Swords: Broad or Dainty and Why bother?

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 45716


> GreyWolf wrote:
> >The sort of sword you'd get is the one you'd expect a
> >roman to use: a short, broad bladed, iron or steel sword. At first I
> >thought I could play the "wizards are advanced" card, but wizards
> >wouldn't be proficient in armoury tech - more the reverse, actually.
> 

A train of thought, linking in with the "Why bother to have a sword?" thread 
and veering off at a slight tangent on the technology front. 

Ultimately it's the control of the material itself, particularly when we are 
talking about something like iron, which has a very high melting point and 
can be very brittle if the process is not carefully controlled which is the 
most critical part of the process. The design of a weapon matters little if 
its material  has too little strength (and someone no doubt will be able to 
say whether it is the Roman thrusting type or the mediaeval slashing type 
which needs the greater: I can't remember.)

Going  further back to prehistoric times, it does seem as if metal workers 
may have had a very special, perhaps even mystical, shamanic role. 

The process of turning base ore into shining, pure metal is after all very 
like the concept of alchemy and it is likely that the secret of metal 
smelting was for a long time the closely guarded secret of a few individuals 
in any society.

It has been suggested that myths such as that of the Sword in the Stone may 
date back in concept possibly even as far as the Bronze Age. So perhaps, 
rather than Wizards not needing armoury technology, the reverse is true and 
the concept of wizardry may in part have grown out of the ability of a few to 
control metals and "magically" produce a shining sword from some 
unimpressive-looking rocks. (And of course, out of a mould, almost literally 
drawing a sword from a stone.)

Aside from this, of course, the bearing of arms does not necessarily have 
anything to do with the *need* to bear arms. In Iron Age Central Europe, 
swords form an important part of the iconography and are typically found as 
prestige grave goods. They don't necessarily indicate that their owners were 
active warriors. Again, in Britain, a sword was one of the accoutrements of 
the Eighteenth Century Regency Buck but was more of a fashion statement than 
an object of practical value.

We have to be very careful in discerning the meanings of artefacts. They are 
only things and *in isolation* tell us only a very limited amount about the 
people who owned them.

Eloise


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]