Jump to content

Swords are overrated


Innocentmask
 Share

Recommended Posts

Swords have been a staple in many fantasy genres. Everywhere the main hero is usually the one to hold the sword but the companions have other weapons like bows, lances, magic or axes. The main character is usually the one with a powerful sword. Swords are easy weapons to use and are well rounded against anything which is why its used so much. Many of main protagonists use these like Link for example, various Lords from Fire emblem, Cloud strife you name it. Many protagonists in this genre will wield this weapon while the secondary characters often wield another weapon.

Yeah, I've started to get a little disgruntled by the amount of sword wielders many fantasy type genres have. I have yet to see an actual protagonist that mains a weapon apart from swords like bows, lances or axes. I know they aren't very popular but i would just like something new for a change. So far i can remember main protagonists that don't wield swords are Simon Belmont (Whip), Thor (Hammer and axe), Kratos (Used to have swords, now has axe), Ruby rose (Scythe gun) and Ephraim (Lance). I would really like to see more main characters who wield those weapons, like they are very underrated. I don't think this trope would die out because its already an icon of culture, its generally accepted so i don't see it becoming negatively overused.

I don't dislike swords but i just think they are starting to get very repetitive. I just feel that a different weapon could break away from this trope. Its might be a flawed opinion i know but you may have the same thoughts as me. So anyways your thoughts about this? Swords are getting tiredly overused or are they still an important symbol of the culture? Positive or negative thoughts are welcome. (Im not sure this is the right thread to post this, go ahead mods move it if necessary)

Edited by Innocentmask
Fixed and adjusted grammatical errors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean if you're going to count Ephraim, why not Hector.

Xena, the warrior princess used a chakram, that was pretty original (and... a sword). 😉

Robin Hood uses a bow. So does Merida. That's medieval/fantasy setting, right?

I say give the next main hero some kick ass ball & chain weapon. 
 

Edited by Vince777
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean swords aren't even that straightforward to use since against armoured enemies they can be harder to utilise by untrained or low trained fighters. Swords also cost more to make and maintain compared to say a polearm. Honestly would want to see more heroes with bludgeoning weapons like a mace or something  particularly in "zero to hero" situations since they can be used effectively with less training.

Part of why swords probably have persisted is because they've been glorified, they were the weapon of the upper classes since you needed to be trained in them to use them effectively and beyond the reach of most people. Compare that to a spear which a farmer drafted into an army could adjust to compared to using pitchfork on the farm and begin to learn more easily the fact that it was unobtainable possibly lead to more stories being written about sword using heroes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swords are great personal defense weapons, like pistols or SMGs for a civilian or the special forces. Swords are light and maneuverable, so they are great for an adventurer or hero who needs to be on the move a lot.

Obviously, if the adventurer or hero is going to fight a big monster or something, a sword realistically is not going to cut it. Just as a person is going to use a bazooka against a tank rather than a pistol, an adventurer is going to bring a polearm or ranged weapon to deal with a big monster rather than with their swords.

Spears are obviously very good too, but they are a bit more cumbersome in an urban or indoor setting, which adventurers and heroes frequent a lot too.

 

Edited by XRay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MageToLight sword are actually very much more easier to utilize than what you are giving them credit for. You have to take into consideration that a sword has over several inches of blade. Meaning more than 70% of the object is the actual weapon. Which is why you can say they have high accuracy cause even getting knicked by any part of a sword can draw blood depending on how sharp it is. Plus take into consideration that some swords are crafted with different intentions. Some swords like bastard style ones are meant for bludgeoning enemies, not slicing like katanas. In addition to that rapiers are great for impaling and penetrating. Some swords have blades thick enough to double as a shield or for parrying. Two hander swords are notorious for their versatility in that they can do all the aforementioned things (parry, slice and cut, impale, bludgeon, and more). I'm not even into blacksmithing but I know enough that swords are great for many other reasons. Like @XRay said, they are good for being compact too. Like literally, there are over 50 different designs with more than 20 intentions for their use. 

Look at polearms like axes and spears/lances. Less than 30% of the object is the weapon itself. Even worse on javelins and lances. That's like 20% of the surface you need to use to strike with in order to harm your enemy. People like Lu Bu with that dragon halbred and Guan Yu with his crescent shape blade on his Lance have to focus their strikes with that part that cuts/impales. I don't deny polearms can have different intentions too but you have to be far more proficient to use those contrary to your statement of them being more simple that a farmer can use them.

In a real fight you have to gauge the reach you with have with your polearm, you have to know how to use the shaft to parry and what not, you also need to know how to close the openings you leave when you swing large or heavy weapons. Resetting your position to perform follow up attacks or to even try and initate a combo requires a very good understanding of how to manuver with your weapon. It gets worse the longer the shaft is. That's just some of the problems I can point out. It's actually in truth much worse to use heavy or large weapons in real combat since battles can end in seconds. Plus don't forget in war you are combating many enemies over and over one battle after another. Using unwieldy weapons will drain your stamina faster. 

In truth, I've only seen people with years of experience in martial arts use weapons other than swords and at best they use small precise weapons like tonfas, nunchucks, daggers, projectile weapons like shurikens and needles/darts. Because they can keep them in their belt/pocket, they can conceal them easily, and they are easy to replace and afford. I rarely see veteran fighters lugging around a hammer equal to their height. Mainly cause that strength required is cumbersome.

Don't get me wrong protecting swords. I love how some pole arm axes look and scythes, but at the end of the day you have to be a specialist to use those very particular weapons and even then they are only awesome in one on one combat. Not such a good idea using those weapons in real war when you have to swing it for the entirety of a real battle which can last hours. Have you tried chopping wood with an axe? Like a loggers axe or a hatchet. You get tired after cleaving thru wood for about an hour. It's very exhausting labor. Try cleaving thru human flesh and bones provided they have poor armor (if they have good sturdy armor, good luck xD)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sword makes a lot of sense as an adventurer weapon, as you will mostly fight animals or unarmored bandits. Pretty much every other weapon is either better as a batlefield weapon(for example, maces or hammers are great againist armored opponents, but they are worse than a sword againist unarmored ones because they have less reach and maneuvrability) or is harder to carry around. People casually carrying Zweinhanders and Halberds around in their daily life is as nonsensical as cutting trought plate armor whit a sword. I got away whit this because i am writing an high magic fantasy were everyone carry around several weapons in a Bag of Holding, but not everyone like this kind of things.

I agree that they are overused but it really depend on context. Geralt using a silver poleaxe would not be a great idea because good luck using it in a small cave while being swarmed by goblins, but most FE lords could really use something bigger because they are mostly fighting in wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

In a real fight you have to gauge the reach you with have with your polearm, you have to know how to use the shaft to parry and what not, you also need to know how to close the openings you leave when you swing large or heavy weapons. Resetting your position to perform follow up attacks or to even try and initate a combo requires a very good understanding of how to manuver with your weapon. It gets worse the longer the shaft is. That's just some of the problems I can point out. It's actually in truth much worse to use heavy or large weapons in real combat since battles can end in seconds. Plus don't forget in war you are combating many enemies over and over one battle after another. Using unwieldy weapons will drain your stamina faster. 

Depends on the type of fight. In an open battlefield with neither side using shields, spears and polearms are far better melee weapons than swords.

Not only are they cheap to produce, they are far easier to use over swords too; civilizations across the world arm their peasants and fodder with spears or some type of polearm. You have a huge reach advantage over sword users and you do not need much training to know how to keep enemies at bay, you just instinctually point the stabby bit at the enemy. Training will obviously make the soldier more effective, but you do not need prolonged training to know how to effectively use a spear, unlike a sword. You also have far more leverage over sword users since you have the whole shaft apply your strength while sword users only have their short handles. Spears are also quicker to strike over a sword, as thrusting forward and retracting with two hands is much faster than swinging or thrusting a sword with one hand. Spears can also maintain quick powerful strikes over a longer period of time since you are using two hands and the range of motion is far smaller than swinging a sword.

6 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

 Don't get me wrong protecting swords. I love how some pole arm axes look and scythes, but at the end of the day you have to be a specialist to use those very particular weapons and even then they are only awesome in one on one combat. Not such a good idea using those weapons in real war when you have to swing it for the entirety of a real battle which can last hours. Have you tried chopping wood with an axe? Like a loggers axe or a hatchet. You get tired after cleaving thru wood for about an hour. It's very exhausting labor. Try cleaving thru human flesh and bones provided they have poor armor (if they have good sturdy armor, good luck xD)

Pole arms are not specialist weapons; they are the weapons of the masses.

People do not bring logging axes to battle, those are tools for chopping wood and they are not the best weapons to bring to a battle. Two handed axes used for war are lighter than wood chopping axes and generally have more reach and are used like polearms. One handed axes used for war are generally hatchets, which are small and light, and are commonly used with a shield.

Scythes are not weapons. They are farm tools. A war scythe is a polearm, used like a halberd.

For armored opponents, halberds and war hammers often have have spikes on the other side of the axe/hammer to concentrate a lot of force to pierce through armor. Even if it does not pierce the armor, the blunt impact can still do a ton of damage especially if it hits the head or the body; there is only so much padding you can wear without significantly reducing your mobility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, XRay said:

A] Depends on the type of fight. In an open battlefield with neither side using shields, spears and polearms are far better melee weapons than swords.

B] Not only are they cheap to produce, they are far easier to use over swords too; civilizations across the world arm their peasants and fodder with spears or some type of polearm. You have a huge reach advantage over sword users and you do not need much training to know how to keep enemies at bay, you just instinctually point the stabby bit at the enemy. Training will obviously make the soldier more effective, but you do not need prolonged training to know how to effectively use a spear, unlike a sword. You also have far more leverage over sword users since you have the whole shaft apply your strength while sword users only have their short handles. Spears are also quicker to strike over a sword, as thrusting forward and retracting with two hands is much faster than swinging or thrusting a sword with one hand. Spears can also maintain quick powerful strikes over a longer period of time since you are using two hands and the range of motion is far smaller than swinging a sword.

Pole arms are not specialist weapons; they are the weapons of the masses.

C] People do not bring logging axes to battle, those are tools for chopping wood and they are not the best weapons to bring to a battle. Two handed axes used for war are lighter than wood chopping axes and generally have more reach and are used like polearms. One handed axes used for war are generally hatchets, which are small and light, and are commonly used with a shield.

D]Scythes are not weapons. They are farm tools. A war scythe is a polearm, used like a halberd.

For armored opponents, halberds and war hammers often have have spikes on the other side of the axe/hammer to concentrate a lot of force to pierce through armor. Even if it does not pierce the armor, the blunt impact can still do a ton of damage especially if it hits the head or the body; there is only so much padding you can wear without significantly reducing your mobility.

A) that's a pretty subjective statement/opinion

B) cheap to make and easy to arm peasants is a statement in itself. You think these people know how to maintenance weapons? Those weapons break easily and on top of that are of poor quality. The higher ups arm their fodder (as you refer to them) not caring if they live or die. That isn't a good thing. Any weapon massed produced probably isn't a good quality. I'd like to take this time to point out our objective in this thread. We are simply discussing which one is the best of the best and why they are included when it comes to stories and depicting heroes. I'm not trying to diminish the contributions that foot soldiers make in war but we are talking about why a certain weapon is held in high regard. 

Also who needs prolonged training to learn how to use the sword? Just like a pole arm and using the stabby bit to hit others, just swing your sword and hit your enemies with any part other than the hilt or grip. If a sword has a guard or a weighted pommel that's a good thing in combat since you can use those parts. The same statement can be applied that more training just makes them more effective. But it doesn't mean without training you'd be completely clueless on how to use a sword. As I read your statements they seem very subjective and bias. Like you aren't willing to apply the same logic to swords as you would other weapons. 

That advantage of range is gone when all of a sudden a sword user gains a shield. Since they were already swinging with one hand their speed is unaffected but now they can be even better at parrying and creating openings to swing at someone who uses a pole arm. After the pole arm users swings or thrusts sure they can retract easily with two hands but a sword user is bound to have enough time to counter. Imagine being a pole arm user and a volley of arrows comes in. No shield means you are fix to turn into a pin cushion. Sword users can have shields but how often do you see a pole arm users with a shield. If the pole arm is too long or heavy and it demands both hands, you can't have a shield. Swords are almost always compact and can be paired with shields. I won't deny certain mace, hammer, short axe, or etc users can also pair with a shield, but at the moment we are discussing pole arms that demands both arms since you were just pointing out their range advantage or that they consume less stamina. If the one on one pole arm users went against someone single handed wielding who has a shield then they are in trouble

The statement of them being weapons of the masses means it's common for nobodies to wield them. People distinguished for their skill in combat and who gain recognition are sword users who didn't go onto battle fields to be fodder. They led their troops and when they had to participate, their training and skill kept them alive. Arguably you could say they didn't contribute to battles as much as the rank and file, but for whatever reason they are famous and often depicted as heroes. They really did have skill to back up their fame, but it's a whole different debate to discuss whether they worth being seen as heroes and why we see them with swords so much. 

C) okay I was just using the log axe as a reference to help people imagine how exhausting it is to swing two handed pole arms around since it's probably something some people can easily picture in their head. It wasn't that literal dude. Also I went to a Renaissance festival, and I picked up real two hander pole arms. You think you can honestly swing that for an hour and not get tired? Then you must hit the gym 5 days a week and have a six pac with arms as swole as my head. That stuff at the bare minimum weighed about 25 pounds. To give you an idea of what that would be like to swing as a weapon, imagine a grown beagle dog. Those cute littles one with nice fur coats and are common house pets. Trying picking that dog up and swinging him/her around for an hour. You tell me how your stamina is doing. Those weapons were real that I picked up at the festival. Two handed pole arms are not light. You must be hitting the gym up if that is your perception. Like very frequently. 

D) I agree with your last two paragraphs. Like I had said, weapons have different intents based off their design. What works and is effective will depend largely on what enemies you expect to face. But let's return to the point of the thread on why we keep seeing sword users being famous and being common. In addition why there is bias in them being the best weapon among many people who like fantasy games and stories. It's cause they have different swords for all kinds of different uses made with different intent. Earlier we kept going back and forth on the pole arm reach and stuff. Did you forget two handed swords exist? Long swords made to dispatch cavalry often had blades slender and long enough to reach 5 feet. That's almost an entire person's length. Heavier weighted ones could be up to the same length and those also demand two hands. (Fun fact: to balance those the pommels had to be weighted and they could hit like 20 pounds on some swords) But compare that to a pole arm and now you have an object with over 80% of the weapon that can cut or smash someone and it has the same length of a pole arm. 

All in all, it can be said that weapons based off their design and intent come in a wide array but arguably swords cover alot of instances (not all) and the people who wielded them that had their name recorded were often people who were already important to begin with. They had training and could actually show to the public they were skilled combatants. 

To bring up another point on where else in history we see them so abundantly. Look at the Roman coliseum. Whether they were put against prisoners, animals, or other warriors, the weapon of choice was a sword. It just was the go to thing to help keep you alive. (well against animals you saw more javelin like or Lance like weapons but the combatants weren't famous and it was seen as them just being good hunters or smart enough to kill an animal. There wasn't any honor or glory in that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

A) that's a pretty subjective statement/opinion

YouTube Videos:
Lindybeige - Spears are better than swords (longer version)
scholagladiatoria - Spears: Why they defeat swords, optimum characteristics & perfect length
Skallagrim - The Weapon Triangle in Fire Emblem - Realistic?
Shadiversity - Underappreciated Historical Weapons: the SPEAR

 

2 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

 B) cheap to make and easy to arm peasants is a statement in itself. You think these people know how to maintenance weapons? Those weapons break easily and on top of that are of poor quality. The higher ups arm their fodder (as you refer to them) not caring if they live or die. That isn't a good thing. Any weapon massed produced probably isn't a good quality. I'd like to take this time to point out our objective in this thread. We are simply discussing which one is the best of the best and why they are included when it comes to stories and depicting heroes. I'm not trying to diminish the contributions that foot soldiers make in war but we are talking about why a certain weapon is held in high regard. 

Polearms are not easy to break. They are often reinforced with metal strips along the shaft. Mass production does not necessarily mean poor quality. Quartz movement watches are mass produced and are far superior timekeeping devices compared to artisan handcrafted mechanical movement watches that cost hundreds of dollars and up.

Spears are easier to break compared to polearms since they generally are not reinforced with metal strips, but it will still take a sword wielder a lot of effort to cut through a spear shaft.

2 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

 Also who needs prolonged training to learn how to use the sword? Just like a pole arm and using the stabby bit to hit others, just swing your sword and hit your enemies with any part other than the hilt or grip. If a sword has a guard or a weighted pommel that's a good thing in combat since you can use those parts. The same statement can be applied that more training just makes them more effective. But it doesn't mean without training you'd be completely clueless on how to use a sword. As I read your statements they seem very subjective and bias. Like you aren't willing to apply the same logic to swords as you would other weapons. 

Given two people of equal skill, physical ability, etc. a person with a spear is far more effective than a person with a sword.

2 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

That advantage of range is gone when all of a sudden a sword user gains a shield. Since they were already swinging with one hand their speed is unaffected but now they can be even better at parrying and creating openings to swing at someone who uses a pole arm. After the pole arm users swings or thrusts sure they can retract easily with two hands but a sword user is bound to have enough time to counter. Imagine being a pole arm user and a volley of arrows comes in. No shield means you are fix to turn into a pin cushion. Sword users can have shields but how often do you see a pole arm users with a shield. If the pole arm is too long or heavy and it demands both hands, you can't have a shield. Swords are almost always compact and can be paired with shields. I won't deny certain mace, hammer, short axe, or etc users can also pair with a shield, but at the moment we are discussing pole arms that demands both arms since you were just pointing out their range advantage or that they consume less stamina. If the one on one pole arm users went against someone single handed wielding who has a shield then they are in trouble

Yes, a shield would tip the balance in favor of the sword, but at the moment we are discussing just swords versus polearms/spears.

2 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

The statement of them being weapons of the masses means it's common for nobodies to wield them. People distinguished for their skill in combat and who gain recognition are sword users who didn't go onto battle fields to be fodder. They led their troops and when they had to participate, their training and skill kept them alive. Arguably you could say they didn't contribute to battles as much as the rank and file, but for whatever reason they are famous and often depicted as heroes. They really did have skill to back up their fame, but it's a whole different debate to discuss whether they worth being seen as heroes and why we see them with swords so much. 

Spears are primary battlefield weapons, swords are secondary. Knights still charge into battle with lances/spears and medieval art often depicts them using spears.

2 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

C) okay I was just using the log axe as a reference to help people imagine how exhausting it is to swing two handed pole arms around since it's probably something some people can easily picture in their head. It wasn't that literal dude. Also I went to a Renaissance festival, and I picked up real two hander pole arms. You think you can honestly swing that for an hour and not get tired? Then you must hit the gym 5 days a week and have a six pac with arms as swole as my head. That stuff at the bare minimum weighed about 25 pounds. To give you an idea of what that would be like to swing as a weapon, imagine a grown beagle dog. Those cute littles one with nice fur coats and are common house pets. Trying picking that dog up and swinging him/her around for an hour. You tell me how your stamina is doing. Those weapons were real that I picked up at the festival. Two handed pole arms are not light. You must be hitting the gym up if that is your perception. Like very frequently. 

Polearms generally do not weigh 25 pounds. With few exceptions, the vast majority weigh less than 10 pounds. You can still quickly thrust it in short bursts to overwhelm a sword user.

Spears are much lighter. You can quickly thrust over a prolonged period of time.

A sword cannot cut as quickly as a spear can thrust. A sword can thrust quickly, but their reach is limited.

3 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

 D) I agree with your last two paragraphs. Like I had said, weapons have different intents based off their design. What works and is effective will depend largely on what enemies you expect to face. But let's return to the point of the thread on why we keep seeing sword users being famous and being common. In addition why there is bias in them being the best weapon among many people who like fantasy games and stories. It's cause they have different swords for all kinds of different uses made with different intent. Earlier we kept going back and forth on the pole arm reach and stuff. Did you forget two handed swords exist? Long swords made to dispatch cavalry often had blades slender and long enough to reach 5 feet. That's almost an entire person's length. Heavier weighted ones could be up to the same length and those also demand two hands. (Fun fact: to balance those the pommels had to be weighted and they could hit like 20 pounds on some swords) But compare that to a pole arm and now you have an object with over 80% of the weapon that can cut or smash someone and it has the same length of a pole arm. 

Swords are more prominently featured than spears today because of prestige and convenience. In terms of battlefield effectiveness, spears and polearms are hands down better. For adventuring, travel, mobility, etc. a sword would be better.

Two handed greatswords exist, but they are rare and they do not have pommels that weigh 20 pounds. Most battlefield weapons weigh less than 10 pounds. Ceremonial greatswords could weigh a lot more, but those are not battlefield weapons. Two handed swords are specialized weapons that require lots of training and are used against pikes. Dispatching cavalry is easier done with spears and polearms as they are cheaper to make and easier to use.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, XRay said:

YouTube Videos:
Lindybeige - Spears are better than swords (longer version)
scholagladiatoria - Spears: Why they defeat swords, optimum characteristics & perfect length
Skallagrim - The Weapon Triangle in Fire Emblem - Realistic?
Shadiversity - Underappreciated Historical Weapons: the SPEAR

 

Polearms are not easy to break. They are often reinforced with metal strips along the shaft. Mass production does not necessarily mean poor quality. Quartz movement watches are mass produced and are far superior timekeeping devices compared to artisan handcrafted mechanical movement watches that cost hundreds of dollars and up.

Spears are easier to break compared to polearms since they generally are not reinforced with metal strips, but it will still take a sword wielder a lot of effort to cut through a spear shaft.

Given two people of equal skill, physical ability, etc. a person with a spear is far more effective than a person with a sword.

Yes, a shield would tip the balance in favor of the sword, but at the moment we are discussing just swords versus polearms/spears.

Spears are primary battlefield weapons, swords are secondary. Knights still charge into battle with lances/spears and medieval art often depicts them using spears.

Polearms generally do not weigh 25 pounds. With few exceptions, the vast majority weigh less than 10 pounds. You can still quickly thrust it in short bursts to overwhelm a sword user.

Spears are much lighter. You can quickly thrust over a prolonged period of time.

A sword cannot cut as quickly as a spear can thrust. A sword can thrust quickly, but their reach is limited.

Swords are more prominently featured than spears today because of prestige and convenience. In terms of battlefield effectiveness, spears and polearms are hands down better. For adventuring, travel, mobility, etc. a sword would be better.

Two handed greatswords exist, but they are rare and they do not have pommels that weigh 20 pounds. Most battlefield weapons weigh less than 10 pounds. Ceremonial greatswords could weigh a lot more, but those are not battlefield weapons. Two handed swords are specialized weapons that require lots of training and are used against pikes. Dispatching cavalry is easier done with spears and polearms as they are cheaper to make and easier to use.

 

That first video was pretty bias. A lot of the points werent even counted properly in addition those mini mock battles with more than one on one weren't even conducted in a way that is objective. I saw most battles in which the sword users were forced to charge creating a circumstance in which defending is easier if you have range. I'd also like to point out that they were using light foamed weapons. Those shields also weren't realistic to what real life would be like and so those spearmen using shields, wasn't going to hold up for real. Furthermore, that video only focused on one type of spear as oppose to the many that exist not really accounting for if all types of spears, lances, and pole arms would win. Also they gave points just for tapping and points if the shaft made contact. I know, I know I'm not deaf. I saw one instance where he said that wouldn't be enough but all the other times they gave points they didn't stick to the shaft not counting. Lastly, that first video was an open field which of course is going to give spear users the advantage almost 90% of the time even if it is one on on or group battles. But often enough battlers were conducted in villages, in the woods, in the mountains or in valleys with uneven footing, and so much more. So alot of those points they scored were clearly rigged. How about battles in all those other scenarios? I forgot or left out battles where you are fighting inside a base. Suffice to say, I vote to revoke your first video based off how unbalanced it was. I'll give plenty of points and credit for the 3rd one but the 2nd was also just a little too extra fluffy toward spears only. He barely covered other weapons types. Also in regards to all the videos, I didn't see them really cover how swords can be crafted for various intents so when they go on to discuss how one beats the others, they make it seem as if the weapons were being knocked out just based on one type. (except that first video. They covered a few swords. But again those battles were not realistic. Plus those guys kinda struck me as playing around too much. Just a tad bit too much)

Again, weapon maintenance is important. Those rank and file farmers didn't upkeep their equipment so that point still stands those weapons did last long. 

The generalization that mass produced things are of lower quality exist cause it backed by statistics and numbers. You pointing out one example to reinforce your point doesn't confirm your statement as valid. Mass produced shirts in cheap companies sell cheaper but guess what is more coveted and desired? Designer clothes made specially. There see what I did. What you just did. I gave an example the proves my point. So now we are back to square one. Is the statement "mass produced things tend to be of low quality" true or untrue. It can be disputed, but the numbers across different products and industries are in my favor. For something to be mass produced as is the definition, that means you need a huge quantity of a certain resource. Usually cheap resources are used to mass produced things. It is known as common sense that higher quality resources are used to produce higher quality products. I could use weapons and armor as examples, sports or luxury cars, clothes made with satin or silk, and many more across different industries. It's a generalization. In other words, that means "most of the time". In the definition of that word,  that doesn't imply "all of the time". You can give examples of watches but that doesn't mean my statement is refuted by a long shot. 

I wanna learn how you break quotes into parts so I can respond in order to more statements you made without double posting. 

I'll give credit where it's due. They do have distinct usage and can be wielded diversely to win. In terms of a weapon type that covers many battle fields, you can use a matching weapon to take on your obstacle of course but sword type weapons and sword styles cover alot of ground and help round out a lot of situations. If I'm not mistaken, duel wielding wasn't even covered in any of those videos which is also a perk that sword users get (and I guess single handed small axes and maces). I liked the fire emblem video btw. Thanks. His special effects are horrendous though. When I saw him chop his own head and squirt purple blood, I couldn't help but laugh. He also covered things pretty objectively and made fair points. He mentioned techniques I never even thought of or saw before like with axe hooking. That was very informative. The amount of techniques he covered was pretty great. 

Here are the points I'll yield to since they are irrefutable and exclusive to pole arm users and lances/spears.

Better range. Spear/Lance thrusts being speedy and stamina cost effective. (from the video) better at dispatching heavily armored or horseback units more effectively (in a way that keeps you alive longer or safer), and finally, provided they aren't poor quality have reasonable durability for intents and purposes in war. 

Points of mine that still stand. Better quality weapon and durability, covers a wide array of combat situations, more effective for self defense outside of war times and even in war times are a weapon that can be kept easily due to compact size making them crucial to own. Also due to their size and requirements can be duel wielded or combined with a shield "more often" as opposed to someone dragging around a two hander pole arm (which most are) and finally, more stamina cost effective all around. 

Also, I want to throw the towel in cause for intents and purposes, I was not looking for a debate on this hard core level. Swords are going to remain mainstream whether any of us like it or not, but I'm glad I had a chance to learn a few more things in this thread. Now even more than before I really do like axes. They just promoted to my favorite indefinitely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

That first video was pretty bias. A lot of the points werent even counted properly in addition those mini mock battles with more than one on one weren't even conducted in a way that is objective. I saw most battles in which the sword users were forced to charge creating a circumstance in which defending is easier if you have range. I'd also like to point out that they were using light foamed weapons. Those shields also weren't realistic to what real life would be like and so those spearmen using shields, wasn't going to hold up for real. Furthermore, that video only focused on one type of spear as oppose to the many that exist not really accounting for if all types of spears, lances, and pole arms would win. Also they gave points just for tapping and points if the shaft made contact. I know, I know I'm not deaf. I saw one instance where he said that wouldn't be enough but all the other times they gave points they didn't stick to the shaft not counting. Lastly, that first video was an open field which of course is going to give spear users the advantage almost 90% of the time even if it is one on on or group battles. But often enough battlers were conducted in villages, in the woods, in the mountains or in valleys with uneven footing, and so much more. So alot of those points they scored were clearly rigged. How about battles in all those other scenarios? I forgot or left out battles where you are fighting inside a base. Suffice to say, I vote to revoke your first video based off how unbalanced it was. I'll give plenty of points and credit for the 3rd one but the 2nd was also just a little too extra fluffy toward spears only. He barely covered other weapons types. Also in regards to all the videos, I didn't see them really cover how swords can be crafted for various intents so when they go on to discuss how one beats the others, they make it seem as if the weapons were being knocked out just based on one type. (except that first video. They covered a few swords. But again those battles were not realistic. Plus those guys kinda struck me as playing around too much. Just a tad bit too much)

You can grab a friend and test it out yourself. You can use a sword and your friend can use a spear. Dollar stores often have cheap plastic swords for sale and your friend can just grab a broom. I do not recommend testing it with real weapons for safety reasons, which is why they use foam weapons. These people are HEMA (historical European martial arts) practitioners, so they have quite a bit of experience with fighting techniques.

Shields are irrelevant, as previously discussed. We are just looking at sword vs spear/polearm.

The result from using a polearm over a spear would not be too different. The sword user still needs to get past the sharp point. A polearm is a bit heavier, but as long as the polearm user is not just blindly thrusting and tiring himself out, polearms would still dominate swords.

Spears would still dominate in most scenarios. You do not need a lot of room to thrust back and forth. The only scenario I can think of where spears would fare worse to a sword is in an enclosed spiral staircase where thrusting forward and backward is severely restricted, in corridors with lots of tight corners, and in similar spaces where you do not have much room in front and behind you for thrusts. In tight straight corridors, spears would still dominate swords since the spearman would be protected from flanking.

Swords can be crafted with different purposes, but they will all still lose to spears and polearms. Rapiers, scimitars, falchions, etc. would all still fare poorly against a weapon with reach. For a sword to have a chance against a spear, you need a greatsword, and I would argue that they are basically just spears with cross guards attached and traded the longer shaft for a longer metal head.

5 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

Again, weapon maintenance is important. Those rank and file farmers didn't upkeep their equipment so that point still stands those weapons did last long. 

Swords require higher maintenance. Spears and polearms require less. Swords need to be oiled and sharpened regularly to maintain effectiveness. Spears and polearms should still be sharpened, but those being a little blunt is not going to significantly reduce their effectiveness. Rank and file farmers would still maintain weapons, they are not stupid. If your life depends on your weapon working well, even you would do your best to maintain it.

5 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

The generalization that mass produced things are of lower quality exist cause it backed by statistics and numbers. You pointing out one example to reinforce your point doesn't confirm your statement as valid. Mass produced shirts in cheap companies sell cheaper but guess what is more coveted and desired? Designer clothes made specially. There see what I did. What you just did. I gave an example the proves my point. So now we are back to square one. Is the statement "mass produced things tend to be of low quality" true or untrue. It can be disputed, but the numbers across different products and industries are in my favor. For something to be mass produced as is the definition, that means you need a huge quantity of a certain resource. Usually cheap resources are used to mass produced things. It is known as common sense that higher quality resources are used to produce higher quality products. I could use weapons and armor as examples, sports or luxury cars, clothes made with satin or silk, and many more across different industries. It's a generalization. In other words, that means "most of the time". In the definition of that word,  that doesn't imply "all of the time". You can give examples of watches but that doesn't mean my statement is refuted by a long shot. 

Except in this case, it is not "most of the time." A high quality steel sword is no more effective than a "low quality" iron spear. A spear point or polearm head does not need high quality steel to be effective, but swords do. For battlefield purposes, there is no need to use spears and polearms made with steel when cheap wrought iron works fine.

5 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

I wanna learn how you break quotes into parts so I can respond in order to more statements you made without double posting. 

When you highlight a sentence/paragraph/section of a post, a small <Quote selection> popup should appear.

5 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

I'll give credit where it's due. They do have distinct usage and can be wielded diversely to win. In terms of a weapon type that covers many battle fields, you can use a matching weapon to take on your obstacle of course but sword type weapons and sword styles cover alot of ground and help round out a lot of situations. If I'm not mistaken, duel wielding wasn't even covered in any of those videos which is also a perk that sword users get (and I guess single handed small axes and maces). I liked the fire emblem video btw. Thanks. His special effects are horrendous though. When I saw him chop his own head and squirt purple blood, I couldn't help but laugh. He also covered things pretty objectively and made fair points. He mentioned techniques I never even thought of or saw before like with axe hooking. That was very informative. The amount of techniques he covered was pretty great. 

Duel wielding is a horrible idea on a battlefield. People are better off carrying a shield on their off hand for increased protection. As @Flere210 mentioned, it is used in duels because large shields are less common. For a civilian, carrying two swords is not a big deal, but carrying a large shield would be a hassle.

5 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

Points of mine that still stand. Better quality weapon and durability, covers a wide array of combat situations, more effective for self defense outside of war times and even in war times are a weapon that can be kept easily due to compact size making them crucial to own. Also due to their size and requirements can be duel wielded or combined with a shield "more often" as opposed to someone dragging around a two hander pole arm (which most are) and finally, more stamina cost effective all around. 

In terms of durability, a spear or polearm is going to be far more durable. While a quality sword can take a fair amount of abuse and punishment, it is still a relatively thin piece of metal compared to a thicker spear point or polearm head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main advantage of swords in literature is that it's easier to choreograph a duel with them. All of the real world reasoning for or against doesn't actually matter all that much - crossed swords have that romance to them that's more challenging to create in other weapons.

Despite that I agree with the OP on swords being overused of course. I'd like to see more protagonists with oversized 2-handed hammers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think someone already pointed this out, but the history of the sword can really be used to explain this more than anything.

First off, there's little merit to comparing one weapon to another. All weapons that saw serious usage in history were useful in their time, otherwise they wouldn't have been, you know, used.

Swords in almost every culture have been exclusively the weapons of either nobility or trained fighters. The peasants of any era would have owned axes, hammers, pikes, harpoons, bows, etc., which served their every day needs. And though machetes were used in some places, in general, a sword isn't a tool, it's a weapon first and foremost. You won't chop down a tree, catch a fish, or harvest grain with a sword. Therefore, owning a sword means owning a weapon. You'd buy an axe or bow for everyday use, but you'd buy a sword specifically to fight someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny that there are many types of swords, but fantasy writers tend to use the same sword type when their protagonists use swords. It's like the japanese and katanas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swords are neat and iconic and inspiring, but yeah, there are specific styles of sword that are very over done.
Swords are obviously good weapons and probably (don't quote me) better than polearms for a guy who runs around a lot and doesn't have a big posse of fellow spearmen to form a line with him, but some variety would be cool.

I think it's high time we get a hero swinging a khopesh.

I'd also like a guy who punches people with magic. I don't mean like a mage or something, I mean he literally punches lightening into people with his fists.

However, since artistic tropes are associated with only a small number of weapon styles, there's only a small number of weapon styles which evoke ideas beyond "that's cool and novel," which perhaps compacts the issue slightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rapier said:

It's funny that there are many types of swords, but fantasy writers tend to use the same sword type when their protagonists use swords. It's like the japanese and katanas.

I don't think is entirely true. Using FF as an example these are some of the weapons that you see more often associated whit each character:

Ff4: Longsword 

Ff6: Shamshir

Ff7: Zanbato

Ff8: gublade(wich actually exists but are very different from that.)

Ff9: not a sword

Ff10: abomination

Ff12: cutlass

Ff13: gunblade again

Ff15:wtf is that thing?

FFT: rapier

FFTA: Insult to God

FTA2: not this shit again

And honestly, i think is like that in most JRPGs. And on top of it, in those games every character get several different weapon types over the curse of the game. Western games are more stingy, but i sure as hell don't want a macuahutl in a game set in a semi-realistic roman empire, because it would look out of place

16 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I think it's high time we get a hero swinging a khopesh.

I'd also like a guy who punches people with magic. I don't mean like a mage or something, I mean he literally punches lightening into people with his fists.

The protagonist of my assassin run in Age of Decadence want to know your location(yes there are Kopeshs named Kopeshs)

Also the lighting fist thing is relatively common in JRPG lol  Also, Enghlitened Fist(wich is one of the reason 3.5 is D&D best edition, there is a prestige class for literally everything.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
On 9/14/2019 at 4:37 AM, Innocentmask said:

Swords have been a staple in many fantasy genres. Everywhere the main hero is usually the one to hold the sword but the companions have other weapons like bows, lances, magic or axes. The main character is usually the one with a powerful sword. Swords are easy weapons to use and are well rounded against anything which is why its used so much. Many of main protagonists use these like Link for example, various Lords from Fire emblem, Cloud strife you name it. Many protagonists in this genre will wield this weapon while the secondary characters often wield another weapon.

Yeah, I've started to get a little disgruntled by the amount of sword wielders many fantasy type genres have. I have yet to see an actual protagonist that mains a weapon apart from swords like bows, lances or axes. I know they aren't very popular but i would just like something new for a change. So far i can remember main protagonists that don't wield swords are Simon Belmont (Whip), Thor (Hammer and axe), Kratos (Used to have swords, now has axe), Ruby rose (Scythe gun) and Ephraim (Lance). I would really like to see more main characters who wield those weapons, like they are very underrated. I don't think this trope would die out because its already an icon of culture, its generally accepted so i don't see it becoming negatively overused.

I don't dislike swords but i just think they are starting to get very repetitive. I just feel that a different weapon could break away from this trope. Its might be a flawed opinion i know but you may have the same thoughts as me. So anyways your thoughts about this? Swords are getting tiredly overused or are they still an important symbol of the culture? Positive or negative thoughts are welcome. (Im not sure this is the right thread to post this, go ahead mods move it if necessary)

This is why I gave Chessica Wildcard a wand that becomes a sword and other things.

So many characters have swords, or "Waaaaacky weapons" that function EXACTLY like swords in-game. The guy with a pool noodle and the guy with a big spoon, what do they fight like? Like a guy with a sword and a model-swap mod.

I get that it's because a sword is something you can swing around in many different ways. Thrusting, cutting, slashing, slicing, swords can do it all. And you can change how the character swings his sword to give different impressions about the character's personality: Nobody's going to confuse the graceful fencer and the Vergil-wannabe Iaijutsu katana guy with the "Swing sword like a club" guy. But why do so many sword-wielding characters wield their swords in the same generic slashy way, no matter how big or small or realistic or unrealistic their swords are?

Compare how Link swings his sword to how Nero from DMCV swings his sword. Link swings his sword like a regular guy, occasional fantasy acrobatics notwithstanding. Nero swings his two-handed sword with one hand, and he slashes like he's trying to break something. These aren't careful, methodical parries and thrusts to find an opening in your guard, these are slashes meant to break your guard and the ground beneath you.

Compare how most anime characters with big swords swing their big swords (Like they're normal-weight swords) to how Guts from Berserk swings his Dragonslayer. It's a heavy thing with a genuine sense of weight to it, brilliantly conveyed through how it is used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree. As much as I love swords, their design and their making, if a character is in any form of warfare, then they really need a Polearm. I always liked to look at it as, Polearms are rifles, and the primary weapon for combat, swords are sidearms and personal defense weapons. One thing I will note, if the character is a traveler or adventurer, a sword is great, as it is a fantastic self defense weapon. As a final note, I think fiction needs more one handed Warhammers, Polehammers, Bardiche, Poleaxes, Bilhooks, ect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The thing about swords, that probably explains why so many adventurer-heroes use them, is that they're sidearms. You can carry them at your side wherever you go. Spears, bows, axes, etc. are great battlefield weapons, but that's the extent of their use. You can't really sheath a bow or a spear. So, if you want a main character to have a signature weapon that isn't a sword, it's going to have to be justified somehow. 

That said, one thing I find really ironic is that most protagonists are complete newbies when it comes to fighting, and a sword is almost-certainly the worst weapon to give to a complete newbie. Using swords effectively requires a lot of training. How do I know this? I practice HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts). 

On 9/13/2019 at 11:37 PM, Innocentmask said:

Swords have been a staple in many fantasy genres. Everywhere the main hero is usually the one to hold the sword but the companions have other weapons like bows, lances, magic or axes. The main character is usually the one with a powerful sword. Swords are easy weapons to use and are well rounded against anything which is why its used so much. Many of main protagonists use these like Link for example, various Lords from Fire emblem, Cloud strife you name it. 

Well, that's just not true. Using a sword effectively requires a lot of training. Sure, anyone can easily grab one and swing it around, but they aren't going to be very effective with it without plenty of training. 

 

On 9/13/2019 at 11:37 PM, Innocentmask said:

Yeah, I've started to get a little disgruntled by the amount of sword wielders many fantasy type genres have. I have yet to see an actual protagonist that mains a weapon apart from swords like bows, lances or axes. I know they aren't very popular but i would just like something new for a change. So far i can remember main protagonists that don't wield swords are Simon Belmont (Whip), Thor (Hammer and axe), Kratos (Used to have swords, now has axe), Ruby rose (Scythe gun) and Ephraim (Lance). I would really like to see more main characters who wield those weapons, like they are very underrated. I don't think this trope would die out because its already an icon of culture, its generally accepted so i don't see it becoming negatively overused.

One of my favourite shows as a kid was a Canadian-&-Japanese Anime called Spider Riders. I won't go into too many details; I'll just say that the protagonist ends up joining the titular warrior-elite that ride armoured spiders into battle. He's a complete newbie, but Spider Riders don't have to carry their weapons & armour with them; they can summon them at will whenever they need them. So, he uses a spear instead, which is far more beginner-friendly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are certainly easier weapons to use, but yeah, swords are big especially in the fantasy genre. Which I like and prefer haha. I don't think I'll ever tire of swords in any regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...