I'm a warrior. I know and accept the normal risks of modern warefare. People get bits sliced
off them in battle. It happens!
If a vital bit gets chopped or crushed, you probably die. If you get cut and survive, then you either have something to brag about or you end up challenged in some way.
I don't hold with people who go whining to the king about their injuries and trauma. If those guys want to earn their living by sticking spears in other people, they shouldn't act surprised if someone lashes back at them. It's a well known occupational hazard.
My enjoyment of harp music has been totally destroyed as a result.
The damage arises out of the pursuit of short-term interests by tribal leaders. Nothing less than three head of cattle will compensate me for this.
I lay the blame for the damage on these new iron swords.
You see, the clangs made by iron weapons are totally different to those made by the standard bronze gear. It's all got to do with the molecular properties, tensile strengths, etc. The leading edge of the accoustic wave rises very sharply. There's also a lot more reverberation in the sound.
The vested interests (king, chieftans, blacksmiths) deny all this of course. They produce laboratory studies that purport to show no ill-effects on hearing. All they see are reduced maintenance costs and sharper edges.The contra-indications are being wilfully ignored or suppressed.
My position is that we should stick with bronze. Nothing whatsoever is known about the
cumulative or long-term effects of using iron weapons.
If anyone out there knows of any studies into the accoustic effects of iron weapons relative to those of bronze weapons, I would be greatly obliged for information.
If you would like to help with this claim, submit suggestions or pointers to sources of expertise, please use
Niall's section of the Message Board.
Back to Tír na nÓg