Why is every fucking culture obsessed with swords? There either a mythical sword or a real sword given mythical status

Why is every fucking culture obsessed with swords? There either a mythical sword or a real sword given mythical status…

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    because swords are cool as fuck yo. knights and shit use them. heroes in fairy tales use them. lightsabers. katanas. all that shit

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is every fucking culture obsessed with swords?
    they were associated with nobility

    >There either a mythical sword or a real sword given mythical status
    because they are cool

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    A noble weapon, as in literally utilized as a primary arm by the nobility, that requires a great degree of skill and training to be effectively used in combat, an object of obsession? No clue anon, you tell me.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >that requires a great degree of skill and training to be effectively used in combat
      Pointy bit towards the enemy. Same as spear.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thinking like This is why the peasantry shouldn’t be allowed weapons.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >t. hacked to pieces by peasants

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >he doesn't remember how the German Peasants' Revolt turned out

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Doesn't remember the Burgundy Wars

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because they are a weapon which is much more expensive to make and much less useful than the spear. The sword however is much lighter and smaller than the spear, therefore it was generally used by elites and has elite connotations. Anyway if you look up the original Greek many of their texts refer to the spear rather than sword when discussing generic militarism. The spear was ubiquitous and the actual fighting implement of the military.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not as clumsy or random as a blaster; an elegant weapon for a more civilized age

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because they are phallic symbols.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >swords are phallic
      Meanwhile, daggers:

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    it was a way to dab on the poor back in the days until you got stuck in the mud and some peasant would come in stab you and rob you clean. now the Aztec sword/club? look cool as shit made out of obsidian.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who's obsessed? Yes, I study the blade.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Swords are sidearms, and were expensive most of the time they were in use. If you wore a sword around in your day to day life you were signalling you were a high-status warrior ready to cut up any pleb or rival who disrespected you. Carrying around a larger weapon daily just isn't very practical, so they became status symbols.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Swords are sidearms
      they werent used the same way handguns were, they were often their primary weapon
      and even if they were secondary to your spear in open combat, you would still carry it and expect to use it when you inevitably broke ranks, modern soldiers dont even carry a sidearm

      they dont really have a good analogue to modern weapons
      it would be like carrying an M4 carbine alongside your M16A1 and you would swap to it once your M16 ran dry

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think a good example would be cavalry revolvers in the late 1800s and early 1900s, where they had single-shot or bolt action carbines as a primary and a revolver as a backup, which was generally inferior but situationally superior.
        I'd still count them as sidearms most of the time (especially in regards to noble status), but I agree that they weren't equivalent to modern pistols.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >like carrying an M4 carbine alongside your M16A1
        This implies a parity of capability most swords simply don't have. I think you were right when you said they don't have a good analogue, and it should've been left at that.
        >less range by ~20-70% depending on the polearm and sword in question
        >greater effectiveness within that range
        >small enough to be carried as a sidearm
        The sword was everything Hollywood wants pistols to be.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >This implies a parity of capability most swords simply don't have
          swords were chosen and wielded because they had their own advantages over the spear
          so they were carried additionally alongside the spear because they did different things

          they were never considered just a back up weapon and they have capabilities much closer to spear than a pistol does to a rifle
          the concept of swords just being a sidearm is an exaggeration of when people learn that "knights used their spear first" when they didnt just carry a sword for show, they trained with it constantly and brought it to the battlefield with intent to use it

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not denying that a sword has greater effectiveness in certain scenarios. In fact, the opposite is true. My whole point is that the sword has markedly greater effectiveness in specific scenarios, such that the gap between a sword and a spear in those situations is much greater than the gap between an M4 and a M16A1. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I think the better analogy would be a fixed scope semi-auto rifle like an M1A1 or indeed M16 with those old carry handle scopes vs a PDW like the MP7. You'll get a lot more range and power behind each hit with the rifle, but once the target is too close to get a decent sight picture or space to maneuver your long gun becomes limited it's better to switch to the PDW, which itself can reach out a fair distance and allows for quicker actions especially concerning reaction shooting and cover use.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Swords were used for thousands of years in many different forms. They were definetly not always sidearms. Nor were they some super rare weapon only for the very wealthiest. This is a retarded contrarian meme that has to assume that thousands of years of art and literature, as well as first person accounts of warfare all lied about how swords were used because some obsese YouTuber said so.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I said most, didn't I? Swords were cheap in Rome, swords were cheap during certain periods in China, swords were cheap after 1400 and relatively cheap in the various Arab caliphates.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Not that anon, but your retarded and falling for contrarion memes just like he said.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Also back in the day! If you openly carried a sword /rapier, you better have been good with it because if not you'd end up dead! Especially in the rougher areas where the criminals and poor lived.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The first weapon made specifically to kill men, and not repurposed from something used as a tool or for hunting.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    i'll fookin cut ya m8

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I just think they're neat.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Owning one or obtaining one was like having a FN Five Seven

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They were cool and expensive

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Warning all the people who post about swords on PrepHole are either retarded underage teens, nogunz spastics who have come here having having watched or read some advertising telling them to buy retarded fake crap or strangely enough attention whore eceleb gonsumers. There are no good sources on swords online and PrepHole is fucking awful on them. If you care go and buy some books and read them and take some fencing lessons. Do not watch youtube, do not buy modern 'reproductions' and do not involve yourself with medieval fair larping 'hema', e.g do not listen to the opinions of people about swords for use from horseback who can't ride (the vast majority of military officers swords).

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    they're just neat

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What the others said about eliteness and being worse than spear or whatever is a complete bullshit.
    Sword are such a huge deal because when they were initially introduced they revolutionized warfare to such a state that they were considered THE weapon from that point forward.

    Just imagine the ancient battlefield, enemy army consists of few thousands man, all of them wearing basic clothes at best, maybe even no clothes, for the weapons they have some unwieldy, cumbersome, fragile pointy sticks that barely pass for a spears, some of them may have no weapon at all, instead moving around some bitch heavy primitive shields probably made not even out of wood but from some shitty grass, those are purely serve as cover from the arrows. Arrows that would be expected to fly from some cheeky ass nobles that ride around in their chariots shooting at whatever they want completely unpunished. Now, on the other side stand you, and your guys, you guys, while not being from some bitch rich empire, learned to smelt iron, it is shitty, considerably worse than opponents bronze, but much more accessible, meaning you guys were able to equip yourself with sword. Now, imagine your formations closing up, yours and enemies, their long sticks are sure the hindrance, but nothing special to overcome, so you swiftly move between them and get into arm reach of your opponent. Now, imagine this picture, there's you stand, with sword in your hand, and in front of you stands a man, his clothes are barely protect him from the wind, let alone metal, his weapon can be used effectively only on its full distance, meaning that as long as you stand right before him he is effectively unarmed, what you gonna do? Fucking chop that motherfucker! And then the next one! And all your guys besides you do the same. Enemy fucking dies, enemy fucking shits his pants, enemy fucking runs and routes, that's it, you won, rest of enemy formations depend on the one you already crushed.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Bro

      Not that anon, but your retarded and falling for contrarion memes just like he said.

      >second sentence
      >that can be true
      They got cheaper and cheaper over time, but the founding myths of swords predate the 13th-15th century, back when they actually were scarce. Germanic tribes, for example favored the axe in battle over the spear or sword, but still held the sword in a similar high regard thanks to the 'contrarian memes'.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        He’s citing medieval estate documents. That time period lasts from the fall of the Roman Empire until about the 15th century. Swords did not magically become more rare after that time period. That’s pretty long period of fucking time, certainly different from “most of the time they were in use.
        >but muh ancient history
        Go ahead and cite your sources.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I just don't see how spear and axe cucks pretend that swords were scarce or rare or not used when they outnumber the other weapons as soon as they appear on the archeological timeline. swords were invented during the bronze age and it was during that age that the basics of swordplay were hashed out and the beginnings of i33 take place. by the time we hit 500ad and rome falls they had already switched to iron short swords, steel short swords and maille. a lot of the chainmail used in the medieval period was mass produced by rome and survived for centuries just like the swords.

          it's obviously some new kind of psy op to pretend that swords didn't matter it's just strange to see it pushed harder than any other Nato/EU/UN policy thus far

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not a psyop, it's just regular contrarianism. People love to correct others about things, and so you can be smug and say "actually, did you know spears are longer and cheaper so everyone used them."

            Except we know this isn't true for all eras. Or people start claiming the polearms that weren't even created until plate mail made them necessary were always used over swords, which were around centuries earlier.

            The reality is that you'd often want a formation with both, and to carry both in many instances, because one isn't a main weapon and the other a side arm, rather both have their own common superior use cases.

            Swords were far from uncommon in many eras .

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Swords were not scarce in Roman Legions or Greek formations. The Iliad, from 800BC, is filled with people fighting with swords.

        Swords were rare in the backwater parts of Europe in the dark ages because all steel was rare.

        Swords were a status symbol for richfags. Other weapons were either cheap shit like spears, or literal farm tools like axes and flails.

        But the real high class melee weapon is the mace. ideal for killing other knights, and you can dab on plebs because it's literally just a club, but needlessly expensive.

        people didn't fight with wood chopping axes in general. They used battle axes that were balanced for one hand. Even richfags used them, Long Harold of England died fighting with one. They have some advantages over swords, striking heavier blows.

        Spears have significant advantages but can also become a significant liability. Long two handed spears become practically useless if your enemy closes with you, hence having more than one weapon. Spears are cheaper, they aren't necessarily easier to train with. Training with long spears was very difficult. A formation full of 20 foot long pikes has to be very well drilled for everyone to turn at once to face a flanking attack without it being a cluster fuck.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >people didn't fight with wood chopping axes in general. They used battle axes that were balanced for one hand
          There were some places and times that utilized two handed axes. I agree with the rest of the post.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Germanic tribes, for example
        have been caught using crucible steel 800 years before it enters the industrial steel bloomery scene, and 400 years before you start counting in the 13th century. what is more important than the weapons or when and where you date them is the fencing style.
        by the time historians can date i33 they are merely talking about the established state of swash buckling (the buckler makes a swash noise like a drum set when you cut over the edge of it or press the blade to the buckler.
        on the other hand systems from the period you are talking about were taught using the longsword, then could be applied to any other weapon system. both the german and italian are based on a geometric segno of strikes.

        they were extremely advanced combat systems. the question of who would win, the man with a spear or axe or sword, is answered by which man was using the right system. the same goes for knight versus samurai. if the samurai used armizare or kunst des fechtens and the knight didn't, then the samurai would win. it's not about the man or the steel or the armor or even the moves, it's about a mindset that comes from a psychological process. indes and fuhlen are more like zen in a martial setting than a system you could teach to someone by memorizing the guards and strikes. to use it correctly requires much more. the warrior who masters that, and masters himself, needs no other system and no other weapon. if he were to lose his sword or break it, the next weapon he picked up would be played the same way.

        that's what people don't get. it wasn't even about the sword, it was about the lifestyle and the philosophy and the martial art that came with it. the system is one thing, the way medieval swords were made uses a design methodology that almost doesn't exist anymore, unless you're designing harmonically balanced parts. if I gave you a square and compass you'd be unlikely to reproduce any useful weapon, sword or not.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Swords were a status symbol for richfags. Other weapons were either cheap shit like spears, or literal farm tools like axes and flails.

    But the real high class melee weapon is the mace. ideal for killing other knights, and you can dab on plebs because it's literally just a club, but needlessly expensive.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    On the topic of sword prices:
    > Mohammad ibn Abi al-Barakāt Jŏhari Nezāmi in 1196 CE states a good shamshir blade of crucible steel was valued at 100 golden Dinar (Khorasani et al, 2013)
    so yeah. Quality swords were pretty fucking expensive even in regions that produced tons of steel

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because when you pull them out they make that satisfying *shink* metal-on-metal sound. Spears don't make sounds.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      only if the scabbard is metal / metal throated.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I was shitposting, anon. Just havin a good ol goof

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because swords are cool, and there are also 7 foot swords people can swing hard enough to cut others in half.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's almost like people have been using swords for thousands of years

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    for asking such a dumb question you slain with a sword.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >SEXUAL INTERACTIONS WITH LOCAL FLORA
      how?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        you mean you've never seen the deer pheromone story?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Flora
          >Deer

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          deers are fauna/
          not flora

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/WHzKmNl.jpg

            >Flora
            >Deer

            shit, my bad. i autocorrected it to fauna in my head. maybe they fuck trees. wood for the wood.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Fucking trees.
              Goddamn elves in this board I swear to God...

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              coconuts, perhaps

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Pretty much every weapon that can be put on one's belt gains mythic status in some way. Handguns are similar, both in how they often relate to primary arms like swords did to spears (not all the time, and combat doctrines were different then, but anyways) but usually a long gun is too unwieldy for the average person to carry these days. Handguns may not get cavitation like a rifle or generally be as deadly, but being small enough to wear on your person is enough for their role.
    A sword would then be a more personal weapon than something like a spear. A spear is nearly always the footsoldier's tool, something commissioned en masse for armies, whereas a sword can be a highly personal item. Same for rifles now, unless it's something special like a hunting rifle (equates to a bow then, which was also a personal item for many people) then it's usually more of a utilitarian item. A handgun, though, will tend have personal touches given to it by its owner, if it's not state-owned. It becomes an item that is useful for defense as intended, but equally becomes a status symbol and fashionable item to wear, much like a man's rapier or otherwise was in those days when men would inlay gold into their sword hilts and let gold leaf illustrations run down their blades.
    A handgun, like a sword, is a personal thing. It becomes an extension of its wielder, and so the wielder will seek to have a part of himself reflected in it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      better than quora

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How many people would you have to drain of blood to have enough Iron to forge a sword? Asking for a friend.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      actively target people with hereditary hemochromatosis and the number goes WAY down. protip

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks! That helps a bunch!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      400 give or take. Turns out someone already crunched the numbers.
      https://www.tor.com/2017/07/20/sword-forged-from-the-blood-of-your-enemies/
      I'm actually pretty surprised it's that low.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because they are expensive to buy and to maintain, so usually the noble classes use them.

    BTW, ancient Indians were much more into bows than swords, but that's probably because bronze-age swords weren't that good. I may be wrong on that, though.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Spears are easy to make.
    Forging and more importantly hardening a sword successfully is extremely hard.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >numerous depictions of swords used in combat by professional soldiers
    >all of youtube: "obviously all this art and historians are wrong no one used swords spears spears spears spears spears"
    The internet was a mistake

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because the introduction of metal swords substantially changed armed conflict.

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    swords were the default weapon for organized armies since...1600 BC, or nearly 3 thousand fucking years.

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Looks like a dick innit?

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because they are phallic symbols

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      ok, i'm curious. what was the prompt on this one.

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sword is a sign of craftsmanship/wealth/power.

    A good sword requires a good craftsman who needs a good society to teach him and a good buyer to buy his goods, for the tools that is being used for the purpose of warfare.

    Swords had their place pre-Qin dynasty in China. After which they occupied the minds of elites as a symbol/prestige. The warfare had switched to crossbows.

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Firearms are relatively new to warfare. Bladed weapons have been with us for a very long time.
    Also, swords took a lot of work and craftsmanship to create, being good with one meant a lot of training, which not everyone could afford. In an age where even a mere child could easily kill you with a gun and many people dying easily from guns without even seeing the enemy, swords also represent the more “romantic” side of combat and warfare. Even though being sliced and stabbed was probably a much more messy and nightmarish way to go than being shot.

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    they were peak weaponry for thousands of years.

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because a professional soldier ALWAYS had their sword. Maybe they had a bow that day to defend the walls. They'd still carry a sword incase there was a ladder rush and they needed to buy time for reinforcements.
    Maybe they'd be cavalry and carry a spear. Still carried the sword because a lance charge has more than enough kinetic energy to shatter a lance.
    Maybe they were just walking about town. The sword was the ONLY weapon they carried because it kept their hands free.

    It was a versatile weapon that's solid metal from tip to tang. Very durable and useful for most situations. When warriors were in a pinch it was usually their swords that saved them.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Because a professional soldier ALWAYS had their sword.

      Most had a main weapon and a dagger, swords were only widespread among soldiers when they were practically oversized daggers

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        To be fair, all a sword is is an oversized knife and the difference between the two is often academic. The Krieg Messer, for example, was legally a large knife.

        But we see swords being used far back in the anchient era with Spartans using the Xiphos and Egyptian charioteers using the Khopesh. The fact was that anybody that fought for a living would own a sword and those that didn't were usually seasonal soldiers or militia equivalent. You see a lot of seasonal soldiers because full time professional soldiers are expensive and something like 90% of the population has to be farming so everyone doesn't starve.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The Krieg Messer, for example, was legally a large knife.
          -_-

  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Every culture
    Wrong. I know one that isn't.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >What is the ikakala
      Try again superchief

  38. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was/is an instrument/tool with no use besides killing other humans and they were expensive. Think about it bows, axes, warhammers, crossbows, flailing, etc. all have other uses and are comparatively cheap.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Maces were relatively inexpensive and crude weapons, but because of the association with royal sergeants (king's bodyguards), other civic sergeants sought the same privilege as badges of office and the weapon morphed into a purely ceremonial item.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The mace is the universal symbol of kingship at all times and in all places. It symbolizes the fact that you are king because you can knock a motherguckers brains out. The sword is the symbol of no ility, which is one step below king. Look at the Crown garden gnomeels of England. They have the balls to pretend this is derived from a sherperds crook as a symbol of leadership. If you made the thing out of steel instead of gold nobody would be confused about it's purpose.

        The same reason why the 1911 and the Luger are famed WW2 weapon despite the fact that most troops would be using a Garand, K98's to kill each other (similar to spears & polearms in the ancient world)

        Only officers carried pistols.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, try hammering in a nail with this thing and see how well that goes. Turns out the weapons and the tools are often quite different, even if they're both called axes, hammers, etc. The only way the sword is really different there is that the weapon got a new name all of its own, instead of being called a battleknife.

  39. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The same reason why the 1911 and the Luger are famed WW2 weapon despite the fact that most troops would be using a Garand, K98's to kill each other (similar to spears & polearms in the ancient world)

  40. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Swords were literally just better than polearms*, aside of protection against cavalry.

    The * being the problem of making them in the given size. You basically almost never see super short spears meant to hang off the belt like various types of short or arming swords because they would be much worse to use. What was a problem was that swords until late medieval period generally came in rather limited sizes, and so either you had to do sword and board or relegate it to a side weapon. Sword size was likely limited in most likely similar fashion to how plate armor was first loose, smaller plates to reinforce the other type of armor underneath, before in 15th century becoming proper one piece breastplates which then would compose a full harness. The entire thing apparently had to do with furnace size affecting steel bloom sizes and also some other inventions like water wheel powered hammers for working on them.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Swords were literally just better than polearms*, aside of protection against cavalry.

      In melee combat there are only two relevant factors, leverage and reach, and swords lack both when pitted against a dedicated polearm or even axes, they become even more disadvantaged when armor is a factor. Swords were simply just easier to carry and arguably easier to use, because while the skill ceiling is high, swinging a balanced sword is very instinctive and natural to anyone, it is very hard to fuck up with a sword because even if your technique is shit, the weapon is still very dangerous on its own and your wild flailing is going to keep an enemy away for a few seconds. Landing a good cut with an axe or a good spear thrust is trickier.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        > leverage and reach
        Which is why Scotts got slaughtered by Brits when using pikes against bills which were essentially halberds? Sword and shield was in the easy for the entire medieval period, and shorter weapons like halberds/battleswords/swords and shields were used instead of pikes either out of a formation or inside a pike formation acting as a failsafe for formation breaks, close combat, or to exploit either of those.
        >they become even more disadvantaged when armor is a factor.
        Any armored duel relied heavily on presence of swords and daggers even more than any polearm. Armor negates reach advantage if anything, and swords are just about the only weapon you can use very close.
        >Landing a good cut with an axe or a good spear thrust is trickier.
        Who told you that? You don't need to edge align an axe or a spear like you do with a sword cut that otherwise carries less momentum to make up for poor technique?

  41. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >implying they're not mythical

  42. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    it's a giant metal penis

  43. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    swords were what pistols are now: handy, cheap, efficient. main battle weapon were bows, spears, and even maces. swords outclassed the others when gunpowder was introduced and replaced lances and spears when its curved blade proved to be much lighter on horseback

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Socially, yes. But tactically, they were more like carbines. Something you could use as a backup but also enough to use as a primary if you need to stay fast and mobile.

  44. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Not posting the best sword

  45. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hard and expensive to make. Easy to use but hard to master. Truly a symbol of wealth, status and or the professional warrior/solider.

  46. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No one who had ever done even sort of hard sparring with mockups of these is going to think one >>>> the others in all cases. A sword isn't a side arm, it's the better weapon in a lot of contexts which is why professional soldiers almost always had both.

  47. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >humans evolve from monke
    >learn that pokeysticks are good for killan
    >learn that shiny pokeysticks are better for killan
    >make shiny pokeysticks

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