[Felix Wang]

Many excellent thoughts have already been mentioned.

The symbolic importance of a weapon is not related to its overall battlefield efficacy. In modern times, the major killing instrument of armies has been artillery, with small arms being relatively unimportant and edged weapons not even registering in most statistics. Yet rifles, pistols and bayonets have considerable symbolic importance. I would guess this is in part because they are personal weapons, used and cared for by one individual.

I suspect that swords may be more subject to individual preference than spears/polearms. The sword is not easy to master (as already noted), but it is also difficult to make well - and its handling is probably more subject to individual tastes than spears. Swords have individual weight and balance, and different swordsmen have different preferences. On the other hand, the few threads on the various sword-related fora that talk about spears and the like discuss construction,
but little is said about weight and balance. A poorly balanced sword is a disappointment, a poorly balanced spear can more easily be fixed - just by moving your grip, or trimming the shaft.

[Jack McGregor Lynn]

Also, the sword works really well in a lot of different conditions, if you have never tried to fight with a long spear indoors I garentee you that you find it to be very difficult (as well as bad for whatever indoors your in). Clements mentions how effective a rapier would be in a narrow alleyway. I would say that your basic longsword would work pretty well almost anywhere. I have a 53-54 inch German bastard sword. It can be handled inside with reasonable efficiency and outside with great effect.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Well, as far as one handed weapons go, the sword is king. You just can't get the same reach and balance with a one handed axe or mace. It's also the best one handed weapon for killing an unarmoured man (the best two handed weapon for killing an unarmoured man is a glaive - basically a sword on a stick). But the shortness of a one handed sword isn't always a disadvantage - it's a great thing to have in the press of a melee. Sometimes things become too tight for the longer weapons.

And as othes have noted, the longsword is amazingly versitile - short enough to be useful when space is restricted, a two handed grip for power but light enough to be used in one hand, and, against armour you can half sword or grab the blade with both hands and go for a murder stroke.

[Jeff Gentry]

well i even wonder if maybe because in a feudal system when a Nobel had to raise an army spear's being cheaper and not as hard to learn to use they were extremely common to most and a sword in the hand's of a trained sword's man was a little more impressive to most people even of that day, i do agree that a spear is a very effective weapon and should not be ignored, and the english quarter staff was used like a walking stick and carried by almost all peasants so no mystery there.


These are just my musing's.


Jeff

[Jörg W.]

Hey all,

I too read that the sword was the first tool specially designed for warfare. I agree although I remember that there are some sax (if you don’t distinguish between 1 and 2 edged swords) which were used as tool and weapon.
And looking at sword physics it is easy to understand that they were that expensive. Making a good axe is one thing, but a sword has to be hard (at the edges) and yet elastic (core). You need some major understanding of the material (im talking about steel foremost). Mass distribution and fitting is more difficult too (guess that was said already). No surprise that the sword was some kind of object of prestige.
By the way, spear and shield as primary and a small sword as secondary weapon is best for fighting in formation (remember Greeks phalanx and roman’s style of warfare) while longer swords are better for individual fights. The fight one on one has always been valued as more heroic.

As we know axe and spear were common weapons on the battlefield for quite some centuries. Im really interested in fighting techniques of other weapons than sword too. It might be easier to learn some basic strikes with an axe, but guards should be difficult (even with shield). There is a lot material on swords available, but what about other weapons? I only read of some things about quarterstaff. How exactly were all these used against each other and against a sword? Any recommended internet sources or books?
I saw a fight of a recreation group (migration era). A sword and shield man supported by a spear man on his left side looked quite effective. Both covered by the shield and able to fight at distance and close same time. I wonder if they got any source to learn from.


Jörg

[Shane Smith]

[R. Laine]

[B. Fulton]

I agree with most of the above replies.

However, spears haven't completely "gone away". A bayonet was the effort to make a musket into a pike for when people got close. It worked.

A knife on the end of a rifle is used the same way as a short spear, so you can argue that spears, in spirit at least, are still around for the real dirty close combat.


Tomahawks have been coming back into popularity as a handy multipurpose tool, the Army Rangers have gotten some into use in Afghanistan, and they've not forgotten that at close range, an axe or tomahawk makes a nasty antipersonnel weapon for those who know how to use it.


I think the artillery/rifle and spear/sword thing is valid. Pikes, spears and archery do all the long range work, but when things get bad and the enemy gets close, the sword and axe rule the battlefield.

[Jörg W.]

Thank you Rabbe Jan-Olof Laine.
But I think I will have to study modern manuals with precise comments before I start to look at any of these old onces. Im only beginning.

[R. Laine]

[Matthew Kelty]

> I too read that the sword was the first tool specially designed for warfare.

Not to pick nits, but this is a bit of a misnomer. In almost every culture, the first weapon of war was the club. Sure, the sword is the club with a 'bite', but I just thought that it was worth mentioning if we're going to be investigating the roots of weapons.

From clubs you can fairly easily trace out the next two related branches of weapons, notably hachets and swords, but the club is weapon numero uno (probably with the sole exception of 'Irish Artillery'*, the thrown rock....

Matthew Kelty

*P.S. Before anyone gets offended, yes, I'm Irish too....

[Kirk Lee Spencer]

[Gary Grzybek]

Haven't you guys seen the old Quizno's commercial?

There's a couple of Neanderthal's sitting on a hill holding rocks. One of their buddies walks up with a long stick and they all begin to laugh at him. He then proceeds to stab one of them with it and the laughter stops


Swords seem to have carry more symbolism and mystique besides the fact that they were extremely versitile. This certainly does'nt count out the incredible usefulness of the various pole arms. I wouldn't want to go to war without a good pole arm.