Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 22:34:49 GMT
Actually, I'm very happy being born in this age. Longer life expectency, higher living standard, the internet, and sub-$300 swords for crying out loud. However, I do sometimes suspect I was born in the wrong reality. o.O Thank you Anders. I like this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 23:05:02 GMT
I think the sword's greatest potential place in modern times would be as a weapon of honour; were duels still commonplace, a duel of swords seems far more gentlemanly and skill-oriented than one of firearms. To carry a sword would represent one's readiness to defend one's good name.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 23:12:06 GMT
I think it would be a much more polite society if people carried around swords. Not only is there that air of nobility, but then you have to think that a heckler would think twice before harassing some dude with a sword. But it's illegal in Illinois.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2010 23:22:06 GMT
To me, this isn't specific to swords, but all personally owned and carried weapons, including firearms.
From my perspective, the sociopolitical history of the Western world during the last 200 years or so (but especially this century) has been more and more control by governments over individuals. This isn't part of some grand conspiracy, but the inevitable result of those in power desiring more power. The first and second industrial revolutions, and the communications revolutions (Telephone and Television) enabled those in power the practical means to assert more control, whereas in the times before when government by practicality had to be limited (especially in the West and in rural areas that couldn't support extensive governmental services) personal defense was necessary.
A well-armed populace is a threat to a government's own potential power in the form of its armed forces and police. An unarmed populace cannot hope to fight against a corrupt government by force, and must rely on trying to change it through the system in place, which is easily manipulated in a corrupt system.
The _societal_ taboo against publicly carried weapons is a result of the desire of politicians to lessen individual power. It was/is done in two ways: by framing people who have weapons as criminals or insane, and by utilitarian arguments about public health, and the politician favorite, child safety.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 0:14:14 GMT
True; those in power would argue that they wish to minimize uncertainty by placing such power solely in the hands of a "benevolent" governing body. However, as government is created and run by humans, it is equally predisposed to corruption or ineptitude. As such, citizens should definitely arm themselves; if our government should fail us, it is imperative that we be able to protect ourselves. Furthermore, it is the solemn duty of the people to change or overthrow a corrupt or ineffective government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 0:24:18 GMT
all valid points. star wars analogy is a practical one. even in Obi Wan Kenobi's old hermit shack he had edged weapons on his walls probably to scare Jawas lol.
but society could use some honor. and harcken back to a noble way of life. we live in a great time, with tech. but if thing's go back badly. it's the sword that will never run out of bullets. our sub 300 dollar artworks will be worth more then gold. let' just pray it doesnt come to that.
man i am so glad to be a member of this forum too; seeing my view isnt just in my hermit head lol. thanks all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 1:39:27 GMT
Great subject. I know that most of us feel we were born in the wrong century, lol. Actually, I'm very happy being born in this age. Longer life expectency, higher living standard, the internet, and sub-$300 swords for crying out loud. However, I do sometimes suspect I was born in the wrong reality. o.O Just wait till the zombie apocalypse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 2:00:52 GMT
Yeah, they would have to have those "switchblade katanas" the young Sulu used in the latest Star Trek movie. Oi Vey. Those thing were ridiculous enough in the movie. if by ridiculous you mean badass, then i totally agree...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 2:04:13 GMT
I don't really buy the rise of firearms as an explanation for the decline of civilian swords. After all, there were plenty of guns in the 17:th and 18:th centuries and back then swords were all the rage. au contraire... the firearms of that age were slow, cumbersome, unreliable single shot weapons. they were really just an opening move. with the advent of the repeating rifle and the revolver it really was a swift trip to obsolescence for edged weapons. they'll always have their place but it'll be well behind anything that goes bang.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 2:15:02 GMT
Sorry guys but there were laws against carrying swords in some German towns and cities in the 15th century. I believe there were other places that restricted swords at the same time. Daggers and knives were still freely carried though. The people were not necessarily politer, fights were common. I was just reading in a new book on HEMA that the fechtbucher had techniques that would cripple beside ones that simply controlled the opponent because the fighting men could get brought to a court of law if they were too violent. Some drunk idiot comes at you with a knife and you'd have to show that you avoided trying to kill or maim him. Civilian carry of weapons diminished as dueling became less acceptable. People could be plenty rude but a quick quip earned more respect than a blade. Also, these last civilian swords were Smallswords; they're fearsome in trained hands but not to my liking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 2:26:56 GMT
I really would like to carry my sword around... BUT I live in Boston, so that's an automatic no... I think it fell out of favor (among many other things) because of idiots who misused them. You know what I mean, that as*hole you see in the news that tried to rob a store with a sword, or killed someone with it, or used it to scare someone... at some point, after they had enough of such stupidity, the people upstairs took everyone's swords anyway, I chuckled when I saw forestfox's forum rank ( Man at arms), SBG has got to do something about that...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 2:37:52 GMT
If you read history, LA California was the last place for civillion Sword Duals, and it was banned, When the Gringos showd up after 1849 with all thoes Colts (1856 navy- and so forth) that was it, look at the Spanish/Mexican US war, we won the area of NewMexico and Arizona, the Mexicans, lost Real Bad, Real Bad.....SanMarc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 5:12:31 GMT
I think maybe money and social status might have had something to do with it. Swords have always kinda been the weapons of the nobility, but the concept of noblemen isn't really around anymore. That and if guns are more effective, sure there's nothing stopping you from carrying a sword with your gun, but it's some extra expense you don't really need.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 5:41:05 GMT
In the humble opinion of the guy typing this, the taboo of walking around armed on a daily basis is the result of increasing comfort-enhancing technology, automated farming, and generally increasing population density in large cities. Fewer and fewer people are required in the efficient running of farms, so the agricultural corner of society has become less a norm and more a niche. People in cities no longer have to chop firewood, care for horses, or even cook food, if they don't want to. All of our basic survival needs are taken care of for us... and the further removed we are from looking after our own survival, the less we consider the necessity of self-defense. A person who lives in the middle of nowhere knows what it takes to keep the wolves and bears at bay. Most people in cities have only seen such things on TV.
But yeah... for the other point, swords were replaced by firearms... after efficient cartridges and semi-automatic fire became commonplace. Now we have guns the size of large knives capable of popping a human head like a grape, so I sure as hell wouldn't want to bring a sword to a gunfight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 5:42:17 GMT
Combined with the fact that people don't "play fair" or abide by rules in this day in age, swords are just impractical by today's standards. Not to derail this thread, but I keep hearing statements like this and I've got to say this is a serious case of viewing the past through rose-colored lenses. The entire reason someone would carry a sword in the FIRST place is because people, REGARDLESS OF TIME PERIOD, don't "play fair". No matter what year you look at, there's been criminals. These are people that, by definition, don't abide by the rules. For whatever reason, usually either desperation or plain old greed, if someone is willing to confront you directly to take something of yours (be it your wallet or your life), they aren't going to be nice about it. No where in time was there a general trend of polite criminals. The use of a sword for self defense simply isn't as practical as it sounds, even when swords WERE carried. Criminals were far less likely to attack with a sword (read: pricey) as they were to stab you out of nowhere (think prison-shanking) or club you over the head as you turn a corner. If they DID confront you face-to-face, it's because they were an idiot, they had a better weapon than you, or they had the advantage of numbers. People romanticize the past but, in reality, criminals never had a sense of "honor". Honor is made up concept. It's pretend. At best, it's a facade. Honor is what makes you strive for a "fair fight". Honor is what makes you think, given a combat situation, that you shouldn't use advantages beyond those available to your opponent. This is phooey. If someone attacks you in a dark alley with a sword, "honor" would dictate you fend them off with a sword. That's fine, if you so wish to do so. But what if you're not alone? What if yours isn't the only life as stake? Would you risk the lives of your wife and child because your concept of honor says you shouldn't take every available advantage (be it throwing an object at them, sand in their face, shooting them, etc)? If you lose, it's their lives on the line. Hell, if you want, I could argue that having training and skill in self defense could be considered an unfair advantage in a fight. So where does one draw the line? Summary: Swords are no longer carried by civilians for defense because of their impracticality. There is FAR more effective forms of defense available (even less-than-lethal forms, which have a better range), which makes a sword IRRESPONSIBLE for defense in most cases. There is no honor in war, there's no such thing as a fair fight, and forgoing an advantage when your life depends on it is just plain silly. /rant end/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 8:44:07 GMT
Well, I don't want to argue semantics with you, but "honor" is another way of saying "trustworthiness." Now, I can't fault you for your use of honor in your rant as the way the thread was going honor had meant being polite.
But if a person were to be jumped in a dark alley with their wife and kids in tow, I would say it would be dishonorable NOT to gouge, claw, bite and kick in places that wouldn't be "polite." If your family trusts you, you'd be dishonorable to them if you didn't do anything in your power to protect them.
But yeah, I agree with your whole rant if we replaced "honor" with "politeness"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 9:41:43 GMT
Well, I don't want to argue semantics with you, but "honor" is another way of saying "trustworthiness." Now, I can't fault you for your use of honor in your rant as the way the thread was going honor had meant being polite. But if a person were to be jumped in a dark alley with their wife and kids in tow, I would say it would be dishonorable NOT to gouge, claw, bite and kick in places that wouldn't be "polite." If your family trusts you, you'd be dishonorable to them if you didn't do anything in your power to protect them. But yeah, I agree with your whole rant if we replaced "honor" with "politeness" I suppose I should've expanded on where I'm coming from. I've dealt with numerous people who dislike firearms (though I personally believe this to be silly, it's their right to like/dislike as they please), believing them to be weapons of violence. The part that BOTHERS me is that these people (it's a sword fan forum on facebook) then turn around and claim they would prefer to carry a sword for self/home defense because it "takes more skill" and is more "honorable" to have to look your opponent in the eye and face off in melee combat... Does anyone else see the ridiculousness? They fully admit that their sense of "honor" makes them prefer a "fair fight" (which at best, would involve them running someone through with a sword and at worst would involve them dying and leaving their family defenseless) as oppose to removing the threat from a distance. They also are completely convinced that operating a firearm requires zero skill; just point and shoot. Also, that swords require years of training before you can use one well enough to even harm a human being... They just don't get that any idiot can certainly pick up either and kill someone. The training and skill comes into play to keep the wielder alive DURING that process. I actually got one of these people to admit that he would respect a CRIMINAL who uses a SWORD more than a VICTIM armed with a GUN. Just makes me want to tear my hair out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 9:58:05 GMT
I think maybe money and social status might have had something to do with it. Swords have always kinda been the weapons of the nobility, but the concept of noblemen isn't really around anymore. That and if guns are more effective, sure there's nothing stopping you from carrying a sword with your gun, but it's some extra expense you don't really need. IMHO this touches on the reason why the wearing of swords fell out of favor- the social leveling following from the "Age of Reason" and the centralization of power with the development of nations. The wearing of swords was always confined to the upper classes, as a symbol of their rank and an implicit indication of how they achieved and maintained that rank- by violence. I'm as fond of the romantic tales of honor and chivalry as anyone, but I know enough history to understand that these are myths, and that the sword-bearing aristocracies of former times maintained their position by violence. When the aristocracies became less powerful, coinciding with the rise of the nation-state, wearing of swords was outlawed or socially prohibited. The most recent example is Japan. Taking this further probably gets too much into politics, so I won't. Cheers Marc E
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 10:24:08 GMT
Just get a dang .357
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2010 11:13:55 GMT
steckfretman, you get a karma for your rant. People can be pretty silly about this.
Well that's... weird... There's no exalt button for you, lol.
|
|