|
Post by masahiro560 on Mar 27, 2011 13:53:09 GMT
You probably did misunderstood me I would never imply that the swords should be honored. I was implying that.. such weapons that easily killed people... can also be easily destroyed. How much more can my people be destroyed by other weapons? ( I know it's a fallacy but it's an opinion based on paranoia I guess :roll: ) It's confusing really, that's why I never elaborated on those words
|
|
|
Post by mikeS on Mar 28, 2011 21:32:56 GMT
my thoughts in REDand ill say it right off the bat....i dont mean or intend to belittle single out attack or otherwise dis-credit the post im or its author that i am responding too...i can see when reading thins on a computer how it is hard to judge HOW things are aid... but i mean nothing but well wishes and to offer my personal opinions/feelings... sorry if it comes off any other way... my thoughts on the whole matter are along with the above, that, It is a terrible tragedy to have thrown such things away.... but it happens all the time....the spanish destroyed all of the mayans and S.Amer. Indian history because it was "un-christian" dont we wish we had those books now? ![???](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) how much information was lost? i think it is bad practice to take what defines a people when they are defeated and to just dispense it away without thinknkg whether it may become important... if the us was defeated would they wip e out evry corvette they could find? i just think its so sad... and i hope the practice is discontinued....because we always realize what a stupid decision it was 100 yrs later haha taking away the swords would in NO way take the "warrior" out of a culture...if anything i would assume it to have an opposite effect... and again... i do not APPROVE of killing, for any reason, when it comes to war.... but i also dont think its ok to say that swords are bad because they were made to kill and they did kill so get rid of them.... wow if your still reading i Commend you for putting up with my rant! i apologize , i did not intend it to be so long!
|
|
|
Post by mikeS on Mar 28, 2011 21:36:17 GMT
wow thats terrible that they are in bad shape....i really wish you had ended up with them... if you still know him tell him ill help pay for the preservation/restoration hahahahahah
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Mar 29, 2011 15:24:53 GMT
Me: "They may deserve honour for the ideal of chivalry and the fact that rarely they were actually used for a rightfull cause but lets face it: the vast majority of reasons swords were used were nothing but crimes. "---------
MikeS "This is one of the main points i am totally 180 deg. on with you.... i believe that it is good karma to appreciate all the aspects of the sword. i do not think that the vast majority of people using swords were bad and had only evil/malicious intentions...i do not beleive that swords should be thought of as only bringing death and thus have no other qualities or to say that the killing they did was dishonorable (to understand that statement read then next few paragraphs...) they were put in a place to carry such sword as a job and soldier of/to their lord. so if the lords purpose was oppression, and the soldier fought a battle and won, it could be said that it was a bad thing... but to say there were NO people using them for freedom, or for honorable revenge, or for defending ones peopl/property/or values is not how i would understand the duality of the world...for every weapon used with ill intent...there is a man who picks one up with nothing but good/pure intentions to defend against his attacker....
but the person wielding the sword rarely fought with the same intentions as the man giving orders, they went to battle because they had to, it was their duty.they DID fight for their lord but that doesnt mean they fully knew or understood the motives of the orders... but when it came down to kill or be killed in the battle, you fought for YOUR own honor and pride and for your country/clan/region/family and what you thought was right... soldiers and their weapons are misused most of the time past and present and future by the leaders who implement them... but that soldier and his weapon kill to survive, and to give glory to their honor, family, and governing body...
for example: i dont agree with any of the reasons for war in the middle east... but i dont dissaprove of soldiers killing other soldiers or using their weapons when they must do so... i dont think the soldiers are bad and that they kill for the quenching of their blood-thurst(ha wow too poetic there but u know what im sayin) ... because they are only told what to do...once they have excepted their rank, they can no longer decide whether to fire , or to kill...they may be told this is your enemy he wants to harm your village... so he does what is right and slays his enemy.... because that is the right thing to do , but if the person giving those orders was lying and had nothing but personal goals in mind or gave such orders to further their goal....that is beyond the fighters control.. and thus you cannot blame the soldier OR his WEAPON for killing, what turned out to be innocent people, who the order giver wanted out of his way so he could take over region X or to steal the clan leaders bride, or whatever money etc etc......
sure , there arre some samurai(soldiers) who DELIBERATELY align with evil rulers because they harbor the same sentiments... then there is no excuse if something bad is done.. because its what everyone involved meant to be done...."
------------
First of all, let me say that I highly respect your polite and civilized way of discussing. That's rare in the internet. Now to my point. I stated that I believe the vast majority of cases where swords were used to be crimes. You answered: "i do not think that the vast majority of people using swords were bad and had only evil/malicious intentions..."
No this differs consideraby from my statement. I didn't say the guys using swords were bad themselves or were seen as bad in their times but said their actions were crimes. That's a big difference. I'm sure the English soldier who used his sword to slaughter French didn't think of himself as being evil or malicious. But from an objective standpoint, that killing had NOTHING to do with defending your life against an attack you yourself didn't motivate. I mean, apart from truly defending your home/life/etc, the big conflicts in medieval Europe, the 100 years war, war of the roses, the crusades, but also small, regionally restricted conflicts between cities for example show that the only intention of swords was to kill because of reputation, the wish to gain more land, etc. Sure, the French i.e. had to defend their land when attacked by the English but did they have to illegally seize a throne, killing English diplomats with swords? Did they have to keep the conflict going? NO!! Nor did the English have to value the life of thousands and thousands of human beings less that a mere crown and piece of land or commit horrible crimes in France. So both sides are guilty of crimes and both sides act wrongly. To say that there's always a good and a bad sight is simply naive and a black-white thinking that is not appropriate for reality.
Let me repeat, this is not about what people at that time thought of themeselves nor are we judging them to their morals. Of course it's now easy to say ohh, the English were evil but in their time, they weren't. Nonetheless, all this is about judging actions in the past from todays point of view. For me, as for you I suppose, these wars were completely wrong, crimes so to speak. And these wars make up the majority of cases where swords were used to a great extent. Therefore I am convinced that indeed the vast majority of sword use qualifies as a crime from todays point of view.
You could compare the medieval soldier with modern terrorists. Both are convinced to fight for the right cause. Does this make their killing and using of weapons right? Of course not!!
MikeS: "it was probably a sword that was used to protect ones rights, just as often, as it was used to strip them away..."
Please give me an example of a truly correct and rightful use of the sword apart from the already mentioned self defense (though even here it's difficult. Is a knight attacked by desperate peasants who fight for freedom rightfully using his sword to defend himself? I would say no, because the knight is defending a morally corrupt and inhuman system). You see, I really have a hard time believing that the sword was used for as many good cases as for bad ones. That's its character as a weapon and humans tend to use weapons for their own good but not the good of the other guy and I dare say most of the times the reasons for the use of weapons are/were not just.
MikeS "the person wielding the sword rarely fought with the same intentions as the man giving orders, they went to battle because they had to, it was their duty."
No Englishman HAD to go to France to fight for a king sacrificing the lifes of thousands for his mere reputation. They became soldiers and went because they wanted to plunder and grow rich on the costs of other people. Now cetainly there were a few who wanted to fight for the right cause (whatever that was in their opinion) but seriously, don't tell me most didn't want to simply increase their wealth. For all times people have gone to war for exactly that cause, best example: The Danes trying to conquer England (at that time Wessex, East Anglia, Mercia and Northumberland).
To sum it up, your believe in chivalry and the rightful use of weapons honors you but is far from reality I think. Most men who bought a sword and went to war did not have to nor did they try to fight for a right cause but instead sought to enrich themselves. A sword stays an instrument of killing and per se, killing is wrong, the few situations where it is legitimated as there's no other possibility left are so rare that I believe I can rightfulla say the vast majority of cases where a sword was drawn from its scabbard was a crime and nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by Kaliber Fang on Mar 29, 2011 17:27:47 GMT
1
|
|
|
Post by Student of Sword on Mar 29, 2011 23:50:49 GMT
I read some of the previous statement and it is akin to arguing that it is OK to destroy the Bayeux Tapestry because the Normans were a bunch of oppressors (which they were).
|
|
|
Post by mikeS on Apr 11, 2011 19:44:31 GMT
hey man...i am very glad that u sw my post as polite...i didnt want it to be mean...all your points are valid...though i just wanted to explain somethings you rebutted on... i am not saying that for instance in this statement: ' a knight attacked by desperate peasants who fight for freedom rightfully using his sword to defend himself? I would say no, because the knight is defending a morally corrupt and inhuman system)." I TOTALLY agree...i was just trying to say that in order to be labeled an "attacker" there must be someone to defend themselves... so if (taliing about weapons here) the peasants came at the knight as supposed... with a weapon.. That WOULD qualify as NOT something bad... AND THATS REALLY THE ONLY EXCUSABLE circumstance... i guess i just didnt make clear that yes soldiers are usually doing the killing..but that i defend the virtues of the people they are fighting against..as they are..not doing anything bad... "They became soldiers and went because they wanted to plunder and grow rich on the costs of other people. Now cetainly there were a few who wanted to fight for the right cause (whatever that was in their opinion) but seriously, don't tell me most didn't want to simply increase their wealth. For all times people have gone to war for exactly that cause," i doubt rarely that they got any measurable amount compared to what theyre commanding figure took... i see them as merely tools that are used for corrupt purposes...and if they were fighting PURELY for the sake of being demons haha like pirates for exaple..then yes its unexcusable .most of them were born into it also...so they had a choice, yes, but they really didnt ever choose to not become what they werwe raised to be...not trying to say your wrong just that...they may have wanted to fight for their families honor and to be respectable and such as back then it was seen as a good honorable position to hold... i also just eant that they (just as today i feel is the unfortunate truth) were most times lied to if they wre to fight for an unjust reason..think... king makes semprini up to get them to fight for"what is good" u know?? "But from an objective standpoint, that killing had NOTHING to do with defending your life against an attack you yourself didn't motivate. I mean, apart from truly defending your home/life/etc, the big conflicts in medieval Europe, the 100 years war, war of the roses, the crusades, but also small, regionally restricted conflicts between cities for example show that the only intention of swords was to kill because of reputation, the wish to gain more land, etc." so true.. my point was.. that the people actually doing the killings didnt do it for that reason...the only time people fight is when they are told that their way of life is under siege, or that God is going to reak havoc if they dont this or that, or if they are evil murders with nothing but bad intentions and that they are clear from the start... haha...(i apologize for the riligous context but i hope the mods see that i am not DISCUUSSING religion...merely citing it i understand if this gets removed)... oh and one more thing i need to clarify: "this differs consideraby from my statement. I didn't say the guys using swords were bad themselves or were seen as bad in their times but said their actions were crimes. " once again i maybe should have stated further about how their motives are what makes the difference... they knew killing was wrong...but if they had a justifiable reason its alright..it was what must be done sorta deal u know/ but if they ydidnt agree with it but did it anyways then yes they are bad people...and in order to commit crimes as such they would need to be bad people.. talking murder here of course...good people do other "criminal" things but can in fact be GooD people u know? ![???](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) really all i meant was that the WEAPON is inherintly not good or bad...and that while it is most strobgly associated with the attacker...there is always someone justly defending themselves with a weapon also...it was not my intention to say WHO was justified...merely that in order to attack there must be a victim...and whichever is "killing" for a just reason is ok... haha wow .... thanks for the debate! hope as i said before i do not offend anyone....
|
|
|
Post by Elheru Aran on Apr 11, 2011 21:22:30 GMT
Not related to this particular debate, but I noted in a book on Samurai swords at Barnes and Noble the other day that the author commented that many of the collected swords weren't actually destroyed-- they were kept in warehouses until recently when they were rediscovered there and the government has started trying to distribute them to their rightful owners? Does anybody have comments on the veracity of this story?
|
|
|
Post by etiennehamel on Apr 12, 2011 17:39:45 GMT
that would be great if this was true i'm with him for this question.
|
|
|
Post by mikeS on Apr 13, 2011 0:43:44 GMT
i heard that too...even that some families hid them...i would imagine that if a soldier carried it into battle though, that there is a great chance it got destroyed ..it is unfortunate...but your right, not all were obliterated..thank goodness...
|
|