Ever Wish War Was Still Fought With The Sword And Shield??

silenthunterstudios said:
Don't hate guns. Hate the people that abuse them. BTW, warfare was not fought with swords. It was fought with long knives, battle axes, spears, maces, bows and arrows and lots of blood, sweat and tears. Only the wealthy had swords. And the vikings...
Click to expand...

Don't forget spears. Far more important in melee warfare than the sword ever was.
 
I know all war is tragedy. Most of the periods that used edged weapons were not all that great despite what the media and movies portray. I know a kill is a kill. I know that shooting properly and accuratly are quite difficult,but so is using a sword. I am more targeting the weapons of mass destruction. In old times,no one had to worry about some petty international incident that could possibly end the world with the push of a button. We didn't have hydrogen bombs.In this case almost any other small armament seems reasonable and honorable. I also just like swords over guns...just simple preference I guess.
 
I'm still waiting for Smith & Wesson to make a phaser.


Come on, it's the 21st century. Hurry up!
 
Of course, another irony to all this is that if you go back in time to live in a swordy age, you instantly lose internet access to BFC.
 
Okay, imagine this. Big big big fight. Afterwards, the field is a free for all. You're still alive, and someone, covered in blood, not all of it their own, is taking your boots, your weapons, as you moan in pain, and then slits your throat if they have any compassion at all, so that the wolves don't eat you while you're still alive.
 
I do not "wish war was still fought with the Sword and Shield". But I can see why some wish it was. I think the sword is the main reason for this wish.

Swords have sometimes been seen to have a special glamour beyond other weapons. Depending on time and place, the sword has served as a sceptre of power and symbol of authority; An ornament of dress and a dueling weapon to settle disputes of honor among "gentlemen".

Today, swords seem to hold a special place in the popular imagination. When I last looked in the Barnes & Noble Science Fiction/Fantasy section, swords were depicted on the cover art of at least one in ten paperbacks, outnumbering all other weapons combined; Usually the sword is being wielded by the hero.

The U.S. Marines still wear ceremonial swords, harking back to former glory. Lady Justice carries a sword in her right hand and scales in the left.

John Brown and his men did bloody work in Kansas with antique designed broadswords, making a grisly statement of righteousness. And The Battle Hymn of the Republic proclaims "He has loosed the fateful lightening of his terrible swift sword"; And elsewhere "His truth is marching on".

From a purely practical point of view, swords, in all the forms they took over the centuries, were simply one of the many lethal tools in the world of weaponry and they were generally overshadowed by the more versatile spear or pike. They were nothing special. Just another weapon serving a certain function.

Personally, I admire swords and own a few. Occasionally I battle inanimate objects with them. But I have no wish to return to the time of sword and shield.
 
NuclearWinterRat1 said:
I know all war is tragedy. Most of the periods that used edged weapons were not all that great despite what the media and movies portray. I know a kill is a kill. I know that shooting properly and accuratly are quite difficult,but so is using a sword. I am more targeting the weapons of mass destruction. In old times,no one had to worry about some petty international incident that could possibly end the world with the push of a button. We didn't have hydrogen bombs.In this case almost any other small armament seems reasonable and honorable. I also just like swords over guns...just simple preference I guess.
Click to expand...

Blades have killed more people than the bomb has, or will more likely than not.
 
OldPhysics said:
Not really.

In my youth, I sought out and read (some after translation) contemporary accounts of melees in those 'good old days.'

Not my idea of fun...or of honor. People were hacked apart with dull crow-bars and left to die on the field. The lucky ones eventually received a coup-de-grace -- and it really was a 'grace' for them.

I've been to war -- modern war. And that was bad enough for me.
Click to expand...

Keegan looked at this question in this book:

51E5N1FWVBL._SS500_.jpg


He argues that the technology didn't really make any differece. War is war and killing is killing. Whether you are hacked apart by sword and axe, or blown apart by an IED, the fear, pain, and suffering amounts to the same thing, and you are still just as dead. BTW, Keegan finds an interesting phenomenon while conducting his research, and this book is definitely a good addition to anyone's bookcase.

n2s
 
NuclearWinterRat1 said:
Silent You are absolutley right. Any weapon in the wrong hands is dangerous and yes that does include swords and knives.
Click to expand...

...and, screwdrivers, and bottles, and rolling pins, and rocks, and sticks, and just about anything else that is solid, or toxic. Only a fool would try to childproof the world; you would have to turn it into a giant padded cell.

n2s
 
So it's clear that swords were rarely, if ever, the primary soldier's weapon. so what the threadi's thinking of is more of a civilian seting wherein people carried swords openly and settled most things with it. i can think of two periods and places:

1. in japan just before ieiasu united the islands, when people: samurai, ronin, even plain joes carried swords (though only real bushis carried two).

2. europe during the 30-year war. no telling if the next man you meet is a compatriot, or a foreigner; whether if he's going to greet you familiar or demand your money; whether he'll bother to issue a challenge or draw behind your back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top