All the gun control shit going on in America has had me thinking lately about what historical precedence it has. Were roman citizens who lived in large cities permitted to have swords? Were there any feudal kings that sought to disarm their subjects? Were early gunpowder-based projectile weapons seen as dangerous in the hands of their citizenry?
Did historical societies try to restrict personal weapon ownership?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
archive.org
twitter.com
Hideyoshi did a sword hunt in the late 1500s after unifying Japan to strip peasants from weaponry. Peasants had accumulated tons of weapons during the over century long civil war and were prone to peasant revolts all the time. Hideyoshi and later Tokugawa shogunate forbade people from moving from their Han to another for further stability (enforced serfdom).
>trying to compare european feudal systems with american "muh freedom" systems
doesn't really work. Only certain classes were allowed weapons
...
Euro peasants were always restricting weaponry. They do not know true freedom.
back when /b/ was not 99% porn
In medieval Wallachia and Moldova a free man who did not own a spear or a sword and a bow was sentenced to death for being unprepared for defending the country.
>needing a purgo when a real Roman can defend himself with a virga
As a German - true. All the ones who had a notion of individual responsibility emgirated to America.
Generally, medieval peasantry wasn't allowed to own weapons, with some exceptions (like Englishmen with their bows).
In Carantania, there was a class of free men known as kosezi. They were outside the feudal structure; exempt from taxation, had the right to inheritance and they had the right to carry weapons.
Swords were banned in Rome for a while during the republic.
Wow, first time I've seen a European compliment Euro migrants.
In General you guys are wrong, free men were always allowed, and in most cases required to own weapons in the medieval era. Only serfs were not required to own arms, but they weren't really forbidden to own a weapon.
No, you're wrong.
so if a blacksmith accidentally hammered the wrong place and forged a spearhead instead of a knife, 500 knights would instantly come charging into his village and take turns pounding him in the ass for his crime, this is what you actually believe
Please post a medieval source or law that prevents free men from owing arms then.
As mentioned , medieval societies worked different, and in times of crisis they had to rely on armed freemen and farmers for their defense.
Sorry, I can't. I'm still waiting for a source on the original statement myself. You'll have to hop in line. We're all waiting for sources here.
I can give you half dozen sources that regulate what kind of weapons and what quality people had to own and how much/often training they had to perform with said weapons, I can give you sources on whats the max blade length you can carry to town on a church day, I can bring you sources on how many days able bodied men from a household were required to serve a year. Etc.
But I fucking wouldn't know a single example of a full scale weapons ban in medieval Europe. Best on the restriction side I can do for you is carry bans for non-citizens in cities.
kinda curious, how expensive were they compared to guns?
Cool, post that then. In all honesty I don't even give a shit. I was simply calling you out for not posting a source in the first place this was my first post in the thread. I can't even tell you what the OP is about without going back to re-read it. I'm simply wasting your time as a point.
still dont
1) The ultimate reason why European states never bothered about weapons ownership in the past was largely due to reliance on """civilians""" (no such distinction even at the time) to help enforce the law or man the army. With the emergence of the standing army in the late 1600s, and the modern police force in the mid 19th century, states began to think that weapon's ownership by civilians a moot point.
2) And then from 1840s to 1930s Europe was filled with massacring fanatics of one stripe or another. You have anarchists shooting up royals/politicians they disagreed with/random targets, you had nationalist chimpouts every now and then, nationalists assassinating random foreign heads, or in the case of empires, minority nationalists trying to kill imperial nobles, officials, and even royals (hello, Princip), then finally armed socialist and communist thugs shitting up the streets of post WWI Europe.
By then, states were convinced that liberal firearms ownership was a very bad idea in an environment filled with crusading fanatics. So for the sake of law and order, strict firearms laws showed up in Europe. The Cold War also didn't help.
THEY WERE ASHIGARU NOT PEASANTS
AND IT WAS ALSO THE ARMOURIES OF LORDS IN DISTANT PROVINCES SO ONLY THE SHOGUNATE COULD FIELD LARGE ARMIES
>bludgeons you to death with threshing club
wat do
>expensive
you understand prices fluctuate massively
a sword from a city forge could be cheap due to quicker production or more expensive than a village sword due to the guild's influnence
But peasant revolts using repurposed farm equipment should say it all
Only have a Wikipedia source since I’m fucking lazy but Pope Innocent II called for a ban on crossbows to be used on other Christians, see Canon 29
>en.m.wikipedia.org
>Canon 20: Kings and princes were ordered to dispense justice in consultation with the bishops.
>Canon 14: Prohibition, under pain of deprivation of Christian burial, of jousts and tournaments which endangered life.
>Canons 6, 7, 11: Repeated the First Lateran Council's condemnation of marriage and concubinage among priests, deacons, subdeacons, monks, and nuns.
>Canon 12: Fixed the periods and the duration of the Truce of God.
is there any good this council did not do?
I'd like to know more about the proliferation of gunpowder weapons. I imagine that they must have been too expensive for most people for a long time, but at some point the gun became the preferred weapon for hunting. I wonder how production and arsenals changed to make them accessible to poorer folk?
Logically, must have been a time when half of hunters used bows (or crossbows) and half used guns in any given region. I wonder when that was in, say, England. And what about China?
As a rule: very rarely. Most weapons restrictions date back in the 16th to the 20thCentury. With the lion's share of them dating back to the late 19th and 20th Centuries.
As a rule many historical societies relied on a local level for law enforcement, as such personal weapon's ownership is conducive to this. All of Imperial China and Early Rome for example. In societies with highly informal military arrangements (i.e. Early Medieval Europe), states didn't care who or where their armed forces came from, so long as they had some. City States meanwhile were highly reliant on a citizen militia of some sort.
I know of China.
Imperial China permitted personal weapon's ownership so people can police themselves/serve as emergency wartime reinforcements. However, they were banned "State Weapons." Initially this were crossbows and heavy artillery like catapults. When gunpowder weapons showed up, the ban on crossbows was lifted but civilians couldn't own gunpowder weapons such as cannons, rockets, fire lances, handcannons, and when they showed up, muskets.
However most civilians & peasants skirted around the law by owning wooden gunpowder weapons such as tree-trunk cannons or bamboo handguns. Also Imperial Officials often looked the other way if the people DO own actual firearms so long as they are not rebelling.
FUN FACT: the Ming military often used weapons peasants came up with. The more interesting of these are the rope-bound, one shot, disposable bamboo handguns they have. The logic of such a weapon was to give non-musketeer soldiers such as swordsmen some sort of gunpowder ranged attack before closing in. Very much like a disposable anti-tank missile of modern times.
Thanks for this neat post.
>Were roman citizens who lived in large cities permitted to have swords?
In Rome, you couldn't bring weapons inside the Pomerium unless you were a dictator's lictor, and even then just your fasces.
Outside of that it was allowed afaik.
The Södermannalagen, a Swedish lawbook from 1325 requires all freeman to own a shield and a sword, a spear and a helmet, a mail shirt or coat of plate and a bow with 3 dozen arrows.
archive.org
>Thætta svulu hamnu uapn uæra Skiolder ok suærd. spyut ok iarnhatter. Huar hamna scal haua muzo eller penzara eller ok plato.
You'll find similar laws for large parts of Scandinavia including Denmark and Norway.
During early and high medieval times, levy free men would make up big parts of a medieval army, and so mandatory weapons laws were enforced and a way of taxing free farmers. A mail shirt was a small fortune at the time.
In late medieval society changed and in the high feudal parts of Europe not many free men were left, and serfs usually were not permitted to show weapons of war by the customs of the time. Thats not exactly a weapons law, but a tradition that excludes large parts of the population from owning anything bigger than a hunting spear or a machete sized knife.
No, he's right. Ownership was almost invariably allowed in the west, most laws were about not allowing commoners to be armed within city borders.
P.S., One restriction/law that was pretty strict in the HRE was the regulation of hunting weapons/methods. Exclusively reserved for nobility was hunting from horseback and the use of ranged weapons such as crossbow or early guns. Non nobles were restricted to hunting on foot with spears and catch dogs. So you could call this a late medieval weapons ban on guns and crossbows.
Example: In 1350, Emperor Karl IV granted the privileged of owning and spotting crossbows to the Nuremberg guild of Zeidlers, wild honey collectors who worked deep in the woods and had frequent encounters with bears. In exchange they had to escort the emperor and his entourage trough the imperial forest.
In every case I have seen, weapons ownership was part of a responsibility, not an out-of-hand gimme based on an abstract principle. People were required or permitted to own weapons, and they were required to use them to serve the state or community. I think that's still the proper place for weapons in civilized society.
>I think that's still the proper place for weapons in civilized society.
I beg to disagree.
That's funny, but there's something to it. The gun is the weak man's crutch.
>The gun is the weak man's crutch
This seems a little silly, when someone busts into your home to rape your daughter to death I doubt you'd care whether or not using your gun was "fair" or a "crutch".
For that matter, why the fuck would you ever fight fair when your life is on the line?
Tacitus writes that the Swedes kept all their weapons locked up, and only used them during war or training. "Idle groups of armed men could easily harm themselves or others" he writes.
This should be taken with a grain of salt though, since it's both illogical and impractical.
Possibly, the chieftain/king imposed a rule that no weapons were allowed to be carried inside the capital village, or something of the sort, but it's impossible that this rule applied to people living on their farms in the middle of nowhere.
>Man is on top of my daughter in the dark
>Shoot at him
???
Very interesting. Do you have more info?
>only used them during war or training
When else would you use weapons? Do you mean carrying weapons?
>it's impossible that this rule applied to people living on their farms in the middle of nowhere.
It couldn't be enforced, you mean. But that doesn't mean that farmers went about their daily business carrying weapons. Why would they?
In any case, although these rules may have been less than perfectly effective, it possibly indicates a culture of responsibility and caution when it comes to weapons. That counts for more than any rule, I think. I would prefer that few rules exist about this in my country, but it seems to me like the culture won't change unless there are more rules first. Today the rules reflect the cultural dogma that weapons are more important in themselves than whatever they might be used to protect. They also reflect the mistaken belief that civilians have the innate discipline and skill to bear arms effectively and responsibly. Historical weapons regulations tend to respect the purpose of bearing arms, whereas in the US bearing arms is seemingly a purpose unto itself. I think that's degenerate and unworthy of a warrior culture.
Don't know how true this is, can't even remember where I heard it, but the German messer swords(pic related) started being made after the blacksmiths found a loophole in the law, which stated that a sword must have two edges, and no peasant can own a sword. So they just made one edged swords which they called war-knives and sold it to everyone, eventually even knights started buying em
depended on the period and the sword
in the early middle ages swords were expensive weapons for the upper class
in the late middle ages any freeman could afford at least an older used sword
of course this is a big generalization
someone came up with the comparison that asking how much a sword costed is like asking how much a car costs
anyone can afford a used shitty car but only the elites can afford brand new sports cars
>The gun is the weak man's crutch
And how is that a bad thing? It allows the most vulnerable people to protect themselves with relative ease.
They shouldn't be allowed to survive.
19 Now, not a smith was to be found in all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, "Lest the Hebrews make sword or spear."
20 And all Israel went down to the (land of) the Philistines to sharpen each man his plowshare and his colter and his axe and his mattock.
21 And there was a file for the mattocks and for the colters and for the three-pronged pitchforks and for the axes, and to set the goad.
22 And it was on the day of war, that neither sword nor spear was found in the possession of all the people who were with Saul and with Jonathan, but Saul and Jonathan his son had them.
I Samuel 13:19-22
Thats a rumor, Messer were mostly a fashion thing, noblemen including emperors spotted them as well.
>muh social darwinism
Humans are not gorillas, we are not judged by our strength and we are not at our best when we focus on strength. We are strategically-minded skirmishes that avoid CQC at all costs. Melee combat is actually unnatural, missiles weapons are far more compatible with our instinctual behavior.
They couldn't survive without a gun in the past but now they can, whether you like it or not.
In the end mistress reality has the final say on things.
In the past the weak facing extermination would curse her, and she wouldn't listen. Now you wail and curse her also because the weak have gun, and much the same she will not listen, because you were never her special snowflake.
>Melee combat is actually unnatural,
Melee combat against animals but fighting humans with melee is an instinct.
Kill man
Honor kill whore
>Tacitus writes that the Swedes kept all their weapons locked up
Locked up? Or stored? Because thats different things.
Its the difference between modern weapon strongbox, and simply storing the gun in a oiled rag sack.
Inb4 its all translation errors
Weapons were expensive as shit. Do you have any idea how much high quality iron was? Peasants were restictred, but it’s like saying trailer trash are restricted from owning an armored car with a machine gun mount. Duh. They can’t afford it anyway.
Take a look at the weapons that peasant armies had — pretty much just harvesting tools, sharpened by the local blacksmith and put on a long stick.
Guns were a game changer precisely because they were relatively cheap and the metal quality didn’t matter a whole lot. A small ball of cheap lead will fuck your shit up so long as it hits your target. You don’t need to have pointy high quality steel that won’t shatter.
Early guns were shit for hunting. Fun maybe for dandy nobles to gallivant and shoot, but they aren’t really worried about starving. For getting food on your plate, a bow is far superior. Quick, quiet, better range than early guns, cheaper, and if you miss you can fire again in seconds instead of a minute or three.
The British crown attempted firearm confiscation in their North American colonies in 1774
>regurgitation of meme history.
Then kill yourself for being unable to properly raise a child
do you know why people use guns and not swords
they kill mo betta
>Weapons were expensive as shit.
>peasant armies
>Guns were a game changer precisely because they were relatively cheap and the metal quality didn’t matter a whole lot
The absolute state of Veeky Forums.
Pesistratus did, twice.
and the Athenians fell for it twice.
As soon as the Athenians put their swords into a common armory instead of above the mantle of their house he marched his men directly to the Armory and took over the city.
The Romans did with the Goths too, but then the Goths just hid their weapons and killed the Romans.
It depends what era we’re talking about, and to an extent where, but for the average peasant? Yes. I’m talking genuine weapons, not your scythe blades on a pole. Shitty iron can be fashioned into a pointy bit, but against purpose-built weapons, battle after battle? No contest. It’s all very well and nice that free men were to own this and that - they were only a small fraction of the population.
The British and their fabled longbowmen were cheap as chips to train and equip. Horse nomads overran Europe with little pieces of wood and intestine strings.
>Horse nomads
>overran Europe
>he doesn't know horse niggers plundered and raped Europe for a 100 years straight.
...
>he doesn't know Magyars, Vikings and Saracen's made the 9th/10th century really interesting for Europe.
>like a slave raid a year interesting
if you look into what "hunting" is, its about 40% stalking(getting close) and 40% tracking(finding prey), and the rest is to finish the job.
Biggest benefit of gun, is that the prey is often injured so it won't run too far.
The only fuckup in the post, is assuming guns where cheap.
They are far more expensive, due complex components and being multi part. Gunpowder and bullets are somewhat cheaper, but still expensive.
Logistically, as guns become more relevant, warfare gets more expensive as well.
Simply because artillery is vital to a successful war, which means that any successful Rebellion needs to capture any local armory to acquire artillery. Then they need to capture any food storages, and don't engage in warfare when the harvest season arrives.
So historically, it ended up being more like the seasonal tariff strike than a full on revolution: Simply because they didn't have the manpower to starve themselves trough another harvest season. Which also means weapon ownership(low end) was never a issue.
In the city of Rome, that is
Yes but early guns were not very accurate so you’d have to be very close. Until the 1800s, it wouldn’t be very practical for actually reliably feeding yourself.
Pound for pound, guns use relatively less metal, so I meant cheaper in that regard. But obviously it depends. They do require a skilled craftsman to make, true, but then you’re paying for this service as much as material.
>range
+100m isn't "close" user. Thats a reasonable distance.
There is a reason hunting firearms where mandatory for landlords as early as the 1400s, it was simply a reasonable way to kill wolves and bears.
>it wouldn’t be very practical for actually reliably feeding yourself.
Sword for hire has been a occupation as long as there exists states willing to not have its own milita.
Professional hunters has been a thing since before civilization. After all, somebody has to have a use for all those pelts, and some needs some help hunting territorial predators.
Its very practical for feeding yourself, but not as a primary means.
>Pound for pound, guns use relatively less metal
Gears and fine ports always costs more than pattern welding user.
So WTF are you smoking.
They are also heavier, because the barrel has to be reinforced for the slugs and explosives.
During the Early Middle ages most people had weapons of sort. They might not necessarily have had swords, but seaxes, axes and most of all spears were accessible to everyone. And the idea that people regularly fielded peasants is a myth. Whenever someone fielded actual peasants then shit was really hitting the fan and things were going wrong.
>The only fuckup in the post, is assuming guns where cheap.
No. See what I wrote above.