THE SWORD
It’s edge is strong, long, and sharp, A blade for a warrior, it quickens the heart.
A weapon of power a symbol of faith, steel finger of fire, cold talisman of strength.
It holds no real master, knows no true friend
It has but one purpose, to murder and rend.
But a mans passion stirs, Behold! the naked blade.
Hands grasp the hilt, richly engraved.
The thrill of cold steel held tight in ones grasp, bring visions of battle and yank forth a gasp.
Men of true courage whose hearts hold no hate, have picked up the sword and made themselves great.
But, THE SWORD cares not whose soul it must drink and will fight for a good man or strike down a saint.
The evil men do to further their wage, makes THE SWORD behave in one of two ways,
To further the cause of evil reward, or to stop the worlds evils in the name of the Lord.
I was in a shop that sold real Japanese swords once. I pulled one part way out of its scabbard and felt the edge. It was really sharp. In that moment, the romance and majesty of The Sword vanished from my mind forever. Swords are nothing but great big kitchen knives, and they only bestow “glory” by cutting people.
Ahh yes, the sword as a symbol of power. What better weapon to symbolise a soldier killing a total stranger (who happens to wear a different uniform from his) while both wishing they could be home with their loved ones?
First time I’ve seem poetry in the SDMB for a while.
A sword, like a kitchen knife or a plowshare, is just a tool, a machine. (Fine, a Simple Machine).
A mechanism for applying force and getting improved results.
One one side, this is just an iteration of the stale argument about the POTENTIAL for evil uses of technology.
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” Julius Caesar
Next you’ll be blaming the Pen for Hate Crimes, the Crusades, etc. Or Fire. In a million years, will someone write a poem about fusion bombs as a romantic weapon of the past?
I think there is a little more to it than that DevilDan.
The end of the sword as a weapon of war is the end of an era in which personal combat was very much that, personal (well, most of the time). It was a test of skill, even a spiritual thing: The japanese believed that a warrior was fated to win a particular duel, it was written in the stars.
In the modern era combat is no longer you and the enemy engaged in hand to hand combat. It’s some guy in a control room a hundred miles away pushign a red button and killing thousands of soldiers.
Not that either way of combat is ‘better’ than another. War sucks anyway you look at it, but you cannot deny the differences.
How “personal” is the more normal version of combat (NOT a duel)? Just mobs of people running at each other.
We can romanticize warfare and bloodshed, if we wish. I appreciate the poem on its aesthetic merits, certainly. From my POV, focusing on the sword is missing the real issues, however.
The point I was trying to make is that there’s no real difference between a sword, a bullet, or a cruise missile. Except for the fact that a cruise missile can minimize bloodshed, if used properly and intelligently, while a sword pretty much only works at the “make you bleed” level.
They also believed that having the right parents gave you the divine right to kill anyone with a less impressive heritage. People used to believe in all sorts of stupid shit. I enjoy a good medieval epic as much as the next guy, but let’s not forget that we’re talking about a brutal and tyrannical ruling class that spent most of its down time in between slaughtering peasants coming up with elaborate rationalizations for why they have the moral right to slaughter peasants. The real difference between modern and medieval warfare lies chiefly in the fact that we no longer believe personal worth can be best determined by body count. I’d say this is very much a good thing.
Ignoring that plenty of soldiers still die in combat, let’s considered what really replaced the sword-armed warrior. Not high tech weaponry, but archers, who were not noble born, and war-engines; the death of the sword was brought about by the engineers and skilled and trained workers. This could be seen as the beginning of the middle class.
I would hardly agree that archers “replaced” foot soldiers, considering that archery in warfare goes all the way back to Sargon, 2300 BC. Probably earlier.
One of the main lessons of military history: variety beats variety. Firearms only barely replaced melee weapons (and that’s ignoring bayonets) well into the Twentieth century. Archery was really only an attrition weapon, regardless of what you saw Legolas do in the movies.
Besides, I thought Legolas was noble born (I refuse to check that out; I know if I’m wrong some will set me straight with a chapter, page and line number) (hint).
I have the idea from some where that archers became increasingly more important in war-fare in Europe sometime around the 12th or 13th centurary, but I am definitely using an unusual orifice for speech here.
If I can find the place where I got this idea in a reasonable length of time, I’ll get back to you.
This is a picture of a page in a book I accidently found on Amazon. In part it says, [on the fourth page]
" … we shall maintain that archery was important throughout the period of 1066 though 1485, and shall try to counter the bias and neglect of …" contemporaneous sources.
So I maybe referring to some alternative interpretations, I don’t know. I’ll keep looking for something better.
So crossbows were light, fast, accurate, and could be used from a distance; and some military commanders knew how to use archers very effectively. Furthermore, archers were highly valued.
I knew bows, and projectile weapons in general, were a major technological advance in European warfare.
This conversation has resumed its regularly scheduled orifice.
