H.L. Flash
Why are we forever speaking
Of the warriors of old?
Men are fighting all around us,
Full as noble, full as bold.
Ever working, ever striving,
Mind and muscle, heart and soul,
With the reins of judgment keeping
Passions under full control.
Noble hearts are beating boldly
As they ever did on earth;
Swordless heroes are around us,
Striving ever from their birth.
Tearing down the old abuses,
Building up the purer laws,
Scattering the dust of ages,
Searching out the hidden flaws.
Acknowledging no “right divine”
In kings and princes from the rest;
In their creed he is the noblest
Who has worked and striven best.
Decorations do not tempt them–
Diamond stars they laugh to scorn–
Each will wear a “Cross of Honor”
On the Resurrection morn.
Warriors they in fields of wisdom–
Like the noble Hebrew youth,
Striking down Goliath’s error
With the God-blessed stone of truth.
Marshalled ‘neath the Right’s broad banner,
Forward rush these volunteers,
Beating olden wrong away
From the fast advancing years.
Contemporaries do not see them,
But the _coming_ times will say
(Speaking of the slandered present),
“There were heroes in that day.”
Why are we then idly lying
On the roses of our life,
While the noble-hearted struggle
In the world-redeeming strife.
Let us rise and join the legion,
Ever foremost in the fray–
Battling in the name of Progress
For the nobler, purer day.
© by owner. provided at no charge for educational purposes
You may find this and other poems here.
Analysis (AI Assisted)
This poem pushes back against the habit of turning heroism into something safely buried in the past. From the opening question, it challenges the reader to stop looking backward and start paying attention to the present. The speaker argues that courage and sacrifice did not end with legendary warriors or famous battles. They are ongoing, quieter, and often overlooked.
Instead of focusing on physical combat, the poem reframes war as moral and intellectual struggle. The “warriors” here are people engaged in constant effort—working, thinking, restraining themselves, and choosing principle over impulse. That emphasis on discipline matters. These figures are not driven by rage or glory but by judgment and responsibility. Heroism is shown as sustained effort rather than a single dramatic act.
One of the poem’s strongest moves is its insistence that heroism does not require weapons. By calling these figures “swordless heroes,” it expands the idea of what a war poem can be. The battles being fought are against injustice, inherited abuses, and unearned authority. This places the poem firmly in a reform-minded tradition, where progress is won through labor, reason, and persistence rather than violence alone.
The rejection of “right divine” is especially important. It signals a democratic moral framework, where worth is earned through effort instead of birth or title. Honor, in this poem, is internal and future-facing. Decorations and medals are dismissed as shallow rewards, replaced by a spiritual reckoning that cannot be handed out by institutions or governments. That shift pulls the poem away from nationalism and toward ethical accountability.
Religious language appears throughout, but it is used less to enforce doctrine than to frame moral struggle. The reference to David and Goliath is telling. Truth, not force, is the weapon that defeats entrenched error. This comparison casts reformers and thinkers as combatants in a long-running fight against falsehood, suggesting that progress itself requires courage equal to any battlefield bravery.
The poem also acknowledges a familiar problem: contemporaries often fail to recognize the people doing this work. True judgment, it claims, belongs to the future. This idea carries both comfort and warning. It reassures those who labor without praise, but it also implies that present indifference may later be judged harshly.
The final stanza turns outward and becomes a call to action. The speaker criticizes complacency and comfort, suggesting that choosing ease while others struggle is a moral failure. The invitation to “join the legion” is not about enlistment in war but commitment to progress. The poem ends not with certainty of victory, but with urgency, pressing the reader to choose participation over admiration.
As a war poem, this piece stands apart by refusing violence as its center. It argues that the most important battles are fought in thought, labor, and reform, and that these struggles demand the same courage once reserved for soldiers. Its strength lies in how firmly it insists that heroism is not rare, not finished, and not safely confined to history.