What exactly makes the sword the "go to" or the favored weapon of most fantasy classes?

What would have been the alternative? Same damage for all weapons wielded by Men-at-Arms?

>cudgels more common in urban use,
Cudgels were only more common because swords were illegal for some members of society to carry. In the post-medieval world and the lowering of restrictions on who could carry swords, sword carrying became most common until the invention of the handgun surpassed it.

A sword is the only weapon in ancient history not adapted from a tool or hunting implement. Spears and bows were used to kill animals before people, axes and hammers were used to build things and cut trees. A sword has no purpose besides murder, it was designed to kill men more than any other medieval weapon.

nigga the secret of steel is that it's just a big knife

Longswords did marginally better damage while still allowing you to use a shield, but the damage difference was really small, you just went up one die.

Two handed swords had the best damage in 2e and it was significantly better because it was 2d6, so you had that bell curve going for you damagewise. But then you couldn't use a shield. Made sense for fighting big bosses where they can hit through your shield anyway and where every damage point counts.

Because, by the 1400s, everyone in Europe who went into battle used swords. If not as their main weapon, then as a sidearm. Even pikemen and halberdiers in battle formations had swords.

Nobles

and let us not forget how the Germans got around those laws.

>no nagel
>no short edge with a clipped point
>no indication of the specific tang
If this tries to be a messer-like think it failed horribly.

>What? No this is not a sword
>Clearly, this is only a knife
>It's a great knife, though

Because swords are the easiest weapons to use for a traveller.

Adventurer is just a traveller that makes money while travelling.

Axes, maces, spears, all these weapons of war are a pain to carry because they don't come in sheaths and are oddly balanced. Swords don't have those problems.

>Spears
>Oddly balanced
>harder to use while traveling
Nigga it's a long walking stick with a pointy end.

>Now this... is a KNOIFE

IRL sword is a last stand weapon - something you use after your pole-arm breaks or your ranged weapon runs out of ammo after battling overwhelming numbers of enemies. Last stands are super-heroic in stories, so naturally sword get associated with that kid of heroism too.

It's very convenient to carry. The sheath holds it safely and it hangs comfortably on your belt. When you have to use it, you can draw it quickly.

Another one of the theories is that the messer was meant to get around the sancitons of the Swordmaker's Guild so the Knifemaker's Guild can get in on that money. Still involves legal loopholes, but maybe not as interesting as the >shall not be infringed aspect.

Pic unrelated

What if you need to run? It's unsafe to run with spears. Swords can be sheathed and would just dangle from your belt.

>what is a spear cover

>A sword has no purpose besides murder, it was designed to kill men more than any other medieval weapon.
Too bad hunting swords were a thing.

You will still need to keep one hand at the least occupied at all times to lug arround a wooden shaft at least as tall as yourself. Even if the weight is negligible to you particularly, that shit's gonna swing around and get in the way. You bet your gait'll be affected.

Sword is the fantasy equivalent of a pistol/smg/pdw. It's literally where 'sidearm' comes from - you fought battles with polearms, but in town you didn't lug around a spear - you just had a sword to live and die by.

A typical one handed sword around arming sword length is a pretty good all around generic sidearm. If you know how to use it, you can do a lot with it. If you don't know how to use it, you can figure out the basics pretty easily which combines with them being typically relatively easy to control.

They're longer than one handed axes or maces which makes them more useful without getting right up in the other guys face, but they're short enough that (barring over extension on your part) its really hard to get so far inside your guard that its more of a liability than an asset.

They're not as useful as maces against armor (while useful, a mordhau is not exactly ideal against armor) but their balance and form makes them generally more useful than a spear. Conversely, they are for more optimized for taking down or at least wounding an unarmored man than a blunt weapon or an axe (not that an axe or mace can't be used, but a hatchet, hammer, or small mace has a very small 'fuck you' zone compared to a sword and a club lacks their relative control) even though they're not quite on the level of a spear.

Adventures work well with swords because they don't know what they're going to fight and don't want to tote around seven different weapons. Its why your image of an adventurer probably doesn't include a large (tower, hoplite, or roman) shield; while they might need something small, an adventurer needs to be able to carry everything they own and pull off some medieval pakour in a dungeon to escape traps and not get eaten by dragons.

It looks like a benis.

Piss off snake charmer.

Because it was the generic personal weapon up to the XIX century. Duh.

Now don't get me wrong; I am a whore for Pike&Shot every day, but let's be real; a sword can be a perfectly useful primary weapon, it just all depends on the military tactics you're using.

The sword is a status symbol a weapon of nobility because it's more expensive, harder to make, more craft in it, more "elegant" than others.

So being a weapon of nobility makes it a "heroic" weapon.

Though characters of a more common background would be more likely to be using axes, clubs, or polearms.

Fact is, anytime you need to use both hands for something, you have to put down your spear.

If you want to ride around, you have to hold your spear in one hand.
If you want to go through somewhere with branches, a doorway, a low gate, etc, you have to be mindful of your spear.

A sword is a sidearm, like a pistol. You can put it on your hip, and carry it around with relatively little discomfort.
So it is great for travelling, unlike a spear.

I kill myself with the sword and with my last breath say "pretty sharp eh?".

easy and safe to transport. useful against unarmored and a fair percentage of armored opponents. has the advantage over unarmed opponents or those just armed with a dagger.

>I will never bro it up with muh cohort buddies stationed somewhere in egypt or Israel, fighting crazy jewish zealots
>I will never march proudly in the triplex acies
>will never grumble and run laps while my contubernium yells at me
>Will never shine with pride the day I finally make Principes
>Will never retire to my little parcel of land in Gaul or Macedon, to live out my life happily under the Pax Romanum that I fought to preserve

Why do I even go on, fratres?

A: Legend. Classic tales are rife with master swordsmen and magical swords.
B: Utility. The sword was the go-to sidearm for thousands of years, and preferred by many as a primary weapon.
C: Culture. The sword continues as a symbol of legends and heroes and combat and justice through out pop culture, due in large part to the aforementioned legends, and the modern writers and directors that draw from them.

On the other hand, there is a long tradition of stories venerating the spear as the defender of civilization. The Greeks were huge on the spear, as were the Romans. The sword barely rated in comparison.

A sword is a secondary side arm, thus it doesn't see much use. Unlike a real primary weapon like a mace or lance, a sword doesn't get much abuse on the battlefield thus lasts longer. Which is why a person would start getting attached to his sword unlike the spears he breaks on his second charge.

It's also extremely expensive for something ultimately not that useful in the battlefield (swords doesn't do well against armor) so it's like some sort of lethal white elephant. I'm not saying a sword is useless, a well aimed thrust at an opening is extremely lethal. But any peasant can get his hands on an axe or a spear, but only nobles (thus heroes) can afford a sword (and the armor and steed that goes with it.)

This is amplified with samurais, who were actually mostly horse archers/lancers and their swords are just sharp badge of office without much use in the battlefield against armored opponents.

youtube.com/watch?v=tPq48DOXdcA

My points exactly. Most people would rather break a spear or an axe than a blade that costs as much as a cow.

What kind of swords are those

Why don't we see adventurers with trebuchets then?

Odd then, that 90% of mounted troops preferred to use polearms and managed to travel far faster than even skirmishers.

Some sword designs were entirely inneffectual against armore. They would still retain some use offensively if the opponent was not completely armored though. In real life armor only protects you if it is actually in the way.

Very early roman armies used phalanx-tactics, but the typical image of the romans ( IE; the maniple, or the later cohorts ) used mostly swords and javelins.
The late roman empire did see a return to the spear and shield-walls, and they were used all through the medieval period.

But saying the Romans considered spears "better" than swords is patently false. The roman gladius triumphed over the greek spears, the roman gladius carved out the damned empire.
This is not to imply they didn't use spears, I'm sure they did - but it wasn't the standard issue.

This shouldn't be that hard a concept; There is a difference between military campaigning and travelling.
On a military campaign, you bring a train of equipment. You accomodate for the fact that you will be travelling with weapons meant for large-scale warfare. Were Napoleonic artillery easy to travel with? No, but they were excellent for shooting people, so they were brought along.

No one is saying that you cannot travel with a shield and lance, on a horse. Just like no one would imply that you couldn't hike 30 miles in interceptor body armour, with a rifle, 5 spare mags, 3 grenades and a backpack.
You totally can. People do that.

Would you like to live like that?

As I understand it the shift from spear to short gladius was due to ease of use. It took an experienced and competent general and lower officers to make use of a what is essentially a pike formation. Spear blocks are relatively vulnerable to archers and flanking maneuvers and so when unsupported are inferior to a shield and sword combo which is less reliant on discipline and rank cohesion and also can utilize a large defensive shield. But when properly supported spear blocks destroy shield/sword combos in combat and are very capable of advancing and attacking such blocks aggressively.

Carrying a single spear as an adventurer is not nearly the same as carrying 150 lbs of extra shit.

Sure you may occasionally be forced to leave your spear outside when you go inside, but thats what you have a dagger or sword for. But when outside, and the bandits attack, your sword is NOT a workable substitute for a good spear.

I do not know where you get that from.
It seems unlikely, and counterfactual, considering the most culturally militant period of roman history, during which legionaries were proffessional soldiers who served for decades, also saw the sword dominate the roman armies completely.
Again, the romans did go up against phalanxes with their maniples. They crushed the samnites and the greeks, using swords & javelins against spears.
That is not to say the roman model was necessarily superior in all ways, but it won.
Given how eminently practical the romans were about adopting tech and practices that were better than their own, if the spear-formations had been proving superior to the sword, they would have probably switched.

The point I was making was simply that a spear is patently LESS EASY TO TRAVEL WITH THAN A SWORD.
I'm not saying you can't, or that a sword is a better weapon in every situation, or anything of the sort.
Just that a sword is easier to carry while performing everyday operations, and while riding a horse.

You can go about your daily life OCing an AR every day, too. It's just a hassle. Hence why people usually choose to carry a handgun.

People carry handguns because you can conceal them. A pistol is for fighting your way to a rifle.

Adventurers live much more dangerous lives than normal folk, they would carry AR's every single day if they could lol.

After looking into it for about 5 minutes I'm guessing the enemies the romans were fighting during their "sword phase" lived in rough terrain that didn't lend itself well to spear formation fighting.

Regardless, the romans did return to spear formations and the focus on the sword was temporary.

You have succesfully quashed my desire to continue this conversation.

It is a popular theory that the maniple formation was adopted in order to fight the samnites, who lived in hill-country.
It should be noted that greeks themselves used spears on their home-turf, and did not succeed against the romans.

Regardless, the original point was simply that the romans did not romanticize the spear as the defender of all civilization, and the roman empire was largely conquered by the sword, not the spear.

I sense that it is important to you that spears be better than swords; I don't really have a horse in that race. Neither did the Romans, I bet.

But the Romans are a poor example, if that's the reality you want to buy into; it simply isn't how their history went down.

My money is on that they are falcata's

>important to you

You're talking to several people, dude. Dial down the smug.

It's just the most "handy" weapon to have around. It's easy to carry, not really cumbersome at all, and as far as single-handed weapons go it combines a lot of good attributes with few failings.

Now if you're carrying a crossbow or a spear or some other larger weapon--that's no problem, because the sword doesn't require any hands to carry it around, so you can always have one too.

And if you CAN always have one, you should. It isn't like the modern military where most soldiers don't carry pistols because there's no point--a soldier without a sidearm in the medieval era was a damned fool and would die like one.

They are called "flyssa". They are a Berber traditional sword of the Kabyles tribe of Algeria and Morocco

But you can conceal a rifle, too.

The Roman "sword phase," quite literally lasted from ~250 BC until the collapse of the Empire, and encompassed three distinct military generations, during all three of which they conquered their enormous empire.

The Polybian system was developed in the 3rd century BC during which time the Romans were fighting the Cartheginians and their famous cavalry. They abandoned the spear except for the third-rank troops called the Triarii who were used to cover retreats and provide a rallying point, and equipped the others with swords, shields and javelins.

The Marian Reforms took place in the very late 2nd century BC under Gaius Marius, during which time the distinctions between troops were largely erased, the spear was abandoned -entirely- and all the Legionary infantry were now either dedicated skirmishers or swordsmen with javelins.

The Post-Marian reforms of the Empire were mostly organizational. The Legions basically continued unabated in this style, eventually switching from javelins to "darts" but retaining the swords, until well after the Crisis of the 3rd Century.

It was only after the Roman Legion had basically ceased to exist as an institution and barbarian mercenaries and auxiliaries made up the bulk of the military that the spear again rose to prominence--at which point it wasn't even the Roman military but essentially mercenary bands of Germans who were doing the fighting.

Basically it had nothing to do with local enemies they were facing, the Romans just liked swords and never found anything they couldn't stomp with them. They never really went back, either.

yeah but then you walk like a wierdo or risk printing like a motherfucker

youtu.be/Epeo8Pfm1xM

To back you up here, military victory encompasses way more than "use sword or spear". Logistics, discipline, strategy, and manpower count all for far, far more. If you've got those you could potentially beat an enemy with thrown rocks.

Swords were a sidearm, unlike many weapons.

Polearms and shields were great in battle, but try traveling with them.

So if you had to guess why was the sword so much more effective that it entirely replaced the spear as you suggest? The only reason I can see is that it was lighter and easier to carry, making it easier to use with one arm. I don't actually know but I'm imagining the shield they used their swords with to be fucking huge, or that missile weapons were the dominant force on the battlefield.

Because regardless of whatever else you believe the reneissance, medieval period, and all of eastern medieval warfare in japan, china, and russia all showed the dominance of spears over swords.

So why were the Romans so different?

People like cool poses on book covers.

It is exclusively a weapon
spears and bows are good for huntsmen
hammers are also tied to craft
a sword exists only for death dealing

>It is exclusively a weapon

See the hunting sword, posted above. Besides, it's just a fucking outsized knife with good propaganda, it's no more unique as a weapon of war than a pike or a crossbow or a warhammer or a mace or a morningstar or any other weapon made specifically for war.

2 revolvers bby

>the shield they used their swords with to be fucking huge,

This is correct.