Is there a reason why guns dont have the same mythos as swords?

Is there a reason why guns don’t have the same mythos as swords?

Like there are no named guns, but thousand of named swords.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Industrial mass production strips the unique character out of everything

    A glock is a glock is a glock, why name them if you cant tell them apart

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Skill issue

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A sword is a weapon of a warrior, who hones himself to perfection. A fine art. Like an athlete.

    A man with a gun is just like a woman with a gun. Just another mook.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Swords were handmade by artisans for royalty and aristocrats. Guns are mass produced for peasant armies.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Like there are no named guns, but thousand of named swords.
    Name 1,000.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I know a guy who probably can (actually it's in character for him not to bother learning I guess)

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Excalibur, Tizona, Durendal, Joyeuse, Kusanagi, Curtana, Szczerbiec.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Arizona Sword

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    guns are mass produced, swords had to be smithed by one dude in a shed hammering away at it for 10 hours

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >guns are mass produced

      Since the last century, absolutely

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Guns are a cowardly way to fight

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Swords are expensive and historically associated with nobility. While there are cheaper swords that were made for the layman, swords as we think of them in the hands of a knight were commissioned by wealthy landed men to fit them personally. Given they had to be hand crafted for that specific person (to varying levels of actual personalization depending on how rich they were) there's definitely a lot more of a personal aspect to it than a gun has.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because the age of myths was over by the time they were invented

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >implying that the 1911 .45 ACP isn't mythos incarnated

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because thousand years of culture and traditions dated all the way back to the bronze age, something guns won't have until maybe a hundred thousand years later.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Buffalo Bill had a Springfield trapdoor he named Lucretia Borgia.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >no named guns
    just start naming your yourself lmao

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jane's gun in firefly was called 'Vera'.
    Does this count?

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Like there are no named guns
    This homie hasn't seen Romeo + Juliet (1996)

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pass my me Longsword!

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There are also thousands upon thousands of named guns anon. It's just that nobody gives a shit when you name a gun.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you built a great big siege cannon, a one of a kind monster, and called it something like "War Bastard", and then leveled somewhere semi famous (Chicago maybe?), then people would care.
      That would be a famous named gun.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    individual legendary weapons are exceedingly rare and have been replaced by swag weapons.
    Swag weapons are usually the recovered arms of impressive hostile personnel such as elite infantry or pilots.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What are their names? Lemme guess: Dorothy, Rose, and Blanche!

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Dick Justice

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's only two names.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Charcoal blued colt guns

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not that many named bows either. I can only think of Failnaught. Projectile weapons just aren't as romantic as swords and spears, OP.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Unko chan!

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous
  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fascination with times of old, tropes about how life was fantastical in the past, and localized folk myths that were ingrained because they only had like seven stories per village before the invention of mass communication.
    Anyway the premise is also wrong, because people do attribute fun storytelling tropes about how amazing guns are and how awesome the people who wield them are because of them. 007 has his PPK. Dirty Harry has his revolver. Ash Williams has his boomstick. It's a little different when guns are considered a product of the current era and are more commonplace and we know they are machines, and we live in a more secular era of information plentitude and don't live in an era where fictional stories are considered akin to holy writ.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Actually
    How the frick did you forget the "PROBLEM SOLVER" OP?
    You some sort of huge sword gay?

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A fancy sword might've belonged to a king, general, noble, or someone otherwise important and would have accompanied them to the field. A fancy handmade gun is pretty much guaranteed to only leave the safe once or twice a year if that and will never be seen on the battlefield, especially today. The only easy example I can think of off the top of my head is Patton's revolvers.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    German big dickus guns
    >Paris
    >Dora

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Think about how many people have made a Mk.18 clone just because of the mythos behind it.
    People have copied Larry Vickers and Travis Haley rifles before just due to the stories behind them.
    That sounds pretty mythos to me.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Okay OP, what's the name of the sword in the stone?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not OP, but I think it's named Caliburn. Not to be confused with Excalibur which was tossed out of a lake by some lady.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Caliburn is just an archaic spelling of Excalibur. Depending on the telling, the sword in the stone is sometimes called Excalibur or some variation thereof, but the sword given to Arthur by the Lady in the Lake is always named Excalibur. Some stories try to reconcile this with Excalibur being broken and mended, but in general you have two options: either the name of the sword in the stone has been lost to time (more likely than you'd think, at one point in Le Morte D'arthur, Arthur tells the lady of the lake that he's forgotten the name of the sword and asks her to remind him), or he happens to acquire two different magic swords, that both just happen to have the same name.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Caliburn is just an archaic spelling of Excalibur
          Yes but also not necessarily. Roman de Brut, a fairly early version of Arthurian legend, has both Caliborne and Escaliborc in many copies of the tale. Meanwhile, in some variations the Sword in the Stone IS Excalibur, as is the one from the Lake, and they're either different with the same name as you said or Arthur acquired the sword multiple times (even a third time in the midst of a battle!). These days though they're generally considered two separate swords and so it's back to calling one Caliburn and the other Excalibur, because that's simpler for us in the here-and-now.

          We're dealing with several versions of a very old story, modified and retold centuries ago by various scribes and scholars, and even moreso over the years. It'd be like traveling a thousand years in the future and seeing people argue about which specific version of the Joker's origin story is the most canon.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But in the earliest record of the Arthurian legend, by Geoffrey of Monmouth, the sword is Caliburnus, and there is no reference to an Excalibur.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There are a bunch of famous rifles, Jim Corbetts .275 for example.
    https://www.johnrigbyandco.com/rigby-co-acquires-revered-hunter-jim-corbetts-legendary-275-rigby-rifle/

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Natty Bumppo's killdeer, Sledge Hammer's Susie (German adaptation only)...

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    One aspect is you can change out parts on most firearms, excluding firearms that required fitters of course, so you could end up with a gun with none of the original parts being this holy artifact which kind of ruins the mystique.

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Naming your OWN sword was always cringe
    It'd have to be forged by some legendary dwarf gunsmith who names it

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It ain't a gun if it don't weigh at least 100 pounds.

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    counterpoint: there are many named and historied siege guns.

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    History of individual weapons, or so I wager. Swords were often used across generations and/or wielded by individuals of great renown in their time. Today guns have the two pronged issue of short service lives compared to swords (replaced every few decades) and also not tied to an individual or family (issued/owned by military).

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >there are no named guns
    Tell that to the Peacemaker

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not a gun, but Heemeyer's "Killdozer" is a named modern weapon. You just need to do something worthy of myth and legend for your weapon to be mythical and legendary. Also handmade and abnormal as a weapon as well: Heemeyer would be far less famous if he'd just chucked dynamite into the places he hated.

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Modern mythology is, like it or not, TV and Videogames. Videogames have a frick ton of named guns. Fictional guns, but no less so than Excalibur.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yup. And there's nothing new about that either. Picrel is a big reason why boomers pay as much as they do for rare Colts and Winchesters.

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Like there are no named guns
    There are. You're just poorly educated.

    >Among other weapons, I had an extraordinary rifle that carried a half-pound percussion shell—this instrument of torture to the hunter was not sufficiently heavy for the weight of the projectile; it only weighed twenty pounds: thus, with a charge of ten drachms [270 grains] of powder, behind a half-pound shell, the recoil was so terrific, that I spun around like a weatherwiener in a hurricane. I really dreaded my own rifle, although I had been accustomed to heavy charges of powder, and severe recoil for some years. None of my men could fire it, and it was looked upon with a species of awe, and it was named "Jenna-El-Mootfah" (Child of a Cannon) by the Arabs, which being far too long a name for practice, I christened it the "Baby;" and the scream of this "Baby" loaded with a half-pound shell was always fatal. It was far too severe, and I very seldom fired it, but it is a curious fact, that I never fired a shot with that rifle without bagging: the entire practice, during several years, was confined to about twenty shots. I was afraid to use it; but now and then it was absolutely necessary that it should be cleaned, after months of staying loaded. On such occasions my men had the gratification of firing it, and the explosion was always accompanied by two men falling on their backs (one having propped up the shooter), and the "Baby" flying some yards behind them. This rifle was made by Holland & Holland, of Bond Street, and I could highly recommend it for the Goliath of Gath, but not for the men of A.D. 1866.
    >—Sir Samuel White Baker, The Albert N'Yanza, Great Basin Of The Nile, p. 138

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because people told bullshit stories back then. People see through your bullshit nowadays and just call you a israelite.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *