| >> |
!!cJ4MGVqvOKw 10/23/11(Sun)17:00 No.30824972>>30824878
Household guards are not always on active military duty. In fact, suggesting such a thing completely defeats the fundamental principles of British legislation on such things. Right off the top of my head, if you look at the household guards during the uprising of the Earl of York in 1602 against Queen Elizabeth, it's quite easy to see that many of the Queen's guards were inexperienced and purely for show. You're making basic assumptions here that are pretty much historically inaccurate, man. Chill on that, it defeats your argument pretty handily.
In fact, furthermore, you're drawing meanings from my statement of "purely decorative" that I am not suggesting. Simply because they are for show does not preclude them from being trained, as I have said, and many of the Swiss Guard, though qualified to wield weapons, have no functional capacity as soldiers. Furthermore, citing the British Home Guard again, considering the entirety of their role in the later years of WWII was to provide the image of a maintained front at home during the conscription period, despite not having any training at all they fulfilled their purpose admirably.
Seriously, man, come on, if there's one thing I can tell you it's that the Swiss Guard are trained for hand-to-hand combat and decoration. They're glorified bodyguards, not soldiers. |
