It has been a while since the sword was seen on the battlefield. Carrying them on foot went out in 1914, while on horseback they survived, in some places, to 1945. The Japanese were exceptions and swords were carried until the end of WWII. I wonder what the status of swords is in the Japanese SDF today?
But you still see them used ceremoniously in most armies, including here. For that matter, other mostly obsolete weapons like pikes, halberds, spontoons and axes still show up on in parades and on the drill field. Axes, however, are actually carried as tools, even in ceremonies, rather than as weapons but only in a few units, though they might be dandy weapons.
But weapons, some in particular, have a symbolic value beyond their practical fighting value. Some were marks of rank, authority or office even when they were still used on the battlefield. The knightly sword of Medieval times was surely a mark of the knight. No one else carried them, even though others were armed, only not with a knight's sword. A samauri sword had exactly the same status, apparently. Often these marks were extended to senior NCOs or men-at-arms (sargents). So today, a sword is the mark of rank. One might make a similiar distinction about the bayonet. While they have utility, it is rarely while on the end of a rifle but a fixed bayonet is still a mark of a soldier. Indeed, bayonets appear on shoulder sleeve insignia. Some country's flag displays an AK-47 and that has to have some meaning.
A few weapons have evolved for ceremonial purposes to the point where a weapon is no longer recognizable and an example is a ceremonial mace of a parliment.
A civilian, including the civil police, is in a different position. A civilian's weapon is thought of as a handgun. Even Jeff Cooper said so. Even in places where civilian ownership of weapons, or at least handguns, the use of them for defensive purposes is not common, though some will argue to the contrary. One could also argue that handguns have limited battlefield utility. But I will suggest that the symbolic value of a weapon is greater than its practical utility, mostly. (Not the symbolism of a weapon, which is different).
You may vote, thought not many do, supposedly. So is there any value to having a vote? You may have a gun but never need to use it, even if you are a policeman. So is their any value to having a gun? And here I mean a fighting weapon, not a single barrel shotgun or a 22 rifle. But loose the vote and then what? Loose your arms and then what?
If a government can remove the object that have mostly symbolic value, in that their practical use is rarely utilized, then they are prevented from doing nothing. This almost sounds like an argument for open carry, doesn't it, though that isn't what started me thinking about it but rather a photo of a Swiss citizen going to vote while carrying a sword.
Just try carrying a sword to a polling place here!
But you still see them used ceremoniously in most armies, including here. For that matter, other mostly obsolete weapons like pikes, halberds, spontoons and axes still show up on in parades and on the drill field. Axes, however, are actually carried as tools, even in ceremonies, rather than as weapons but only in a few units, though they might be dandy weapons.
But weapons, some in particular, have a symbolic value beyond their practical fighting value. Some were marks of rank, authority or office even when they were still used on the battlefield. The knightly sword of Medieval times was surely a mark of the knight. No one else carried them, even though others were armed, only not with a knight's sword. A samauri sword had exactly the same status, apparently. Often these marks were extended to senior NCOs or men-at-arms (sargents). So today, a sword is the mark of rank. One might make a similiar distinction about the bayonet. While they have utility, it is rarely while on the end of a rifle but a fixed bayonet is still a mark of a soldier. Indeed, bayonets appear on shoulder sleeve insignia. Some country's flag displays an AK-47 and that has to have some meaning.
A few weapons have evolved for ceremonial purposes to the point where a weapon is no longer recognizable and an example is a ceremonial mace of a parliment.
A civilian, including the civil police, is in a different position. A civilian's weapon is thought of as a handgun. Even Jeff Cooper said so. Even in places where civilian ownership of weapons, or at least handguns, the use of them for defensive purposes is not common, though some will argue to the contrary. One could also argue that handguns have limited battlefield utility. But I will suggest that the symbolic value of a weapon is greater than its practical utility, mostly. (Not the symbolism of a weapon, which is different).
You may vote, thought not many do, supposedly. So is there any value to having a vote? You may have a gun but never need to use it, even if you are a policeman. So is their any value to having a gun? And here I mean a fighting weapon, not a single barrel shotgun or a 22 rifle. But loose the vote and then what? Loose your arms and then what?
If a government can remove the object that have mostly symbolic value, in that their practical use is rarely utilized, then they are prevented from doing nothing. This almost sounds like an argument for open carry, doesn't it, though that isn't what started me thinking about it but rather a photo of a Swiss citizen going to vote while carrying a sword.
Just try carrying a sword to a polling place here!
