Why are swords the "weapon of choice" in fantasy?

[BelgarionOz]

Well fantasy novels are generally set in a world with a medieval level of technological development. And swords were pretty much everywhere during those times. There are plenty of axes and hammers and clubs and pikes and bows though.

 

[Mirannan]

I'd like to see in fantasy some of the weapons that have actually seen use, recently, and that some Westerners have had experience with (often on the wrong end!) Two that come to mind are Zulu-type assegais (the late type, used in the wars with the British) and kukris.

Fantasy tends to have a really serious problem; it seems to default to cod-mediaeval, often with wild anachronisms thrown in.

 

[Kissmequick]

I think at least partly because of the symbolism of them that most westerners will have picked up almost by osmosis. Swords of old had power, they had names, they had a spiritual heft behind them. Think Excaliber, Hrunting (Beowulf's sword), Joyuese (Charlemagne's). It's similar in some respects elsewhere too -- many Samurai named their swords, and a thing with a name....

Thanks to all that mythology etc, swords have a special weight in our heads (or can do depending on how you play it). Anduril, Narsil, Glamdring, Guthwine..,

The sword is symbolic of justice, of chivalry, of oaths made and kept.

It's only natural that should bleed through as we write, and as we play on those mythologies.

 

[Overread]

It's kind of like muskets in any fantasy that has black-powder guns. You get muskets and hand pistols but not much more - and yet if you look at history there was a whole range of black powder weapons invented.

eg
Shooting the 3-Barrel Rapid-Fire Pole Cannon - YouTube

 

[Brian G Turner]

Lyndybiege make's an interesting point in this video on swords and status:
A point about the status of swords - YouTube

Basically, a sword has only one purpose - for killing. Whereas most other weapons are derivative from tools, and so could be imagined to have more than one purpose - an argument that cannot be applied to a sword.

 

[Mirannan]

Lyndybiege make's an interesting point in this video on swords and status:
A point about the status of swords - YouTube

Basically, a sword has only one purpose - for killing. Whereas most other weapons are derivative from tools, and so could be imagined to have more than one purpose - an argument that cannot be applied to a sword.

Hmmm... I would change that to "a sword's primary purpose is killing". If push comes to shove, a sword could be used to clear undergrowth in the same way as a machete is used. They probably have been used that way, by Westerners trying to get through Central American jungles for example.

 

[Overread]

A sword is, in my view, made for three primary purposes;

1) As an item of prestige. You might have the hilt decorated with gold and gems, or simply have a very ornate design. It's primary function to display class/superiority/wealth and maybe to even just fit in with your social group.

2) As an item of war. Whilst a sharp long blade can have multiple uses the sword is indeed very much designed and made as a weapon.

3) For sports/competitions. An evolution of its use in wartimes is its use in practice and then in sports and entertainment. Fencing, duelling - heck jousting was even a sport which evolved from war.


Things like a machete have more multi-purpose uses, partly because they are shorter blades. A long blade like most full swords have is less versatile in many ways because you've got so much more blade to work with. Hacking through undergrowth might be possible with a sword, but size and length might make it tiresome in dense undergrowth where a shorter blade is lighter and because it cuts in smaller waves you're more likely to spot any branches or stumps that could trap it.

 

[AlexanderSen]

I have to agree with Bolwer1 and Locrian, swords were a weapon of status. In Chinese Martial Art Circles the "King of the Battlefield" was known as the Spear. Having studied MA for a while (7+ years) I can attest to the reach advantage of a spear is a major factor in its power. Reach is the same reason why we primarily use guns instead of swords, spears, and other close combat weapons (i.e. chainsaw, power drill) in the military today. The spear can be compared to the modern assault rifle: long range, powerful, and fast (pokey pokey). Knights and generals were seen holding swords while infantry primarily used spears and other long pole arms, thus the sword being associated with heroes and powerful warriors, even though the spear was a much more effective weapon overall.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

The ancient Greeks used spears a lot - it was the standard weapon for their hoplites. But really a spear better for close in fighting than a sword? I don't think so. The spear does have a reach advantage, but that's its only one as far as I can see. Because it's longer it's going to be slower to swing side to side - necessary for parrying. It has no sharp sides where a sword does, meaning it can only stab not slash. And most of them have wooden shafts which can snap or be cut by a sword.

My thought is that if you put a skilled swordsman against a skilled spearman, the swordsman would win most times. He would simply parry the spearman's first thrust, then step inside his reach leaving the spearman completely defenceless.

Hoplites used spears but they also carried large round shields - a defence against swords and perhaps more importantly a way of keeping an enemy at arms length, far enough away that they could then use their short spear to keep stabbing away at their opponent. A swordsman using the typical sword and board would have the same advantage and more, using the shield to deflect the spear, then once again trying to step inside the spearman's reach or alternatively turn him slightly so that his side is exposed.

Of course I should point out that I have never trained in either weapon.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Vladd67]

Instead of thrusting could the spearman not use his spear like a quarter staff?

 

[Overread]

That brings to mind:
Robin Hood Men In Tights: Most Epic Staff Fight Ever! - YouTube

But I'm not sure if a spear would use the same kind of hardwood as a quarter staff; so it might break far more easily upon impact to the side, esp with a sharp edge of a cutting sword. You might have luck if the sword were softer and more thrust focused like a rapier since then a staff would give you more range.

That said its also likely that if you had a spear your first instinct is to thrust with the blade, use the longer reach and aim to wound the opponent rather than deflect their blows.

 

[Locrian]

Hi,

My thought is that if you put a skilled swordsman against a skilled spearman, the swordsman would win most times. He would simply parry the spearman's first thrust, then step inside his reach leaving the spearman completely defenceless.

I've done some Sword on Spear sparring, (I'm a Shodan in Bujinkan Ninjutsu), we found that the extra distance gives a spearman a massive advantage in an open space. For the sword to be effective the swordsman has to get past the tip, which against a competent spearman is difficult, when often they will put a swordsman on the back foot as soon as possible. Even if we managed to get past the point, the spearman can still attack with the butt of the spear, which our instructor tells us they would have traditionally weighted like a small mace. The extra weight of a spear makes it difficult to block, especially if you use sweeping strikes. There are ways around it and there are counters to every possible move, but we found that in practice often the spearman had the advantage, even if the swordsman was more skilled.

We never used shields, it would be interesting to see how they mixed things up. There would be more scope to put the spearman on the defensive if you could sweep the tip away and attack in the same movement. We also only did this in a fairly open space, indoors maneuvering a spear is difficult and a sword would be easier to handle.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Well I shall sit corrected!

Cheers, Greg.

 

[The Storyteller]

Personally, I like swords in fantasy but I'm just as fond of bow and arrow, daggers, magic (as a weapon), martial arts, etc. Not spears so much. Don't know why, but I don't care much for spears!

And I think they are used so much because of the appeal, as many people have said. I don't think there is anything wrong with using swords, but I also don't think there is anything wrong with using a different style of weapon!

 

[Mirannan]

Another advantage of swords over spears is practicality in non-battle situations. At least some swords are a reasonably practical item of routine dress (for people who can afford them, of course) whereas the same can hardly be said of spears.

 

[Devon.Q.Ly]

hmm.. I really don't know but I've done some martial arts training. Personally I like using a Katana, good range but not so much so that it becomes difficult to maneuver if someone rushes in. Katana is two handed but I suppose the other aspect is that some swords can be wielded single handed freeing up the other hand for a shield, grappling moves, secondary weapon.
I found for example using a staff, while having excellent range needed more effort if someone got in close, it's bluntness also allowed for someone to easily grab it as opposed to a sharpened edge.

I suppose it's the romance factor with the sword, western and eastern cultures hold the sword in fairly high regard due to it's history.
Well... until bows and arrows changed the playing field

Battle of Agincourt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia