Sword Question?

[Doc Hudson]

I have to agree with those that are trying to discouraging the idea.

I don't think anyone has brought up the customs or protocols around sword wearing. As a former History student (I have a B.A.), I am aware that, historically, only members of the nobility could wear a sword. It was inappropriate for non-nobles to wear a sword.

I wonder if this idea still exists? Any protocol experts out there? If so and unless you can call yourself Lord or Sir something-or-other, it would be as inappropriate for you to wear a sword as it would for you to wear a crown.

Balderdash!!

In Europe, such restrictions ended with the Middle Ages. Japan is another story, and China and India yet different stories.

From the Renaisance onward, any gentleman (not necessarily nobility) could and was expected to wear a sword. Basically, any freeman could bear arms and the gentry were pretty well required to bear arms.

Up until the Victorian Age, the well-dressed gentleman's formalware included a sword of some sort, which type varied with the era and the location.

Truthfully, if law and custom permitted, I'd wear a small sword or some sort of short sword daily. A sword might not be as effective as a firearm, but it is far more elegant.

[Archangel]

Balderdash!!

In Europe, such restrictions ended with the Middle Ages. Japan is another story, and China and India yet different stories.

From the Renaisance onward, any gentleman (not necessarily nobility) could and was expected to wear a sword. Basically, any freeman could bear arms and the gentry were pretty well required to bear arms.

Up until the Victorian Age, the well-dressed gentleman's formalware included a sword of some sort, which type varied with the era and the location.

Truthfully, if law and custom permitted, I'd wear a small sword or some sort of short sword daily. A sword might not be as effective as a firearm, but it is far more elegant.

This isn't quite right. The biggest problem is the use of the word "gentleman" which has a different meaning now than in the period under discussion. Freeman and gentry also have different meanings and as such could fall into the ranks of nobility, i.e., they don't exist without nobility.

[MACKAY]

This isn't quite right. The biggest problem is the use of the word "gentleman" which has a different meaning now than in the period under discussion. Freeman and gentry also have different meanings and as such could fall into the ranks of nobility, i.e., they don't exist without nobility.

Just curious ... I was under the impression that the designation of "Gentleman" in the period under discussion meant that he was either a 'well bred man', or a 'man of noble birth'. So, you could be born into it, or you could achieve it in your own right.

Of course meanings of words change over time, as well as over generations.

Brian

[Archangel]

Just curious ... I was under the impression that the designation of "Gentleman" in the period under discussion meant that he was either a 'well bred man', or a 'man of noble birth'. So, you could be born into it, or you could achieve it in your own right.

Of course meanings of words change over time, as well as over generations.

Brian

The word has different implications not only in time but in context. The British meaning would be your first sentence (bred and birth mean the same). The American meaning would be your second sentence. (More on British here: http://www.victorianweb.org/history/Gentleman.html. Note the first sentence of the second paragraph.)

When a discussion arises regarding aristocracy, I assume British for two reasons. First, it's what I'm familiar with and with kilts it probably what we are talking about. Secondly, there is no aristrocracy in a classless American society. I'll get in trouble here but, oh well: the US has a social structure based on other things and there is/was a pretense of one in the ante-bellum south that has its adherents today. However, that is not aristrocracy.

In this context, Doc Hudson had just reiterated the main point. That is, aristocracy/nobility could carry a sword and, he added, the lesser ranks were entitled to do so as well.

We need to be careful using terms that have literal meanings, especially cross cultural. For example, Doc and I could be at a combined family reunion (mind-boggling, isn't it?) and look over at our aunties and comment on a couple of "swell dames". The difference is, and far be it from me to say a bad word about her, Doc's aunt is not likely to actually be a dame, knighted by the Queen, whereas my auntie actually is a Dame (http://www.google.com/search?hl=gd&q...btnG=Rannsaich)

[highlander_Daz]

regardless of what happened in the past , I cant in my wildest dreams every strolling around Inverness wearing a sword, I would be arrested on the spot. Why would anyone want to perform their everday business wearing a sword in 2005? (excepting the queens valet and sundry members of the royal family and soldiers)

[Doc Hudson]

regardless of what happened in the past , I cant in my wildest dreams every strolling around Inverness wearing a sword, I would be arrested on the spot. Why would anyone want to perform their everday business wearing a sword in 2005? (excepting the queens valet and sundry members of the royal family and soldiers)

Because a well made and attractively hilted small sword or rapier is classier than even the finest revolver and more effective than pleas for mercy or dirty looks at repelling muggers and other mauraders.

[highlander_Daz]

none of which would be much use serving a long jail sentance for brandishing a sword!!

I love swords but I dont think walking around wearing one is a realisitic option.
certainly not in Scotland anyway.

but hey if you want to thats fine by me.

[James]

Interesting the evolution of this chain!

Too whilst swords are fascinating as a subject: here in the United Kingdom for the last two hundred years, unless on duty and so required to carry a sword: a gentleman would carry a stick, or possibly when in, say London or other major city an umbrella.

This has lead to a superb range of sticks-from the most ornate versions to be seen at say Highland Games, to the purely practical: and of course such things as the swagger stick of the military.

Whilst even today the right stick can be both practical in respect of walking, elegant, and a defence against muggers: an example would be the Cold Steel 'City Stick'. Too the authorities do not get excited at the sight of a stick-a rather important factor today in London.

I would therefore suggest that the right stick can and will enhance one's kilt wearing, with that extra bit of dash and swagger.

James

[Doc Hudson]

none of which would be much use serving a long jail sentance for brandishing a sword!!

I love swords but I dont think walking around wearing one is a realisitic option.
certainly not in Scotland anyway.

but hey if you want to thats fine by me.

Please note that I said:

if law and custom permitted

Nothing was said about going about armed in defiance of the law.

And I consider any city, state, or country that forbids a Free Man (and this isn't a sexist remark, I an old fart who learned to use Man to refer to all of humanity, not just one gender, and I refuse to change with the times) the right of self defense to be in a mighty sad state of affairs.

As H. Beam Piper said in First Cycle

Anyone who sees a thief and doesn't shoot him is just encouraging the breed.

And to quote Robert Heinlein:

An armed Society is a polite Society.

[Doc Hudson]

Interesting the evolution of this chain!

Too whilst swords are fascinating as a subject: here in the United Kingdom for the last two hundred years, unless on duty and so required to carry a sword: a gentleman would carry a stick, or possibly when in, say London or other major city an umbrella.

This has lead to a superb range of sticks-from the most ornate versions to be seen at say Highland Games, to the purely practical: and of course such things as the swagger stick of the military.

Whilst even today the right stick can be both practical in respect of walking, elegant, and a defence against muggers: an example would be the Cold Steel 'City Stick'. Too the authorities do not get excited at the sight of a stick-a rather important factor today in London.

I would therefore suggest that the right stick can and will enhance one's kilt wearing, with that extra bit of dash and swagger.

James

James I heartily agree about the sticks. Not only are they grand for helping balance and as a prop for us old buzzards, they are stylish, and grand defensive weapons.

However, I've read that in recent years use of a cane as a defensive weapon, in Britain, can get the user tossed in jail. Is this correct or is it yet another "Net Legend?"

I routinely carry a cane from CaneMasters.Com and am quite happy with it. Not only does it offer support for aching knees, but it is a very effective weapon when properly used. It is the only weapon, other than one's hands, that are permitted everywhere, including courts, aircraft, and even in the presence of a Chief of State.