves, with the huge rotational inertia. But in melee, it's my impression (perhaps colored by too much fiction) that one can make that an advantage. Basically, by never reversing direction, but rather by following 3D Lissajous curves. Which isn't really that different from Aikido.
The only problem with that is that it creates predictability, which is what you want to avoid.
That said, my entire argument was that it's not helpful to imagine swords as having been specifically designed for causing damage to other swords or even withstanding repeat blade-on-blade strikes for extended period of times. And we seem to agree on that.
http://cfd.citizen.co.jp/english/prod-tech/product/pdf/datas...
This $0.79 (yes, 79 cents) quartz crystal is specified at 5 ppm (parts per million), or 0.432 spd.
That's its manufacturing tolerance by the way. With proper calibration, you can get it better than that. (Ex: a microcontroller tuned against an atomic clock, you can add / subtract cycles to get higher accuracy. Like, every million cycles, add or subtract a 5 cycle offset to correct for any manufacturing error).
The temperature turnover point is guaranteed to be 25C +/- 5C. Which means the crystal won't drift due to temperature somewhere in the 20C to 30C range.
Quartz crystal clocks from cheap Casio watches are basically all you need with modern technology. Low cost, low-drift, super cheap, high-reliability from manufacturing, cheap electronics (just a counter + a cycle offset if you calibrate), cheap calibration (atomic clock radio signals from any 1st world country is free).
32768 is the perfect number for 15-bit register. Move the second hand every 2^15 cycles (aka: every 15-bit overflow), possibly with a bit of offset if you have a calibration routine somewhere.
You can get temperature compensated quartz watches that run at 10 or 5 spy. Note that watches spend a lot of time above 30C. There's not much point in calibrating relative to an atomic signal in a watch unless you're already thermocompensated.
It's arguable there's also no point unless you have hand correction tech (seen in some Casios and Citizens) too.