Weird Historical Amour and Weapons

[Bluehawk]

Over-under double-barreled blunderbuss by Johann Steckel, converted later to percussion locks. The rammer is stored on the right-hand side between the barrels, rather than underneath, embedded in the stock, where most muskets have them. Gold inlay and ornate carving decorate the stock, tang and upper barrel.

Spoiler

Edit: Come to think of it, I guess the rammer is still embedded in the stock, it's just that the stock is shaped differently than usual, due to the barrel configuration.

 

[Mamlaz]

That is beautiful.

 

[matmohair1]

Miles Classiarius, Etruscan mariner in
Roman service - 3rd century BC

Spoiler

 

[Untitled.]

What is that hook-spear thing used for? It looks a bit unwieldy, like something out of DnD.

 

[Swissky]

My best bet would be hooking unto ships or cutting its ropes.

 

[Vraelomon]

Wouldn't you want the hooks curving the other way for that?

 

[Swissky]

You could just turn it..

 

[RC-1136]

I think I have seen something like it on a tomb stone relief somewhere. Reverse image search didn't turn anything up but I would guess the original was a standard bearer.

Romans had some weird standards like these of the beneficarii:

Spoiler

 

[matmohair1]

Romans had some weird standards like these of the beneficarii:

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[matmohair1]

Mindelheim type "Chieftain of Oss" Hallstatt sword
from Vorstengraf (grave of the king) in Oss
Rijksmuseum van Oudheden...

Spoiler

comparison with other Iron Age, Hallstatt findings

Spoiler

 

[Bromden]

That first sword must have been awful hard to draw from it's sheath.

 

[Ililsa]

Clearly it's designed to be worn as loop on the belt.

 

[matmohair1]

its probably part of the ritual "killing of the sword",
before presenting it as an offering

Spoiler

however, belt swords did existed in India

Spoiler

 

[RC-1136]

How about making it unusable for thieves? I'm always a bit sceptical about explaining something as "ritual".

 

[Anarion]

Making it unusable for thieves by making it unusable for anyone? How does that make any sense?

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

How about making it unusable for thieves? I'm always a bit sceptical about explaining something as "ritual".

But it's a ritual that makes sense even to us modern humans. You ruin the sword so nobody else can use it, and the honour and mystique attached to the weapon "dies" with the person. Nobody cheapens the honour of the man by re-using his sword and equipment. Some people like to burn wedding dresses or prevent anyone from sleeping in a room where a child died or whatever. It's a form of memorial.

 

[RC-1136]

Making it unusable for thieves by making it unusable for anyone? How does that make any sense?

Exactly.
These swords weren't laying around but were used as ritual () offerings or burial objects.

But it's a ritual that makes sense even to us modern humans. You ruin the sword so nobody else can use it, and the honour and mystique attached to the weapon "dies" with the person. Nobody cheapens the honour of the man by re-using his sword and equipment. Some people like to burn wedding dresses or prevent anyone from sleeping in a room where a child died or whatever. It's a form of memorial.

I totally understand the logic behind it but just because something is logical doesn't mean it was done. As long as there isn't a source claiming a swords spirit had to be broken (not just some "historian" fantasising about) by bending it I remain sceptical.

I just had a look into the short "Die Kelten" by Alexander Demandt. He says that offerings which were objects of utility ("Gebrauchsgegenstand") - so not just swords - often were damaged. Torcs were broken, chariots disassembled and swords bent. According to Demandt this custom was used to deter theft while still being able to fullfil the oath to sacrifice named object. The same custom was used for burial objects as well.

 

[Anarion]

People in all cultures have done weird and apparently counter-intuitive **** for religious reasons so it's a good guess. You're being contrarian and arrogant.

 

[RC-1136]

Ok. Thanks? 
You are free to guess whatever you like. I just wanted to state my opinion and even bothered to look up the opinion of one of the authorities in the field.

This isn't a new idea as can be seen by matmohair calling it "part of the ritual "killing of the sword"". There is a tendency especially among archaeologists and historians to explain things we can't fully understand ("weird and apparently counter-intuitive ****") with them being ritualistic or cultic. So I would remain sceptical and ask for evidence regarding the killing of the soul of a weapon. I have little knowledge about archaeology and Celtic history so I totally might have missed some evidence supporting "sword killings" 

On the other hand being aware of thieves isn't illogical at all. The Romans for example didn't use this custom. So it did occur that they plundered the temples when in danger and in need for available weapons. King David in the bible is another example when he took Goliath´s sword from the temple to use it fighting Saul.

 

[Anarion]

Being sceptical is good, but thinking you know better than archaeologists because of your gut feeling is arrogant. If you leave something as an offering to the dead, how is that anything other than ritual? Both preventing theft and some kind of magic effect may have been considerations when destroying votive objects.