[expand]The sword-altar served as oath-making location and judgment site. When warriors swore binding oaths—treaties between tribes, marriage alliances, partnership agreements, declarations of vengeance—they did so before iron blade, understanding that sword witnessed promises and would punish oath-breakers. The mechanism of punishment was not supernatural curse but practical consequence: warrior who broke oath made at sword-altar lost divine protection in battle, his blade would turn in his hand, his armor would fail, enemies would find gaps in his defense. Whether this was actual magical effect or psychological self-sabotage, the result was the same—oath-breakers died.
Disputes between warriors were sometimes resolved through ordeal at sword-altar. When two men claimed the same woman, same horse, same honor, and neither would yield, they might agree to test at blade-site. Various ordeal forms existed—both men grasping naked blade to see whose hand bled first, both approaching mound from opposite directions to see who touched blade first without stepping on platform, both swearing contradictory oaths to determine whose blade broke in next battle. These ordeals shifted conflict from interpersonal violence to judgment by divine weapon, allowing community to accept result without ongoing feud.
The sword-god’s judgment was considered impartial and final. Unlike human judges who might favor kin or friends, unlike elders whose memory failed or whose wisdom wavered, the blade decided through pure mechanism beyond corruption. The sword had no relatives to favor, no allies to protect, no political interests to advance. Its judgment was material reality—blood flowed or did not flow, blade broke or remained whole, warrior died or survived. This objectivity made sword-altar decisions socially acceptable even to losing party, because no human manipulation could be blamed.
[/expand]