AHC : mandatory sword carrying in public

Ok, I am an avid swordman and I have a challenge for you, try to find a POD in history (set before or after 1900), from which carrying a deadly sheated sword in public would not only be legal and acceptable, but also mandatory in most parts of the western world, including USA.

In the opposite, owning or carrying a gun would be illegal. The swords can be remplaced by halberds in Switzerland.

Global Sikhism?

Neirdak said:

Ok, I am an avid swordman and I have a challenge for you, try to find a POD in history (set before or after 1900), from which carrying a deadly sheated sword in public would not only be legal and acceptable, but also mandatory in most parts of the western world, including USA.

In the opposite, owning or carrying a gun would be illegal. The swords can be remplaced by halberds in Switzerland.

Click to expand...

I don't even want to think about the logistics of having to carry a halberd around by law every time you leave your house...

Falastur said:

I don't even want to think about the logistics of having to carry a halberd around by law every time you leave your house...

Click to expand...

Ok in this case, halberds won't be used by citizens, but by the police forces to counter the sword armed citizens.

Neirdak said:

Ok, I am an avid swordman and I have a challenge for you, try to find a POD in history (set before or after 1900), from which carrying a deadly sheated sword in public would not only be legal and acceptable, but also mandatory in most parts of the western world, including USA.

In the opposite, owning or carrying a gun would be illegal. The swords can be remplaced by halberds in Switzerland.

Click to expand...

In many Germanic cultures, carrying a specific weapon was the sign that you were a free man. Any Karl (commoner) or Jarl (a lord/earl) was allowed to carry a weapon. A Thrall (serf), on the other hand, was unfree and had to rely on the protection of his master. In case of the Saxons, the whole people was named after the type of short sword they characteristically used; the Sax (or: Seax/Saks/Sash). Every Saxon free man carried a Sax. Thralls were only allowed a short knife. A weapon meant freedom. (Interestingly, some of the Founding Fathers of the USA directly referred to this as a reason they wanted to make the right to bear arms uninfringable: a disarmed man is by definition a slave.)

Anyway, it was the same for many Germanic peoples. If you can somehow retain more of pre-Christian Germanic culture, you could end up with a world where every self-respecting man carries a short sword, because it is a universal symbol of personal freedom and independence.

Personally, I think I'd like that world very much. You see, I am also an avid swordman.

i don't think it's possible to make it mandatory that all citizens carry a sword--not everyone can afford that. but i can definitely see the persistence of swords by the upper class and some of the middle. iirc, canes came into common used because swords were outlawed and they were really meant to replace them as a means of self-defense

Actually, in medieval England it was a legal REQUIREMENT to carry a sword/dagger around with you at all times ( except in homes or in cities) to kepp the peace.

oshron said:

i don't think it's possible to make it mandatory that all citizens carry a sword--not everyone can afford that. but i can definitely see the persistence of swords by the upper class and some of the middle. iirc, canes came into common used because swords were outlawed and they were really meant to replace them as a means of self-defense

Click to expand...

Poor citizens and women could have daggers, even if I would prefer if women had stiletti

oshron said:

i don't think it's possible to make it mandatory that all citizens carry a sword--not everyone can afford that. but i can definitely see the persistence of swords by the upper class and some of the middle. iirc, canes came into common used because swords were outlawed and they were really meant to replace them as a means of self-defense

Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that a blade can easily be hidden in a cane...

Neirdak said:

Poor citizens and women could have daggers, even if I would prefer if women had stiletti

Click to expand...

well, yeah, that's a given. the point is that no government would want to shell out all that money and metal that can go to much more important projects just to make sure that everyone has a sword on them at all times

Archon of Thessaly said:

Actually, in medieval England it was a legal REQUIREMENT to carry a sword/dagger around with you at all times ( except in homes or in cities) to kepp the peace.

Click to expand...

True, but mediaeval England also essentially relied on mob justice to catch escaping criminals, and I don't see that principle being something you can keep in the long term.

Screw the rules; I'm carrying an AK-47 with a bayonet (close enough to a short sword) attached to it. If the Man just has a blade, he's more than welcome to try and disarm me.