[S Ott]

I've only begun into looking into historical weaponry and fighting, but it seems to me that most people agree that swords were more of a secondary weapon behind spears,polearms and arrows. But it seems like little is discussed on the use or qualty of spears, pikes and other primary weapons. And when was a sword used in battle was it just for close range when polearms lost their advantage. I hope I don't sound sarcastic. I am a newbie

[Russ Ellis]

Probably because since ancient times the sword has been venerated not just for its qualities as a weapon but for its symbolic qualities as well. A sword has been seen as a status symbol, a badge of rank and has been imbued with warrior qualites by many cultures since ancient times. The sword was venerated in medieval Europe and probably even more so in medieval Japan as an embodiment of warrior virtues. Since that time a great deal of mythology and romance has grown around swords. No one beats their plowshares into spear heads...

[Patrick Kelly]

Saying that a sword was a secondary weapon is perhaps being overly simplistic. It may not have been the first weapon used in the opening phase of an engagement, but it was hardly a secondary or second class weapon. I think a more accurate view would be of the sword as part of a complete weapons system. Different weapons for different uses and applications. In that sense nothing has changed over the centuries. In many cultures and time periods the sword was the constant companion of the warrior class. This can't be said for other weapons.

Why the focus on the sword? There is undoubtedly a sense of romance and mystique about the sword that other weapons don't have. I think we're all attracted to that. If we're approaching the issue as one of practicality and effectivness I'd have to ask "why?". I have plenty of weapons that I approach from a practical viewpoint but their all of .45 or .30 caliber

[Gordon Frye]

As Russ and Patrick say, there is a mystique about the sword, a veneration that just isn't there with most of the "primary" weapons of any era. It's rather like with the handguns which replaced the sword as a sidearm: no one in his right mind would carry a pistol into combat in preference to a rifle or other long arm, but there is a real attraction to them that most people of the Warrior bent (and plenty of others too!) find difficult to resist. It's not just fashion, but something visceral about their presence, and their attraction. Perhaps it's the idea of the closeness of combat with sidearms, or the more personal aspects of combat with such arms, or the more personal aspects of the arms themselves, or something totally beyond me, but it's a fascination that holds LOTS of folks in thrall, including me.

Besides, swords are just a whole lot cooler than spears.

Gordon

[S Ott]

I understand that. I'm looking to purchase my first sword and I hope to start collecting, depending on how my wife feels about it. I was always under the impression, perhaps from hollywood, that the sword was the principal tool of armed combat. Though I guess now, I'd like to have a spear also.

[Björn Hellqvist]

[Nathan Bell]

[Russ Ellis]

I wonder if part of it also has to do with what has been preserved. There's a big "gee whiz" factor when looking at an ancient sword even if the grip is missing. However lookat at an ancient spear head with no shaft... well..

[Kenneth Enroth]

I suspect the modern fascination with swords are beacuse of hollywood. How many got interested by seeing some film when they were kids? We don't use these things any more so we can just buy based on the image in our minds.

[Gordon Frye]

[Björn Hellqvist]

[Kirk Lee Spencer]

Hey guys...

I am sure Dr. Freud has an opinion on this... . Yet aside from that, we should also consider that the sword, while maybe secondary in terms of it's "back-up" weapon status, it was primary in its importance as the last line of defense (other than running away really fast). When you got down to going for your sword you realized how important its function was in terms of staying on planet earth a little longer. This fact might engender some place of honor and prestige.

Also swords are much easier to wear around town than other weapons. With a nice fashionable scabbard with up-to-date fittings, a sword knot, maybe some sword stones, a ring on the pommel, maybe with a peace band... Yes it all could work well together to give a rather nice understated ensemble that would draw special attention to your particular social, military and financial status. And, at the same time, act as a foil for a nice set of armor or a tunic of the finest samite. Fashion should never be underestimated A nice sword, scabbard and baldrick combination can make quite a statement.

I also like Russ' statement on the organic components. Not only that they would survive for museum displays but they would survive in better shape to be passed on from generation to generation thus collecting the aura of nostalgia as the ancestor's that owned them become more and more heroic with each retelling of their deeds.

ks

[R. Laine]

To be honest, it is a bit silly in my opinion to state that a sword was a "secondary" or "less effective" weapon when compared to, say, the spear; it all depends on the circumstances it is used under. Sure, it may not (usually - there were exceptions) have been a preferred battlefield weapon, but on the other hand, it was rather popular when it came to civilian self-defence. Doesn't require much space to be effective, deadly even at wrestling distance, comfortable to carry around, quick to draw etc. Wouldn't really want a halberd when getting into a fight in a tightly crowded pub...

As has been said, the lack of affection towards polearms seems to be a rather modern phenomenon. Vikings named their spears in a similar fashion as swords, the Chinese called the spear the "king of weapons", and quarterstaves really seem to have been rather liked in England, for example. Why these weapons don't get as much attention today as swords is a very interesting question indeed... My guess is that it has to do with the fact that swords lingered in the West somewhat longer than spears in the form of military sabres, smallswords and other such designs, and thus people find them somewhat more "familiar". Sorry for the very poor choice of words, but I didn't really find a better way of expressing it.

Rabbe

[David McElrea]

I agree with what many have said-- I'm particularly happy that Patrick said what he said-- I think an emphasis on the sword not being the primary weapon may be more unhelpful than helpful.

A few things to keep in mind:

1. It's all about using the best tool for the job. Different weapons are suited to different tasks. In many cultures throughout the ages, the javelin would be the first weapon put to work. After javelins, come swords. Both are equally important, but they fulfil different roles. Both are, in effect, "primary weapons".

The same could be said for other types of weapons: if you're charging the enemy lines, a lance is your best bet, (but then comes the sword). If you're trying to take down an opponent in plate, a mace may be more useful, and so on, but for most opponents, the sword does a “whiz of a job”. I think it would be a mistake to suggest that, in any of these instances, the sword became a "secondary weapon"—it’s just that certain weapons were used for certain jobs.

2. It's a matter of "who" is doing the fighting. While one might be safe in talking about the sword as one of the knights' principle weapons (and I think it was), this would not be true of the peasant militias. Status and wealth have always been a factor in sword ownership (as mentioned by others).

One could also look at the collective "who". If one were to survey a medieval battlefield one may very well describe the pike or longbow as the "primary" weapon-- but that wouldn't be the whole story.

3. It's also a matter of "when" and “where”. In the case of the Spartans the sword was very much a secondary weapon-- it was only put to use when the last spear had broken. I’d have no complaints if someone made this kind of statement in this context (and the same was likely true for many peoples), but it doesn’t seem right to generalise in this way for everywhere and for all times.

I’m not trying to elevate the sword far above all other weapons—I think it’s great that we’re being reminded that the spear, for example, had an equally important and prestigious role in European warfare. In fact, I would lean towards these being the two primary weapons throughout history (not ignoring the axe or bow). The sword would evolve one way, and the spear another (pikes/lances etc).

Sorry for being verbose,

David

[Dan Howard]

I agree with David and would add that the sword is the most versatile weapon ever devised. As said above, if a weapon was required for a specific job then there would usually be a weapon better suited than the sword. Long shafted weapons are better for massed infantry formations, lances are better for cavalry charges, maces and axes are more effective against heavy armour, etc. But the sword can be used - although less effectively - in all of the above cases. If you could only carry one weapon to battle then the sword would be the best choice. If you needed a backup weapon after your main weapon broke then the sword would also be the best choice. For a "jack of all trades" nothing beats a decent sword.

[Geoff Wood]

Hi S
All the implements mentioned are well past their practical use-by date, so none of this really matters anymore. It is just a hobby, and most of those interested are more interested in swords. I'm surprised they bother to explain or justify their tastes to anyone else. I'm surprised I'm bothering to post this at all. Happy Christmas.
Geoff

[David McElrea]

Geoff Wood wrote:

[Sam Barris]

I believe that the mystique of the sword has to do with a few things. First, yes, there's the argument that Dr. Freud would make. But you could say the same about a spear. Seriously, a long wooden shaft used for thrusting... ahem. Anyway... A sword was also far more expensive and difficult to make than a spear, or arrows. That puts it into the realm of the aristocracy. Not everyone could afford a sword, in the same way that not everyone could afford a fine warhorse or a nice suit of armor. And we all know how much aristocrats love their status symbols.

But most importantly, the sword is a warrior's weapon. Most cultures can agree on that point. Spears and bows can be used for hunting, axes can cut down trees, flails were once used to separate grain and hammers were also used by carpenters. The sword, however, has no "civilian" use. It's purpose is fighting, plain and simple. Perhaps because of this, the sword more than any other weapon lends itself to mysticism, philosophical themes of spiritual strength and romantic hero quests in just about every culture that had them with the possible exceptions of the Romans and Native Americans. It isn't just Hollywood. Hero quest epics throughout history and the world over have all revered the sword. Hollywood just picks up on the validity of the archetype. Do you think you'd be as inspired if Luke Skywalker carried a lightcudgel? I didn't think so.

Some might also argue that the sword is the most difficult weapon to master, but I've always found archery to be just as challenging, and just as prone to mystical undertones, so I shy away from that theory.

[Greyson Brown]

I have to agree with Sam. I think that the biggest reason for the reverence that swords recieve is that they have no civilian purpose. Just as individuals who live for and making fighting wars there purpose, there is a mysric about weapons that are soley devoted to the fray.

I'm also highly inclined to say that Rabbe is right in his statement that the sword was popular (at least in part) because it was easy to carry around, and access quickly. Some, axe/mace/hammer-type weapons can be carried without too much trouble, but then you have the problem of protecting yourself (especially if you are not wearing armour) from the sharp and/or pointy parts, and still have easy access. It is kind of like hand guns today. A shotgun would be better for close range, a rifle better for long range, but both are more of a nuisance to carry, so handguns become the predominate form of protection.

[Patrick Kelly]