Do swords really deserve their fame?

[Mage-]

b) Once they busted past the first line of phalangites, the legionaries would chop them up with their short swords. Pikes were useless, and, being expertly efficient swordsmen, the Romans could outfight the Macedonians once they put down their pikes and drew their swords, which were their secondary weapons.

Well not exactly hack them to bits. The legionaries blades were manly used for stabbing. Similar idea though.

Lol shut up man I know. But "hack" sounds better than "stab" in that sentence. They were still good at cutting, though.

Merentha, halberds were long and two-handed. In addition, they weighed somewhere between 4.5 and 10 pounds (I've seen different ratings). Compare that to a good one-handed sword which only weighs two pounds—light as a feather. I'd rather have the sword, especially if I get a shield as a bonus. But a sword either way . . .

[Kvedulf]

Romans probably outnumbered Macedonians, if Macedonians knew schiltrom though things may have been different.

The Romans, at least during the Republic and Early Empire, hardly ever outnumbered their opponents.  It was tactics and use of superior weapon designs that allowed the Romans to win, not the horde effect.  And as far as I can tell, the Macedonian phalanx is basically a Schiltrom with bigger spears and in a straight line, not a circle formation.

But back to the sword.  The first real sword was developed during the Late Bronze Age, and is now referred to as the Naue II.  The Naue II was faster than any other weapon at the time.  It had the most points of attack than any other weapon.  It had the greatest reach of all single handed weapons.  The entire attacking surface was bladed.  And finally, due to its design, it was actually stronger and sturdier than most other contemporary weapons.

I'm not sure about the medieval period, but that is why the sword gained superiority in the first place.

Oh, and as for the sword being dominant only amongst nobles?  I can't find the date, but there is a list of booty and deaths after a battle between the Pharaoh Merneptah and a coalition of Philistines and "Sea Peoples", in which Merneptah won.  Only 12 chariots were captured by the Egyptians.  However, the Egyptians took 9111 swords from their enemy.  Considering that they took 9724 penises (Egyptian practice to determine how many enemy were killed.  More effective than the earlier practice of taking the left hand: you know pretty quickly if a guy ain't dead if you chop his bits off...).  When those numbers are taken into account, either one man was a walking armoury or nearly every man had a sword.

That's just my 2 cents.

[Merentha]

Merentha, halberds were long and two-handed. In addition, they weighed somewhere between 4.5 and 10 pounds (I've seen different ratings). Compare that to a good one-handed sword which only weighs two pounds—light as a feather. I'd rather have the sword, especially if I get a shield as a bonus. But a sword either way . . .

Halberds can just as fight in close quarters almost as easily as swords.  If I have full armor, I'd take the halberd any day.  Otherwise, a shield/spear combination with a sword as backup would be preferable.  If you're coming at me solo with a sword/shield, I've got range and can easily hold my distance from you.  You'd need to close and I could still be very effective in close range, even with a spear.  If you don't get a shield, a halberdier or spearman is going to eat you alive.  Both records and my personal sparring experience verify this,

It had the most points of attack than any other weapon. It had the greatest reach of all single handed weapons.  The entire attacking surface was bladed.  And finally, due to its design, it was actually stronger and sturdier than most other contemporary weapons.

The bolded part doesn't make sense, as contemporary spears were mostly one-handed, to be used in conjuction with a spear.

Oh, and as for the sword being dominant only amongst nobles?  I can't find the date, but there is a list of booty and deaths after a battle between the Pharaoh Merneptah and a coalition of Philistines and "Sea Peoples", in which Merneptah won.  Only 12 chariots were captured by the Egyptians.  However, the Egyptians took 9111 swords from their enemy.  Considering that they took 9724 penises (Egyptian practice to determine how many enemy were killed.  More effective than the earlier practice of taking the left hand: you know pretty quickly if a guy ain't dead if you chop his bits off...).  When those numbers are taken into account, either one man was a walking armoury or nearly every man had a sword.

This is why a definition of "sword" is necessary.  The early egyptian blades are very similar to the saex in terms of use, they're short, rough, heavy, hacking weapons.  They're ideal for being an infantry sidearm, rather than pure nobility.  Again, define swords.  Its far too broad a term to be used in such a debate. 

[Archonsod]

Oh, and as for the sword being dominant only amongst nobles?  I can't find the date, but there is a list of booty and deaths after a battle between the Pharaoh Merneptah and a coalition of Philistines and "Sea Peoples", in which Merneptah won.

Three problems:

1. The Egyptian and surrounding cultures used the Khopesh. It's more of an axe than a sword, and I certainly wouldn't term it as such. Furthermore, it was used purely as a sidearm, most of the combat being with spear and bow.
2. Soldiers back then were the social elite. Commoners were rarely allowed, nor could they afford, weapons or armour (unless it was a spear, axe or sling, all of which would be used mainly as tools).
3. The romanticism surrounding swords the OP is talking about tends to be a component of Western culture.

[The Pope]

Swordsmen seemed to do very well against pikes when something was done to disrupt the enemy formation. In the case of roman legions, this was a shower of pilums (pilae?). In the renaissance, it was an artillery barrage. As for halberds, they seem to have been used by the same types of troops as two handed swords or the sword and buckler combo, leading me to believe that they were a very effective close quarters weapon. The Swiss used halberds for chopping up disordered pikemen, the landsknechts a combination of zweihanders and halberds and the Spanish used sword and buckler men. All three worked well.

[13 Spider Bloody Chain]

3. The romanticism surrounding swords the OP is talking about tends to be a component of Western culture.

Didn't the Japanese develop the Cult of the Sword or something after the Sengoku Jidai?

[Archonsod]

As for halberds, they seem to have been used by the same types of troops as two handed swords or the sword and buckler combo,

Halberds were pretty much specifically designed to operate as both a polearm and a close quarter weapon though, probably an attempt to overcome the usual disadvantages of a polearm in close quarters.

Didn't the Japanese develop the Cult of the Sword or something after the Sengoku Jidai?

Yup, but swords aren't a big deal in Japanese heroic tradition (the bigger hero there is the guy who has a sword but doesn't ever use it).

[ArabArcher35]

Ehh, all bladed weapons can be boiled down to a "simple iron wedge". Swords, however, aren't really useful for anything but fighting.

Eh...are spears?

Spears are at least useful for hunting. Swords, however, are not, aside for finishing off animals.

[13 Spider Bloody Chain]

Yup, but swords aren't a big deal in Japanese heroic tradition (the bigger hero there is the guy who has a sword but doesn't ever use it).

What about the "grass cutter" sword pulled from the mouth of a large snake? (Or is this the never-used sword?)

[Archonsod]

They still have myths surrounding swords, but then given humanity can come up with legends regarding such objects as the potatoe it's not exactly that unusual.

 In general Japanese tradition tends to emphasise wisdom and skill rather than straight out martial might. While we have legends regarding hero's running off and decapitating their way through the menagerie of mythological creatures, Japanese hero's tended to outwit, ensorcell or otherwise trick their opponents (before removing their heads in many cases, but you can see what I mean).

[Kvedulf]

Quote from: Kvedulf on Today at 01:18:01 am
It had the most points of attack than any other weapon. It had the greatest reach of all single handed weapons.  The entire attacking surface was bladed.  And finally, due to its design, it was actually stronger and sturdier than most other contemporary weapons.

The bolded part doesn't make sense, as contemporary spears were mostly one-handed, to be used in conjuction with a spear.

That's my bad.  I wasn't thinking.  I did mean to put "with the exception of the spear" at the start.  My apoplogies.

It is difficult to discuss this without defining what a sword is.  How about for starters:
1. killing surface length of 40cm+ made entirely of bronze, iron or steel.  Anything smaller is a dagger/knife.
2. has a blade on at least one side of the killing surface, running the entire length of the surface.
3. has a definite hilt, smaller than the blade length.
               Feel free to add to, discuss or totally disagree with this basic definition

And while the Egyptians and surrounding cultures did use the khopesh, the Sea Peoples didn't.  Instead they used what I think is now called the Bronze Age Rapier.  They were long, thin and fast.  However, due to the design used to attach the blade to the hilt, they were rubbish for slashing, hacking and parrying.  The rapiers were nothing like "short, rough, heavy, hacking weapons".

Even though soldiers and warriors were considered to have high social standing, I think it's a bit more complex than that in the Bronze Age in Southwest Asia.  For a start, the New Kingdom Egyptian army was, in essence, professional, and it was perfectly legitimate for the lowest ranking freeman to join.  And the nobles and elites were defined by their use of chariots and bows not swords.  I know that this is only Egypt, but it shows that the sword has not always been associated with elites.  I, personally, would like to know the total number of soldiers in Sea People armies.  Were they composed of roughly ten thousand troops, or closer to fifty thousand?  Until we know that, we cannot say whether or not only nobles carried swords in Sea People cultures.

[Archonsod]

For a start, the New Kingdom Egyptian army was, in essence, professional, and it was perfectly legitimate for the lowest ranking freeman to join.

It's not necessarily a social elite in the sense of to the manor born (in Egypt I think you needed divine connections to claim that one) but the status accorded the members of the military. Similar to the Romans here though - as government owned troops it wasn't them who paid for their equipment (well, unless it came out of their wages).

And the nobles and elites were defined by their use of chariots and bows not swords.

Yah, but as I said Egypt isn't what you'd call an influence on the Western tradition (quite the reverse). I also don't recall swords playing much of a part in Egyptian folklore, or being accorded any kind of heroic or mythical status (testicles and animals if I remember correctly, though not necessarily in conjunction).

[Cirdan]

It is difficult to discuss this without defining what a sword is.  How about for starters:
1. killing surface length of 40cm+ made entirely of bronze, iron or steel.  Anything smaller is a dagger/knife.
2. has a blade on at least one side of the killing surface, running the entire length of the surface.
3. has a definite hilt, smaller than the blade length.
               Feel free to add to, discuss or totally disagree with this basic definition

2) excludes the estoc, which was usually not sharpened along the edges. No point in sharpening the edge of a sword meant for use against heavy plate armour; only the tip has a chance anyway.

[Cirdan]

Polearms were usually intended for use against cavalry, but thanks to the long reach they're a good defensive weapon (one of the reasons they remained in use until the bayonet. They could not only keep cavalry and infantry off musketmen, but could do so at a length which still allowed the muskets to fire into the opposing unit without too much worry of hitting their own men).

Actually, no, it proved impossible to effectively combine pike and shot in this manner. When the enemy got to close, the musketeers retreated behind the pikemen and prayed the pike block didn't break. Only once, at Ceresole (1544), did armies attempt to shoot the enemy being held at pike's length. The French mixed their arquebusiers in with their second rank and for some reason the Imperial Landsknechts tried the exact same thing but with pistols. While the front ranks of both sides appear to have been killed almost to a man, the same thing then happened to the hapless shot troops when the pike blocks continued to advance on each other and the shooters found themselves being impaled on the enemy pikes, as their own third rank prevented their retreat. Neither side ever attempted this again.

I mean what can a sword bearing divison do to a division with polearms? They wouldnt even get close.

"Polearm" is much, much vaguer than "sword" as a classification. If you mean pikes, then the swordsmen would utterly slaughter the pikemen with very few casualties--see Cynoscephalae, where the Macedonian infantry were forced to throw away their sarissae and fight with swords, so useless did the pikes prove against sword-and-shield infantry. If you mean spears (which presumably are associated with shields), then the result is debatable; certainly the Roman legions did well against enemies armed with spear-and-shield, and the Vikings seemed to have used both spear-and-shield and sword/axe-and-shield without being more successful either way. I think it would come down to the levels of training, motivation and organisation of the units. If you mean cutting polearms, then the determining factor against sword-and-shield is the ammount of armour; if no armour is involved, then the shields are probably going to give the victory to the swordsmen. Give everyone Milanese plate, however, and the extra cutting power of the polearms will be decisive. If we're talking about two-handed swords, I'm not sure, but I think the victory would go to the polearms.

[Allegro]

Romans probably outnumbered Macedonians, if Macedonians knew schiltrom though things may have been different.

The Romans, at least during the Republic and Early Empire, hardly ever outnumbered their opponents.  It was tactics and use of superior weapon designs that allowed the Romans to win, not the horde effect.  And as far as I can tell, the Macedonian phalanx is basically a Schiltrom with bigger spears and in a straight line, not a circle formation.

That depends who their enemies were.
AFAIK Romans beated the Macedonian phalanx by their superior maneuverability. What i believe is that they encircled or overflanked the phalanx divisions, i think they couldnt have outmanuevered them if they didnt have alternative divisions for distractions and strikes. Thats why i think that they outnumbered the Macedonians.
What i meant by schiltrom was a round/circle wall of spears, by that way the Macedonians could have rendered the superior numbers of Romans obsolete.

And by the way i think it would be the shields what would allow a swordsmen division to breakthrough a wall of spears, not their swords. You COULD chop or deflect the spears with a sword  but i think it wouldnt be easy since the enemy should be constantly trying to thrust them. You would need a strong shield to push furher.