Warriors Wield Weapons

Ā sceal snotor hycgean ymb þysse worulde gewinn.

(Ever shall the wise be mindful of this world’s strife.)

- Maxims I.B.

One of the most often stated observations about Germanic culture is that it was a “warrior culture”. The elite of Germanic societies were the warriors and a lot of what we know about Germanic history is framed against warfare. From weapon-containing grave to sagas dedicated to the battle-prowess of semi-mythical heroes, a very clear bias towards martial accomplishment is clear.

In the Old English language, mankind was divided into two groups – weaving men (wīf) and war men (wer): women and men. To be a man was to be capable of violent action. This is not, of course, to say that all Anglo-Saxon men were bloodthirsty warriors, constantly seeking their next fight. Rather, it is an acceptance of mankind’s potential for violence and the need to be ready to protect oneself, one’s community, and one’s property from human predators. The average Anglo-Saxon was a farmer rather than a warrior but that did not mean they shied from violence in time of need.

The world of the Anglo-Saxon was very different to the modern world that the Fruman finds him - or her – self in. We are far less likely to become victims of violent assault, and many of us are unable to carry weapons as part of our daily lives. In the UK, specifically, it is illegal to be in possession of an “offensive weapon” in a public place. Frumcræft does not advocate the breaking of laws so would not advise anyone to carry a weapon in contravention of legislation. How, then, can we reconcile this conflict between worldview and (modern) world? I have a number of potential suggestions that can work.

Firstly, the capacity to inflict violence is not purely about carrying a weapon that you may not even know how to use effectively. It is more about having the combination of skills, fitness, and mentality that allow you to become the best fighter that you can be. I won’t go into detail on these because there are any number of other people and resources out there far more qualified than myself to speak about such things. (Confession: I am not where I could be with any of these categories. These musings are as much for me as for you, the reader.)

The concept of ritual violence is something integrated into Frumcræft. Specifically, honour combat in the form of the duel. Accepting that mutually agreed combat is a valid way to resolve a dispute is a way of acknowledging the place of violence in the Fruman worldview.

Just as you may maintain a shrine of some kind in your home, keeping a weapon (specifically a spear) in the home is something every Fruman should consider, for the protection of the hearth’s welfulness in accordance with the folcways.

Something to note about UK law is that Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act (1988) does allow for the defence of having an article with blade or point in public place for religious reasons. This piece of legislation allows Sikhs to carry kirpans, as well as those of other religions to carry various bladed items for ritual purpose. A similar justification could be made for those with a Heathen worldview to carry weaponry in public. If not daily, at least for certain ritualised occasions.

To conclude, the Fruman worldview is accepting of the existence of violence and does not shy from it when it appears. The use of weapons is also something that is embraced in Frumcræft whether as symbolic totems and talismans, or as functional items in ritual action.