Current Events > Why are swords so cool?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Why are swords cooler than, for example, spears and maces?

---

Swords are far more practical and versatile than spears and maces.

---

Because they look like dicks.

---

They're popular because they're popular. Kids growing up hearing about famous sword masters learning from famous sword masters.

---

Spears are actually cooler according to various scientists

---

Turtlebread posted...

Spears are actually cooler according to various scientists

You can't base an opinion on science.

---

Wii_Shaker posted...

Swords are far more practical and versatile than spears and maces.

Spears are better than swords in anything that isn't a tiny enclosure

---

Bad_Mojo posted...

You can't base an opinion on science.

shut the fuck up

---

Nothing like the bad ass battle axe.

---

Wii_Shaker posted...

Swords are far more practical and versatile than spears and maces.

IDK about that, a competent spearman will beat a swordsman 9 times out of ten, and a mace can negate armor whereas a sword needs to be thrusts through the gaps

---

Because media has made them the staple ''heroic'' weapon main characters always use

Even though a spear would shit on a sword user 95% of the time

---

PoundGarden posted...

IDK about that, a competent spearman will beat a swordsman 9 times out of ten, and a mace can negate armor whereas a sword needs to be thrusts through the gaps

I mean, each weapon has it's practical use.

I imagine it would be easier to train an army on swords than anything else.

---

It's got the fanciest footwork

---

Wii_Shaker posted...

I mean, each weapon has it's practical use.

I imagine it would be easier to train an army on swords than anything else.

God no. Spears required minimal training, were cheaper, and were great in formation. Even good swordsman have trouble against just a regular spear wielder with very little training

A sword is a sidearm. A spear is a primary weapon

---

Wii_Shaker posted...

I mean, each weapon has it's practical use.

I imagine it would be easier to train an army on swords than anything else.

most armies were made of spears cause it was the easiest weapon to train peasants with


---

Wii_Shaker posted...

I mean, each weapon has it's practical use.

Absolutely, but the spear has been proven to be the most effective weapon for infantry and one on one. Mace or sword does fuck all if you can't get in range, and using the reach of the spear is day one first commandment.

I imagine it would be easier to train an army on swords than anything else.

Nope, spears. Cheap to produce, easy to use. There's a reason samurai used their swords as a last resort during battle...after they run out of arrows or lose their spear

---

Spears are thrust weapons and if blocked and deflected by a shield the user is very vulnerable. Due to the weight required for a spear to be a good thrusting weapon, it's also difficult to hold a spear and a shield yourself.

So in a duel, someone with sword and board is better equipped than a shield user

The range of spears make them very strong as a formation weapon (eg phalanx) but the versatility of a bladed weapon (or anything that can be effectively swung) is probably better if rank breaks

Swords are also better than spears on horseback because you're not pogoing yourself off your mount lol

---

Wii_Shaker posted...

I mean, each weapon has it's practical use.

I imagine it would be easier to train an army on swords than anything else.

completely the opposite. Swords take a lot of training to use competently whereas you can teach just about anyone to hold a sharp point on a pole and brace themselves. most of the time owning a sword was more a status symbol than anything and they were usually sidearms even then

---

Doe posted...

Spears are thrust weapons and if blocked and deflected by a shield the user is very vulnerable. Due to the weight required for a spear to be a good thrusting weapon, it's also difficult to hold a spear and a shield yourself.

Which is why a competent spearman is defensive and forces their opponent to attack first and create an opening to poke.


---

ultimate reaver posted...

completely the opposite. Swords take a lot of training to use competently whereas you can teach just about anyone to hold a sharp point on a pole and brace themselves. most of the time owning a sword was more a status symbol than anything and they were usually sidearms even then

Everyone in the roman legions wielded Gladii

Shortswords were very strong in close combat during clashes and often gave Roman's an advantage

Once you close the space, a dexterous swinging weapon is better than something long, and that space very much can be closed with shields

In fact the Roman's didn't really use spears, they threw their javelins to break shields then brought out their shortswords

---

PoundGarden posted...

Which is why a competent spearman is defensive and forces their opponent to attack first and create an opening to poke.

*Walks towards you while holding a plank of wood*
Whatcha gonna do spearboy?

---

swords were more for nobility/rich folk and thus ye olde bling symbol

and then you got ole farmer pete with his pitchfork shoving up the nobile guy's ass.

Doe posted...

Everyone in the roman legions wielded Gladii

Shortswords were very strong in close combat during clashes and often gave Roman's an advantage

Once you close the space, a dexterous swinging weapon is better than something long, and that space very much can be closed with shields

In fact the Roman's didn't really use spears, they threw their javelins to break shields then brought out their shortswords

Romans were close to the only exception. Almost every army before guns relied on spears and other polearms. And with better armor that came later short swords at close range would have been a near death sentence against someone with a halberd

Doe posted...

Spears are thrust weapons and if blocked and deflected by a shield the user is very vulnerable. Due to the weight required for a spear to be a good thrusting weapon, it's also difficult to hold a spear and a shield yourself.

So in a duel, someone with sword and board is better equipped than a shield user

The range of spears make them very strong as a formation weapon (eg phalanx) but the versatility of a bladed weapon (or anything that can be effectively swung) is probably better if rank breaks

Swords are also better than spears on horseback because you're not pogoing yourself off your mount lol

Sword and board is a very different beast than just a sword

It isn't difficult to use a spear and shield at the same time. Almost every army in antiquity did it. A sword is however more nimble than a spear in one hand

One on one, sword vs spear, the spear user has a massive advantage. Range, mobility, range, ability to thrust at any part of the body in the blink of an eye and retreat, opening up another part that they can easily exploit, and range

They had gear that made spears and lances easier to use and kept them from being dismounted. Lances especially were far more dangerous than a sword especially if the other fucker just had a sword. Because range.

---

Likely a holdover from their old position as status symbols. Swords are more expensive than spears or a lot of lower quality blunt weapons, so they tended to get associated with the social elite (though they weren't out of reach or anything for the more well off commoners in many times and places). In parts of Europe they were kind of a fashion statement for a while because they showed you had the money to afford one and you could carry it with you easily (the one eternal weakness of spears and all the cool polearms is that you need to always be carrying them manually, so in day to day life a sword is more accessible. Also why swords got carried a ton historically as backup weapons - they might not be as good as your spear or poleaxe or whatever, but you could carry one alongside your primary weapon with little downside so you might as well). Western militaries kept up the tradition of swords for officers to some degree all the way into the 20th century, so that probably contributes to them being seen as the weapons of the more "important" people.

Doe posted...

Everyone in the roman legions wielded Gladii

Shortswords were very strong in close combat during clashes and often gave Roman's an advantage

Once you close the space, a dexterous swinging weapon is better than something long, and that space very much can be closed with shields

In fact the Roman's didn't really use spears, they threw their javelins to break shields then brought out their shortswords

The Romans did use spears primarily early on, then kept them for some troops for a few centuries after the switch to the gladius. I think they also brought them back eventually. This wasn't so much because of swords being better as it was that they couldn't transport a spear effectively alongside their javelins so a sword was necessary to allow them to use those. The Romans were also fairly unusual in their use of swords, most pre-modern armies used spears primarily. Likely due to the Romans being able to dedicate more time to training their armies, whereas the Greeks for example at the same time stuck to spears because they largely didn't train for battle specifically at all and they believed hoplite combat didn't require specific training and drills.

---

Wii_Shaker posted...

Swords are far more practical and versatile than spears and maces.

No. Swords were a backup weapon. Spears had range. The blunt force of a mace could more easily deal with armor.

---

TerraSeeker posted...

No. Swords were a backup weapon. Spears had range. The blunt force of a mace could more easily deal with armor.

I do think swords are more versatile than blunt weapons, or at least the non polearm blunt weapons

Longer range, more nimble, ability to half sword against armored opponents, great against gambeson or unarmored people.. but if I was going up against a mother fucker in full plate harness, yeah I'd want a warhammer

---

Just going to drop this in here for tc and others who refuse to listen to Smackems:

https://youtu.be/afqhBODc_8U

---

To actually answer tcs question, I think it's because of the symmetry on most double edge swords, the design and beauty of the guards and pommels, and of course the long, gleaming polished blade. We're attracted to shimmery shit because it's built into our brain. That's how we used to find water n shit

Tldr it's because they tend to have more personality and are shinier

---

Because phallic symbol and sheaths are vaginas.

Wii_Shaker posted...

Swords are far more practical and versatile than spears and maces.

Tell that to armies throughout history including after the widespread use of firearms who used spears as a primary weapon. The bayonet was invented to allow firearms users to also function as spearmen.

---

Back in the day, having a giant knife (or a knife in general) was considered very magical. It became
the stuff of royalty.

bknight posted...

Because phallic symbol and sheaths are vaginas.

oh

---

bknight posted...

Because phallic symbol and sheaths are vaginas.

Vagina literally means sheath in Latin.

---

The sword started small (a dirk, perhaps)

and just got bigger

And bigger

Doe posted...

*Walks towards you while holding a plank of wood*
Whatcha gonna do spearboy?

Poke you in the foot, obviously.

Also reminder that halberds are both superior and the most aesthetic weapon.

Xethuminra posted...

The sword started small (a dirk, perhaps)

and just got bigger

And bigger

This is true. Spadones, montantes, and zweihanders were gigantic and were primary weapons. Good for cutting the legs off of a charging horse

---

Whips are cooler.

And funner.

---

And then all of a sudden they got really really tiny again, and reverted back to their primordial spear form, and were fired from the bows of harpsichords

amaz8ng!!

Anyone who has ever been in a fight with swords (or heck, just a fight in general) will understand how absolutely massive a range advantage is.

---

You cant grab a sword without a gauntlet

Spearmen hunt in packs for basically this reason alone

What we need is a sword that is one third sword, one third spear, and one third missile launcher. That fits in a vagina sheathe

---

They tried that.

It was so awesome, it turned on its wielder

Xethuminra posted...

You cant grab a sword without a gauntlet

Spearmen hunt in packs for basically this reason alone

You'd be surprised how grabbable swords can be, even on the defensive side (obviously they're more grabbable offensively, hence how half-swording and the murderstroke can exist).

Also, damn near everyone ever fights in a group because trying to yolo things on your own is how you die. If it is one on one, while grabbing the spear is possible it's by no means easy. The advantage is always with the spear user who can dictate the pace of the fight much more effectively than his opponent, who has to wait for the spear to be thrust at him before he can really achieve much (spear thrusts are not trivial to avoid! They also can be pulled back very fast and followed up again)

---

they are only cool if they are welded by blue haired anime swordsmen

---

If someone is grabbing your claymore at half-mast, I dare say you werent trying hard enough.

https://youtu.be/NzD0Xh7CFXU

---

Theyre more symbolic of violence and warfare than other weapons that were evolved from alternative, domestic uses

A spear or bow can be used in hunting or fishing

An axe for felling trees

Blunt weapons arent as violent in terms of spilling blood and you have things like hammers that are also used as tools for building or flails used in farming to break down grains.

Meanwhile a sword has only one purpose, for fighting and killing people.

---

(And no, a sword is probably not going to be able to cut through the generals super armor... but it will cut through everyone elses, including the tin knight)

What if

A sword was a glazed donut

---

They had the most craftsmanship which allows them to look cool

Also what's not cool about a giant blade

To those arguing theyre the better weapon, wrong lol. Spears are better than swords. Range is simply too good of an asset (gee I wonder why guns are so good). And it's not something like 2.5 ft vs 3ft, it's like 3 ft vs 6 to 9 ft (maybe more). There is a limit to how big/long a sword is because at a certain point it will simply become too heavy to yield due to it being metal. Spears can be lighter cause it's mostly wood and skinny and therefore have more range to work with. Also you need less force to do a spear poke than to swing around an entire blade. Also it is far more practical to poke something to death from far away than to run up to it and swing around. You can also throw a spear better. Would you rather fight a tiger with a spear or a sword?

---