Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach
As many of you have pointed out, quality is relative. Presently I am looking into two related aspects: the sword as a symbol, and why the production declined. First of all, a sword was not always (and often not) the "best" method of defence/offence (arrows, firearms etc.) but it is symbolic, the so-called "phallic" aspect aside, the sword in many cultures was a symbol of war, peace, marrage (sword dances), fertility (amulets make in the shape of a sword), justice, status (age and wealth), etc. By the way, back to Iraq...the combination of war/marrage/justice goes back to the Sumarians and the goddess Ishtar/Enanna (around 2500 BC. southern Iraq).
FYI, I don't like Guns, Germs and Steel, it has some good points but is far too simplified. I thought it would be good for the "Rise of Civlization class", but it can be misleading so read with a "pinch of salt".
Back to topic, In fact in non-western societies swords seem primarily to represent peace rather than war. So its combat value was only one aspect. As for why the production declined...yes I know all about economics, used up all the ore, British not allowing production in India, etc, but these are only part of a much larger picture. Think about it..when did production in traditional societies end? late 1800's (lastest recording I think was 1902 in India or Sri Lanka). Russians were invading Bukhara and other areas of Central Asia, Ottoman empire was breaking up in the Near East. Societies, values, etc were changing in a fundamental way. The quality of the blade was only one aspect and that could be fullfilled by imported steel.
PS Ariel: 2 cups of coffee that melts the spoon, with lots of milk in it, first thing in the morning. Apparently coffee protects the liver, and I am all for protecting my liver  |
Very clever point about sword as a symbol of peace. Only I think it was not a "symbol of peace" as such but rather ceremonial object. Because of its perceived greatness it assumed the central role in such cetremonies as marriage, birth, circumcision, special honor etc. All ( or most) ceremonies are "peaceful" by nature but it does not mean that an object participating in them has "peaceful" connotations. In all cultures and in all languages "sword" is a symbol of war; not spear, not arrow, but sword. Heroic acts on the battlefield were rewarded by a sword, not a shield. Think about it.
Yes, the Guns, germs... is not very good. Ian might be willing to express his epidemiological opinion, but just as a book it is quite shallow. Pulitzer is not a guarantee of greatness: JFK was given a Pulitzer for a book that was ghostwritten for him.
So, you think that only when swords became less important, the European imports acquired popularity? Well, the popularity of European blades was obvious even in the 16-17th centuries in India, and in the 18-19th centuries in the Caucasus, when the sword was the King of the Battlefield.
Swords were "out" when replaced by firearms. That does not explain the replacement of native blades by imports.
I got a coffee using your recipe. Not bad. The molten teaspoon was by Assadollah. Should have used Andrea Ferrara.