A Matter Of Opinion

[imp_resario]

Sender: Moxxie
Subject: re: Armaments, traditions, and customs, vis-a-vis names

Reverein, I need a little help in resolving a minor dispute on a matter of opinion. And weapons.

Namely, the naming thereof.

Now, I've always had a mind for the classics in both music and literature, and giving a weapon a name all its own is a way of establishing personal significance, identity, and legacy, to say nothing of gravitas in recognition of or anticipation of the deeds ascribed to it. What, pray tell, would be Der Ring des Nibelungen without Nothung, the accursed sword of Siegfried? What would be the Arthurian legends without Excalibur or La Chanson de Roland without Durandal?

I would assert, therefore, that the practice is timeless, and has a well-earned place in the modern day, and with modern weaponry besides; that something like, for example, a shotgun can have enough significance to its wielder and within its deeds that it is no less worthy of being given a name than the weapons of old.

HOWEVER, in contrast, a certain colleague of mine does not share my views on this matter and describes the entire practice as, and I quote them directly,

"Cringe, T B H".

Which to me not only shows a lack of dramatic appreciation but also ignorance of the proud tradition upheld by the act of doing so. Thus I put it to a vote in a public forum before my fellow dreamers:

Is the practice of naming weapons really just a relic of a bygone sentimentality, or is it a timeless practice honoring the tools of the world's second-oldest trade?

Comments

Sender: Emet-Selch

[recreator]

I assure you that the tradition of naming weapons is still very much alive and well today. Though the practice has become more of an individual choice throughout the ages, and indeed its popularity varies amongst cultures, it is quite common within military nations such as Garlemald.

Few soldiers within the legions would choose to eschew the opportunity to style themselves thusly.

[imp_resario]

On top of which, I'd imagine a military nation would revere the weapons of its leaders just as much as the leaders themselves, wouldn't it?

In a sense, having your weapon named and enshrined among the greats would be its own form of immortality.

[recreator]

Fame, perhaps - yet not immortality. Tales of heroics are all forgotten - revised, misremembered, and lost to the march of time, while even the most well-preserved of relics eventually deteriorate and crumble, rejoining the dust from with they were first wrought.

As for your first point, I suppose that matter would depend entirely upon your definition of "weapon". Some military nations are known for their technological advancements, yes. Their warmachina and their airships, their tactical trump cards. Amongst the likes of those, personal tools such as swords and scythes would easily pale by comparison.

[imp_resario]

Okay, I can concede the point about legend fading to 'folklore' and then to 'forgotten', but I don't know if I'd count both 'personal armaments' and 'superweapons' in the same boat.

Weapons tend to be remembered for the deeds of their wielders, but the giant warships and airborne fortresses of the world [and of stories, for that matter] were more known for the circumstances of their destruction and being case studies in hubris.

[recreator]

Not the same boat, perhaps, and yet they are all part of the same war.

What, then, is the difference, really? And why should there be one? A personal sword or a gunblade may stand as a symbol of the individual, their fighting prowess, or their leadership abilities, yet it would be those "case studies in hubris" - the larger weaponry and the fleets of airships which truly turn the tide - those too often in part to the strategies laid out and executed by those who would command them.

Even looking to other articles of warfare - the catapult, for example, which might topple an enemy stronghold. Or the suits of armor which allow soldiers to live to tell the tale of their exploits. Why is it that these things so often prove less legendary and less often named than their more compact counterparts?

[imp_resario]

Because it's about the individual more than the war.

I'm as pragmatic as the next gunman who's put a bullet in someone someone unaware and at fifty paces, but there's no poetry or drama in just using a weapon of mass destruction.

People want to hear about, think about, and compare themselves to triumphs over impossible odds, not scorched earth and crumbling walls.