Written By Lexir
Dec. 21, 2020, 10:53 p.m.(8/11/1014 AR)
We're going to need a lot more burn salve.
Written By Lexir
Aug. 2, 2020, 1:43 a.m.(10/7/1013 AR)
As I was shopping around for a new blade earlier in the day, I was drawn into a lengthy conversation with a smith on the nature and purpose of swords - and weaponry, by extension. It arose from a request as to what other specifications or recommendations I had for a sword I was commissioning, to which I replied only that it be good for its intended task of injuring, maiming, and killing. We disagreed quite a great deal on that point, specifically, whether or not a sword was more than just those things, and now, hours later, I reflect back on it and wonder. I will not reiterate his argument, for I would not be able to do it proper justice - instead, I will present mine, and I will leave it to the readers of whites to ruminate on, as I have.
My argument is this: the essence of a sword is violence.
We must be clear first, that by sword I do not mean literally /only/ a sword, but I mean any purpose-built weapon. Not all things used as weapons were intended for such purposes - a woodman's axe for felling trees and splitting wood may be used to decapitate a man in a pinch, but it will not be properly balanced or weighted for such deeds when logs were its intended victim. Likewise for a cook's knives, which may shatter as soon as their edges bites anything tougher than bone (like, say, a diamondplate cuirass, or a coat of mail).
As for violence, I have found that there are differences in how violence is defined. Hopefully, so that this doesn't devolve into quibbling over semantics, I shall describe violence as I shall use it subsequently: the exercise of force to harm, no matter the intent behind such application. I care not whether the fight is necessary self-defense and survival or a massacre of surrendered foes - it is all violence for the purpose of the white.
In a sword, however, we find something whose need is predicated on the existance of violence. Nearly every aspect of it supports that singular goal: the hilt, the pommel, the guard, the blade, the edge - it all comes together to maximize the bearer's chances of enacting their own killing intent, or striking in a manner to injure or disable another fellow human being (it is no surprise that hunters rarely use swords, and have their own specialized equipment - the boar spear and the bow and arrow coming to mind). When one speaks of forging a better sword, one rarely imagines something that is less efficient at murder than its predecessor - and even if it were, it usually sacrifices such capability only in part, being worse at striking in a certain manner in exchange for being better at another.
A rebuttal may be made that a sword does not necessarily need to be applied to violent ends, and that thus, its essence is not that of violence. I did not agree with this argument. I can divide these other uses into two categories: uses which are ultimately derived from its ability to kill, uses which are ultimately derived not because it is a sword, but either because of some quality, physical or otherwise, that is not unique to swords. In neither category do I find a compelling enough argument that the sword is anything but a tool of violence.
Of the first sort, I cite the following: a sword can defend - but such defense is predicated on the threat of the harm it can inflict. It can inspire hope - but oft this hope derives from the promise of deliverance, which in turn from the promise of its ability to deliver, which itself in turn derives from its ability to hurt and kill those from whom we must be delivered. It should be self-evident, then, that many of the nobler uses to which a sword may be put are still either violent or threaten the promise of it - the fear of being minced can be as good as the mincing.
Of the second sort, I cite the following: a sword can cauterize an injury - yes, but so can any other surface able to be heated to a sufficient degree. Metal just happens to be very good at that, and indeed, it would not be possible at all if one were possessed of a sword whose blade was comprised of something that did not hold heat well. A sword can also cut inanimate things, but it is hardly designed to cleave through anything but flesh and bone. Even then, ask a cook to replace all of their knives with swords and I would bet a large sum of silver that you would receive looks of incredulity. None of these are functions of swords - they are functions of very specific aspects of the weapon, like the cutting edge or the material from which it is made, and are not intrinsic to the weapon itself. One may say they are still possible uses, to which I say this: I could kill a man with my belt. Would one deem all belts weapons, or attribute to belts the anciliary use of murder?
Another example of both the first and second sort: a story was told to me of the rallying effect of a particular sword, during a particular battle (of which I was not part of, but was implied to be recent and/or mythical). It was told that the sword's presence on the field galvinated allied forces and spurred them to fight onwards, when all seemed lost. But I ask this - was it necessary that such a thing be a sword? It could have been a crown or ring, or war banner - it just so happened to be in the shape of a blade. A sword may serve as a symbol - and many are, I do not doubt that - but always, one must keep in mind that its place might be taken by another thing, and the effect would be the same.
A sword is meant to take lives, not to preserve them. Walls guard, ward, and protect. A sword kills. It's always been meant to kill. I try not to forget that when I consider drawing mine.
My argument is this: the essence of a sword is violence.
We must be clear first, that by sword I do not mean literally /only/ a sword, but I mean any purpose-built weapon. Not all things used as weapons were intended for such purposes - a woodman's axe for felling trees and splitting wood may be used to decapitate a man in a pinch, but it will not be properly balanced or weighted for such deeds when logs were its intended victim. Likewise for a cook's knives, which may shatter as soon as their edges bites anything tougher than bone (like, say, a diamondplate cuirass, or a coat of mail).
As for violence, I have found that there are differences in how violence is defined. Hopefully, so that this doesn't devolve into quibbling over semantics, I shall describe violence as I shall use it subsequently: the exercise of force to harm, no matter the intent behind such application. I care not whether the fight is necessary self-defense and survival or a massacre of surrendered foes - it is all violence for the purpose of the white.
In a sword, however, we find something whose need is predicated on the existance of violence. Nearly every aspect of it supports that singular goal: the hilt, the pommel, the guard, the blade, the edge - it all comes together to maximize the bearer's chances of enacting their own killing intent, or striking in a manner to injure or disable another fellow human being (it is no surprise that hunters rarely use swords, and have their own specialized equipment - the boar spear and the bow and arrow coming to mind). When one speaks of forging a better sword, one rarely imagines something that is less efficient at murder than its predecessor - and even if it were, it usually sacrifices such capability only in part, being worse at striking in a certain manner in exchange for being better at another.
A rebuttal may be made that a sword does not necessarily need to be applied to violent ends, and that thus, its essence is not that of violence. I did not agree with this argument. I can divide these other uses into two categories: uses which are ultimately derived from its ability to kill, uses which are ultimately derived not because it is a sword, but either because of some quality, physical or otherwise, that is not unique to swords. In neither category do I find a compelling enough argument that the sword is anything but a tool of violence.
Of the first sort, I cite the following: a sword can defend - but such defense is predicated on the threat of the harm it can inflict. It can inspire hope - but oft this hope derives from the promise of deliverance, which in turn from the promise of its ability to deliver, which itself in turn derives from its ability to hurt and kill those from whom we must be delivered. It should be self-evident, then, that many of the nobler uses to which a sword may be put are still either violent or threaten the promise of it - the fear of being minced can be as good as the mincing.
Of the second sort, I cite the following: a sword can cauterize an injury - yes, but so can any other surface able to be heated to a sufficient degree. Metal just happens to be very good at that, and indeed, it would not be possible at all if one were possessed of a sword whose blade was comprised of something that did not hold heat well. A sword can also cut inanimate things, but it is hardly designed to cleave through anything but flesh and bone. Even then, ask a cook to replace all of their knives with swords and I would bet a large sum of silver that you would receive looks of incredulity. None of these are functions of swords - they are functions of very specific aspects of the weapon, like the cutting edge or the material from which it is made, and are not intrinsic to the weapon itself. One may say they are still possible uses, to which I say this: I could kill a man with my belt. Would one deem all belts weapons, or attribute to belts the anciliary use of murder?
Another example of both the first and second sort: a story was told to me of the rallying effect of a particular sword, during a particular battle (of which I was not part of, but was implied to be recent and/or mythical). It was told that the sword's presence on the field galvinated allied forces and spurred them to fight onwards, when all seemed lost. But I ask this - was it necessary that such a thing be a sword? It could have been a crown or ring, or war banner - it just so happened to be in the shape of a blade. A sword may serve as a symbol - and many are, I do not doubt that - but always, one must keep in mind that its place might be taken by another thing, and the effect would be the same.
A sword is meant to take lives, not to preserve them. Walls guard, ward, and protect. A sword kills. It's always been meant to kill. I try not to forget that when I consider drawing mine.
Written By Lexir
July 19, 2020, 5:33 a.m.(9/7/1013 AR)
Arx. Heart of the Compact. Greatest city in all of Arvum. Can't say it smells too much different from any other city I've been to when you get down to it, that's for sure. Feels like it's been an age and a half since I was here - I wonder what all of my cousins have gotten up to in the meanwhile?
Please note that the scholars may take some time preparing your journal for others to read.