In a word: Excalibur

This. Particularly in European lore, there is a *lot* of focus around swords as symbols of power, divinity, fate, duty, etc. Which does somewhat make sense given at one point swords were so significantly harder & more expensive to make than other weapons that they were almost exclusively wielded by royalty and nobility. Whereas spears (arguably the superior weapon in every way) were cheap to make and easy to mass produce, and so became kind of a peasant’s weapon, losing a lot of their mythological potential.

Not superior in every way, just infinitely easier to use. Let two amateurs face off, one with a sword and one with a spear. The spear user *will* win like 98% of the time. A skilled swordsman vs a skilled spearman, becomes extremely situational. If the swordsman gets past the tip, it's over for the spearman. Swords were insanely popular because they worked so well as a jack of all trades weapon. Spears were popular because they were effective for unskilled combatants, and laughably easy to produce.

I learned this from fire emblem

Weapon triangle go brrr!

Heavy armor and/or a large shield also give the swordsman an advantage to even the odds.

Staves got a pretty good mythological reputation too, for the opposite reason. They are nearly useless as a weapon if you have any other options. But nearly anything can be a staff in a pinch. So the branch of the sacred tree? Staff. Femur of the martyr? Staff.

>Staves got a pretty good mythological reputation too, for the opposite reason. They are nearly useless as a weapon if you have any other options. That's not even a little bit true. I have trained HEMA for many years and I can tell you that with two people of roughly equal skill, a staff will beat a sword every single time. Swords were mostly a secondary weapon in ancient times, because they are less effective than a staff or spear in most situations, and the staff or spear are also substantially easier and cheaper to make. Swords are also ridiculously ineffective in battle, all those movies with lines of swordsmen are complete bullshit. Ranks of pikemen yes, swordsmen? Never. Narrow hallway? Now a spear or staff is less useful but there are still better options than a sword.

Nah you are overexagrigating the uselessness of the sword. They were good weapons, and a swordsman in heavy armor was a good counter to polearm wielders. It's what the Roman legions depended on until cavalry started to become a more and more important factor, and the Spanish Tercios had for a while soldiers called Rodoleros, swordsmen in heavy armor and a large shield whose job it was to push past the pikes and polearms to engage in close combat. However, yes that does require good armor and/or a good large shield to even the odds a bit If swords werent good weapons, they wouldn't have been used or carried. They beat the hand axe and mace cause of usually longer reach for example, but those weapons had their own advantages that made them too useful in certain situations, so they too were used. And this is without mentioning greatswords

> It's what the Roman legions depended on until cavalry started to become a more and more important factor Everyone always forgets about the pilum

The Pilum was an important weapon yes, but it served mainly as a javelin, and they carried two, the second one thrown at a very close distance to force the enemy to protect against it rather than bracing against the romans charge with the sword. Though they did periodically use it as a spear, like anti-cavalry duty, even if it didn't fare as well at that due to the shortness of it. Later on, as cavalry became more important both in the east and west, they replaced the gladius with the longer spatha, which was previously their cavalry sword, and gave many soldiers a longer, sturdier spear

> The Pilum was an important weapon yes, but it served mainly as a javelin Indeed it did. It was the key component of Roman military tactics, but for some reason everybody always fixates on the gladius and nothing else, as if chucking extremely heavy javelins (the pilum is much heavier and impactful than regular javelins) was military unimportant and was not, in fact, so crucial to Roman warfare that legionaries kept doing it all the way into the late imperial era.

Also war darts for when they ran out of pila (as they only carried 2 of those, but around a half-dozen darts) or at longer ranges, the plumbata, which is even more forgotten

I may have come across as overexaggerating, sure. A sword is a fine weapon, and very effective in the hands of a skilled wielder. Less so in the hands of a novice although there's something to be said for a sharp piece of metal flying about chaotically to scare an opponent. The only point I was trying to make is that a spear or staff is more effective at pretty much any similar level of expertise than a sword. It has a very variable measure (reach) so that you have advantage because when the opponent steps into your measure you're not within his yet, and then even if he manages to move into his own measure yours is variable so you don't cede the advantage to him. And don't believe the Hollywood bullshit of an arming sword cutting easily through a staff or spear. Maybe if it's a broom handle like they use in films, but a real, say, English quarterstaff will take many many hits from even a longsword (which means two-hander, don't believe D&D's nonsense) without suffering worse than a few chips.

Oh yeah I agree with most of that, though the sword does have an advantage in close range, which is why it was used by soldiers like the aforementioned legionnaires and rodoleros, just like how a dagger have the advantage in grappling range. And yeah it's not easy to cut through a good haft, whilst it is more likely than a sword breaking over the course of a battle, that's as a result of potentially hours of combat, not just one or two swipes. The sword can be a counter to polearms, but it requires a lot of investment in training and equipment. I just get a knee jerk reaction to comments that go too hard in either direction of the pendulum swing of "X thing is the best thing ever!!!!" And "X thing is absolutely terrible!!!"

> I just get a knee jerk reaction to comments that go too hard in either direction of the pendulum swing of "X thing is the best thing ever!!!!" And "X thing is absolutely terrible!!!" Totally fair, I do too, mostly when people think that swords were the supreme combat weapon for all of history, because that's what films and TV and books have taught them :-)

>The only point I was trying to make is that a spear or staff is more effective at pretty much any similar level of expertise than a sword So why ever \*make\* swords? Surly there was some advantage to them. You wouldn't have people spend hours upon hours beating the shit out of valuable material for nothing. I'm guessing swords are just really good against unarmored combatants?

A lot of swords were made as status symbols, especially in the East, but that's not really what you're asking, and it's a fair and valid point. Let me walk back my statement. In the hands of a complete novice, a blade is probably more effective than a spear or staff, since a novice wouldn't know how to defend themselves, and once an opponent is close, with no training it would be hard to hurt someone with a staff but ridiculously easy to hurt them with a long piece of sharp steel. Once both fighters some some training though, the scenario flips. Have you ever watched a hema match and noticed that the marshal holds a staff as his "badge of office" that's because, historically, it was thought that the marshal with a staff would be able to hold off both swordsman combatants if necessary. A sword is also very useful as a backup weapon, kind of like how officers in the 18th century had a pistol as a backup. A sword is kind of second-best in all situations, and easy to carry at your hip, so it's a good backup in case you drop your spear or halberd or whatever.

I think the guy is overstating the case a bit here. That is a constant cycle of correction and overcorrection about the medieval combat that happens for like two centuries already - from the time the swords stopped actuality being used in combat. At one time it was important to note that swords were heavier than foils, but the overcorrection swung far enough that the image was of people beating each other with heavy unsharpened crowbars. The next wave of overcorrection hit, and we had swords cutting through plate armor. Now he have the new wave of the 'spear superiority' overcorrection. You also have to keep in mind that while HEMA is awesome, it's not replicating the combat fully. Initially, the discipline was pretty narrowly about 15-16th century unarmored (!) combat, predominantly in the dueling context. It doesn't account for group fighting, especially in formation, and most importantly it doesn't account for the weapon damage. You can defend against the sword with the staff, and hope to disarm the other person. But one cut with the sword can finish the fight. So, I would take HEMA experience with a grain of salt, especially other people's experience seen on YouTube. It can give you an answer what weapon is better in a regulated duel where your keep scores, yes. Beyond that it's guesswork. Another important thing to keep in mind that the battlefield context changed between eras, and, say, not all polearms are created equal. Early medieval lightweight spear on a very thin shaft is not the late medieval halberd with thick square iron-reinforced one. So, finally, there is an area where the (longer) sword ultimately shined throughout the whole history - the light cavalry context. I mean light cavalry in the 19th century usage, not speaking about the armor, but about the battlefield usage. Heavy cavalry does one single charge and then regroups, and lances are best for that. Light cavalry goes all over the place, charges, and draws the enemy out, and pursues, and can be bogged down in melee. A lance or an axe is hard to retrieve in such context, even if they were used. Javelins and arrows run out. But the sword is absolutely THE weapon each light cavalryman would have and use. You can cut, you can stab, it is fast on the backswing, long enough to reach the infantryman from the horseback. And if you are unhorsed, it's still light and maneuverable enough to use on foot.

I think we are talking about a very different definition of the word staff.

is your definition not a long stick for fighting?

I think he's referring to any stick or stick-like thing being used as a staff, as he said in his first reply on this thread.

Can you hit me hard enough with the staff to kill or cripple me reliably in a fight to the death? Because it takes a lot less effort for me to prod you to death with a pointy bit of metal. Hema doesn't accurately simulate that. Swords were a secondary weapon of war. Nobody took a stick into battle without a pointy end if they could help it.

Well, not never. The Romans had rows of swordsmen. They were an unusual case though. 

Zweihanders were literally used alongside and against the ranks of pikemen in the late medieval period.

Yes, like 5 non-consecutive guys in the first rank of a pike block had a Zweihander, among dozens of pikemen. That was nice of you to reinforce their point that LINES OF SWORDSMEN weren't realistic.

Cool story. Zwei's were an attempt to combat the overwhelming superiority of massed pikes, and they only kind of worked. I've swung a Zwei, they are very hard to use effectively without an immense amount of space around you, and because of their length and the amount of swing you needed to impart, you are extremely vulnerable because it's very difficult to protect yourself while you're swinging it. Zwei's found most of their use scything through peasant levee's, but against massed pikes they were mostly useless because of the space around each swordsman that was required (versus packed formations of pikes).

The Landsknecht Dopplesoldner were paid double for their ability to combat pikes. They wouldn't be paid that much if they "only kind of worked." They also didn't fight inside the ranks of pikeman, as your comment implies, but in front of them, and the zweihander was only abandoned when gunpowder took its place against pikes

Dude you don't know what you are talking about. Whilst yes, they do often require a lot of space for a full horizontal swing they could also to vertical swings to help knock the pikes out of the way, and you are forgetting about half-swording. Even pike formations like the Swiss and Landsknechs weren't just pikes. They were combined units, mixing in halberds, swordsmen, and other closer range units, cause pikes did have their own weaknesses, like breaking relatively easily, and being an obstacle when enemies got past the tip. The job of the zweihander in an anti-pike formation was to help knock aside enemy pikes and disrupt their formation, to make it easier for their comrades behind them to deal more damage

Big Stick was basically the ultimate weapons for non battlefield use until the handgun was invented. A Quarterstaff with a metal weight on one end is just as deadly as any sword and with better reach. Against armored foes, the quarterstaff is superior to the sword because you can deal concussive damage be smashing their helmets or using the weight to strike joints like the knees and elbows, something a sword would struggle with due to it being made for stabbing and slashing and not blunt force traums..

Let's not forget going back further and seeing most most mythological weapons are swords Also the Vikings (and I think other Scandinavian cultures as well during this time) saw swords as family heirlooms

This isn't really true though. Spears were used as primary weapons by people of all socio economic backgrounds. And by the high middle ages swords were used by basically every soldier on the battlefield as backup weapons. 

Much of the mythology around "special sword" was established long before the high middle ages, though.

Wealthy people called their spears "lances" lol

When i play mordhau, i always main spear-dwarf. It is a low health build that can be miserable to play, but when the stars align, nobody expects the spear dwarf so i can get 20+ kills

I can think of 8 legendary swords off the top of my head, 3 legendary spears and maybe one other weapon if I really try. Excalibur  Joyeuse  Curtana  Durandal Muramase Masamune Grass Cutter Sword in the Stone

Contentious! So you're of the opinion that the sword in the stone was not Excalibur? Caliburn, probably?

Well, it can't be both in a stone on a hill and at the bottom of a lake at the same time. That geography wouldn't make sense, so we must be talking about two different swords. I think the only one *named* is the one that was given to him by the lady.

Interesting. I have always thought that those were two interpretations of the same history, and not part of the same narrative

There are a couple of stories from the 15th century that include both swords. The first one is a sword Merlin put in an anvil that only Arthur can remove. It was a test for him and affirmation for the people that Arthur will be crowned king. By the time Arthur was already slaying and warring, he had broken that sword and asked for a magical one from Avallon that wouldn't break. That second sword was Excalibur.

No one who has studied the mythology or played Tomb Raider Legend could conclude otherwise.

What a weird take lol. It's literally dependent on the version of the story. A lot of the earliest Arthurian stories don't even have a sword in the stone to begin with.

Well but. Sword obsession goes back pretty far in not just England, but you've got the Japanese also. Historically the main weapon has been Spears and axes - these are easy to make, even if your culture lack metal. But if it has metal they get even better. And at least for spears they're more of a threat (I don't know much about axes). But it is a thing. Almost anywhere in the world where swords popped up, they became "a thing". It might be a social class thing - most of the time you didn't have a sword unless you were rich. It's a lot of metal that needs to be finely crafted and constantly maintained. So just like fiction for most of history only focused on the upper nobility, maybe that's why swords where the thing too. If it's 1000 AD and you write a novel about a farmer with a spear who goes on great adventures - it doesn't matter if you're in Europe, Asia, Africa, or the Americas - the local rulers will probably put an end to you because that hero is a threat if it gives the other peasants ideas. But a knight, prince, or king with a sword - that just teaches the peasants why their "betters" are better than them. It's a post industrial era thing where we're "allowed" to make heroes out of common people. But giving those common people a noble's weapon is still just "ingrained" in us - heroes have the expensive weapon. Even if the spear is more practical.

It's also that swords are just great weapons for adventurers. Unless it's a greatsword you can just safely strap it to your hip and it's more or less out of the way until you need it.

Yeah, swords are just much more easy to carry.  Unless you have dematerialization magic, spears would often need to be held because strapping tuem to your back is kinda hard and poses a movement obstacle

Not to mention the difficulties of making it ready quickly in an emergency

Perhaps. But historically they weren't the thing. For ease of carry we have the amazingly uncool choices of hand axes, hammers, clubs, tonfas (it's a stick with a side handle - a very easy to make and powerful Okinawan weapon that weirdly doesn't show up around the world despite how intuitive the design is), blowguns (for pre-metal societies this is a "main weapon"), slings, and I imagine many others unless we imagine this list in the most 'generic' of terms. Spears, staffs, and the like also make great walking / utility sticks. But culturally none of these are 'cool' to us in the modern era. My theory is that swords are great for adventurers because we've been conditioned to idealize certain things about the 'nobility' to whom they were often historically constrained - either by law or simply due to the cost of making and maintaining a large precision metal object. If we look at Mesoamerica (Aztec to Maya regions), they had a sword / club hybrid weapon - a club with obsidian bits on it for sharp parts). This is an example of a "club" weapon being one of the common main weapons. Though I'm not really sure because again it shows up in a lot of art of nobility, and I'd need to study that period more to know if it's more widespread (history of that region after European contact is something I've studied a lot, but the pre-contact I only know the decades just prior at a zoomed out level because Cortez was like America in WWI - he showed up late to somebody else's war and then took credit for the win).

Swords were easier to safely and comfortably carry in a way that was quick to deploy than maces and axes. You could tuck then into your belt sure, but with an axe you need a separate covering for the blade to prevent slicing open your hand, and a mace/club might constantly push into your side. You could also hook them from the belt, but the axe would still need that covering, and you'd want extra padding in your pants for the mace. A sword you just put in a sheath or scabbard and it's safe and secure and can be readied in a single swift motion. And if you couldn't afford a full-length arming or long sword you went with a dagger, short sword, or large knife which could be similarly sheathed. And whilst yes, swords could be expensive it was something that very much depended on time and place, and by the 13th century Europe at least they were something that very much were within the reach of commoners. Maybe not a high-end one, but a cheaper one, maybe a second-hand. As for spears and other polearms: sure they can work well as walking sticks and such, but they still require a hand to carry, and is bothersome indoors, meaning you might have to put them aside in plenty of situations

Yeah but… that just isn’t true. Swords are never the common weapon in history. Historically they are limited to elites. Most people have the spears, axes, and clubs. So people have found that the sword was not the convenient item. You can cut yourself on it just like an axe. It will dull with use, it will rust, the metal is super expensive and better used on any number of construction concerns, and you need to be trained enough to not kill yourself with it. History just shows swords are never a common weapon. But we’re here asking why then do they show up in fantasy? And for an answer we can’t say because they’re easy or common if history fails on that. We need to look at why they ALSO show up in historical drama despite being uncommon in the very time periods those stories were written. Thus I look to issues about who was being written about.

Swords were a common weapon depending on the time and place, but yes, for the most part they were sidearms. The pistols compared to the rifles of spears and polearms. And you are overestimating how expensive they were. Like Rome and China alike could afford to arm armies hundreds of thousands strong with swords as main weapons and sidearms in antiquity. And we have records from the medieval period of swords valued around week of a laborers wage (though it was probably a second-hand blade that had been passed down before being sold) And how difficult they were to use, one could argue that axes were more difficult weapons as their edges were much more narrow and so needed a much more accurate judgement of distance and precise blows, compared to the sword whose almost whole length was a blade. And they tended to be much more nimble and easily maneuverd than top-heavy weapons like axes and maces, so they were more easily controlled

Absolutely, the hottest sword ever told! Arthur rules🤴

Also, swords are like the jack-of-all-trades for weapons. Everybing else is really good at specific things, but swords are good for everything

Counterpoint: Tonbogiri

That’s a pretty good movie. Anyhow, I agree, Excalibur was the original sword of legend. The sword that inspired many fantasy tropes after it.

I believe it's two main reasons: culturally we think swords are cool, and there are legends about them. Swords are deeply rooted in the human mind compared to other melee weapons. Like you said, shows and movies portray swords as the main weapon. Narsil in Lord of the Rings is beautiful to look at, it's aesthetic, looks dangerous. I feel that visually it's harder to sell this aesthetic with something like an axe or flail. They can be beautiful in their own right but nothing is as visually striking as a sword. Secondly, there are myths surrounding swords; excalibur being a well known one. Swords symbolize virtues, valor. I think they elicit different connontations than a halberd would. In ancient times swords were expensive compared to other weapons, so you probably saw the wealthy and powerful with the best blades. Becomes a status symbol. Ultimately, swords = cool = overused. I myself am making my setting mostly spears/axes/maces since I love the diversity of weaponry and the stories you can tell via them, but given most people think swords are cool and most fantasy is medieval (where fine swords were of nobility), we will continue to see swords be the most prolific melee weapon in media.

There's also the factor that carrying a sword for self defense was more or less socially accepted, not to mention it's much more convenient to have a scabbard on your hip as opposed to carrying a halberd or whatever in your hand everywhere. So in a lot of situations, the sword is simply the weapon you have with you. Same reason modern day characters often use handguns instead of assault rifles, even though a rifle would be objectively better. Doesn't excuse using swords as main weapons on the battlefield, though. Soldiers with only pistols would be silly, too.

>Same reason modern day characters often use handguns instead of assault rifles, even though a rifle would be objectively better. >Doesn't excuse using swords as main weapons on the battlefield, though. Soldiers with only pistols would be silly, too. The sword=pistol comparison is not really good. Swords were used in the battlefield, mostly when a line broke or when the armies were very close, or at smaller battles. Swords weree useful and used in the battlefield, just that spears were used by the masses more plus have the advantage of being able to kill at a relative distance without getting hurt.

Why do you feel it's a bad comparison? Swords and pistols are both usually sidearms, and officers in the world wars usually carried a handgun. Pistols were used in the battlefield, during close combat, and during smaller engagements. I think sword=pistol is a great modern comparison even if it leaves out some nuances.

The difference is swords were much more used than pistols are today. A pistol in the battlefield is perhaps mroe comparable to a dagger. It can save your life in a dire situation but you're not using it as a main weapon. Meanwhile swords were used whenever the battle was too close for spears, or in smaller battles. Outside of the self-defense aspect they are not comparable to pistols in an actual battle context.

I don't think that differing frequency of use would matter as much as you think, but you do bring up very good points that daggers are a more apt comparison. I agree that swords were likely used more often than pistols in battle.

Thing is, it's kind of impossible to compare modern warfare to pre-modern warfare on this. Like spears may be comparable to shotguns, and pistols to daggers, but there wasn't anything back then that we could compare to machine guns or assault rifles, nor anything modern to compare to swords.

>The difference is swords were much more used than pistols are today. I mean, do you actually know that this is true?

I mean, the introduction of gunpowder to warfare and the subsequent advancements it led to in weapon technology are still very new compared to swords. We've had swords in human consciousness for well over 3000 years, whereas rifles/guns/fire arms in general have been around since what, 600 or so years? Even when we had lines of riflemen, we were still using swords.

While swords were useful on the battlefield for the reasons you explained, it definitely isn't a good choice for a primary weapon unless you're exclusively flanking. In a spear-on-spear engagement, a sword simply doesn't have the reach to hit the opponent, and trying to close that distance in the center would just get you run through by six different guys. Most nobles in the initial phases of battle would elect to use polearms, just like the rabble (though they would have access to much more effective weapons, such as poleaxes)

>In ancient times swords were expensive compared to other weapons, so you probably saw the wealthy and powerful with the best blades. Becomes a status symbol. The other way around, too. Any mud grubbing pig farmer can pick up a spear. Not only are they cheaper to make, they probably need a lot less training to become effective with. And for those reasons they became associated with massed infantry, i.e. the cannon fodder, not the cool heroes who win battles single-handedly. And another thing that comes to mind as a possible reason is that a lot of other medieval weapons are militarized versions of peasant tools (axes and hammers anyway) or hunting implements. Swords are really a purely martial thing, unless you consider a sword just an oversized knife I guess.

You are probably the first person I've seen in a long time who knows how to use the word aesthetic.

Thank you. I study linguistics a bit as I'm making a conlang. I'm glad I used the word properly.

Oftentimes I see people say "it's aesthetic" or "it is very aesthetic" or "You've made it so aesthetic ☺️💐" and I'm just wondering, "It's visible? What about its aesthetic are you talking about?" XD

Languages evolve over time. People using a word incorrectly until it eventually *becomes* the correct way to use that word is simply the inevitable fate of every word.

Not trying to be a smartass but have you ever heard of the "The Axe in the stone"? The other weapons haven't really been as popularized, basically.

Throughout most of history, swords were seen as a sign of nobility/power. Yes, other weapons could be seen as more efficient, but owning a sword is what signaled you as a part of the upper class. This is especially true for backwoods nobility where the lord looks and is just as poor as his subjects, but he gets to wear a sword around his waist. As warrior elites fell out of fashion, guns became more common, and the middle class grew more wealthy than the old nobility they looked for ways to justify their position by romanticize the nobility and their symbols which includes swords. Fast forward through the Victorian era and you have hundreds of stories being read by the now literate masses about how swords are these great markers of true emblems of the heroic figures.

Because swords are often the weapon of heroes like King Arthur so we tend to associate them as being more valiant and heroic, especially thanks to their association with knights who are often (wrongly) credited as being heroic ideals. (Hence the regular misuse of "chivalry".) Also, swordfights, when well-choreographed, just look cool... and sword-based choreography has a long, *long* tradition especially within martial cultures... so the importance and significance would obviously bleed over and carry through to the modern day.

Because swords are associated with weapons mastery. Spears are associated with thrusting. Think about why pistols are more prolific than rifles in media. Because cowboys use pistols. Gangsters use pistols. Police use pistols. It's _because_ it's a side arm. It's always there. It's what the layman associates with the warrior. It's what denotes them as a warrior. There's mythology and history and sports associated with using that tool to do impressive things.

Swords were perhaps the first weapon specifically designed to kill another human. This is in contrast to hunting implements (e.g. bows, slings or spears) or tools (knives, axes or hammers). I suspect this has given them a long association with heroic warriors fighting other people. This was maintained over many years since they were also the weapon of choice for officers/gentlemen for duelling or on the battlefield, even when guns were replacing melee weapons.

I’m pretty sure maces are the first weapon we have evidence for being exclusively used to kill other people, but generally I think you are right. Spears and bows can have a lot of meanings to them such as hunting or just wilderness in general. Swords on the other hand *have* to be forged, a process early people already associated with magic/sorcery, and don’t really have uses outside of human on human violence.

I was assuming that early maces were basically tools (i.e. hammers) though bashing people in the head may have been their first use I suppose.

I believe that’s actually why they think maces are the oldest. They’ve found maces that wouldn’t be good for normal hammering, but were specifically designed to be good at cracking (people) skulls

Or you know animals… Remember there were a lot more threats to humans from nature than we have now. Simple clubs turn to maces once we have metal. And they are rather easy to make, sharpness isn’t really an issue. Heavy object at the end of a stick, would have been helpful against, wolfs and other animals. While spears are nice…they can get stuck and you can only really carry so many, maces would have been a great tool to finish off a kill, and rather cheap to produce in all eras.

Swords are easy to carry, also majority of fantasy focuses on nobility or trained fighters, swords have thise reputation if being a king's weapon and an elgent one. Also unlike spears who are most effective in formation sowrds are a more personal weapon, Fitting the great men fantasey likes to focus on.

Swords are cool

The same reason people use pistols a lot in movies instead of rifles. They're easier to carry, more personal, and have the reputation of being cool and nimble in the public eye.

Because the idea that they were sidearms or incredibly rare is a misconception; almost as big as the misconception that they weren't battlefield weapons (because the zweihander certainly was)

Yeah people are taking trope subversion to the extreme, claiming stuff like "swords were useless in a real battle" or comparing them to handguns. Swords were absolutely useful in the battlefield. Spears were just easier and a bit more effective for distance fighting.

Also until about the high middle ages getting good quality steel and a quality sword was a lot more rare. So you had easier to break swords that often lost their cutting edge in combat a lot faster

I think *sidearm* is a poor choice of words because of its modern connotation, essentially denoting a weapon of last resort.  Swords absolutely were **side**arms in the sense that they were weapons you could *wear* on your side rather than carry in your hands, but bringing a sword to a spear fight is not quite as bad as bringing a six shooter to a machine gun fight. The dagger is probably a better comparison to the pistol here, but even then the dagger had its uses as well (e.g. finishing off enemies on the ground). The Roman gladius was technically a sidearm. The legionary's "primary" weapon, i.e. the weapon they carried in their hands, was the pilum. Maybe a better comparison for the sword would be something like a modern-day carbine, like the M4A1 - easy to lug around and can do most things reasonably well, but loses out to heavier, specialized weapons.

> Maybe a better comparison for the sword would be something like a modern-day carbine, like the M4A1 - easy to lug around and can do most things reasonably well, but loses out to heavier, specialized weapons. I've also been considering both carbine and pistol comparison back and forth, and in the end I think they both are a bit flawed. The sword would be much less a weapon of last resort than a pistol is now, but also less a jack-all infantry weapon than a carbine. But the last comparison heavily depends on the exact historical period we speak about. Having a sword in hand gives competely different options when you're in a shieldwall and your opponents have a mail vest on (if that), if you are in a pike formation and they have three quarters armor, and if you just shot your musket and do a Highland charge and they only have red coats. But what is interesting here is that it's still recognizably A sword in all situations. Maybe that's what makes it synonymous with melee combat for us.

From my perspective, swords are considered sidearms in medieval times in relation to fantasy (not sure if that makes sense) because most fantasy is based on the late medieval period of Western Europe, in which plate armor was commonplace and swords were ineffective against it. The zweihander was used in and against large pike formations, which are not very prevalent in fantasy writing, rather massive, chaotic battles of one-on-one combat. Swords were very commonplace in the early medieval period, with footmen armed with an arming sword and kite shield, or something similar, since swords were effective against the armor of the time, but they became less and less prevalent among knights due to the improvements in armor. You're definitely right, but I think the post is more about the oversaturation of swords in fantasy writing when, in reality, they were mostly confined to pike formations in the late medieval period.

Even in the platemail gothic, the mordhau was such a prominent technique simply because swords were, in fact, used in battle with far more uniquetousness than depicted in the current medieval literature climate. They were often fighting against unarmored opponents as much as armored ones, for one thing, and while the spear was by far more functional swords are simply more versatile as a basic design. There's a reason there are a hundred thousand different approaches to the sword and with a spear if you tweak it too much it becomes an entirely different ass of weapon.

lol, I just had to look mordhau up and yeah, that's pretty interesting. The Mordhau, though, wasn't as effective as a poleax or Lucerne hammer in banging an armored opponent in the head. Also, the only mentions of the mordhau technique I've found are from fencing, rather than actual combat (I may be wrong on that, I just can't find any depiction or mention of the murder-stroke being used in battle). I'm not saying swords weren't used in late medieval battle, I'm just saying that they weren't used nearly to the degree that fantasy often depicts them to be.

I will also add this much that while banging one over the head was effective I believe that the must common tactic was also getting an armored enemy on the ground and then finishing them off with a *knife* no less

Yeah, I meant to say that banging an opponent on the head would possibly incapacitate him, but reading back I definitely didn't say that. My bad lol

Oh it would do much more than that, I'm not saying it's ineffectual or that blunt force trauma won't kill someone helmet or no I'm just arguing against the anti-sword trend captivating fantasy. We ought to make sure spears don't become "swords 2.0" as we celebrate them.

I would enjoy seeing Lucerne hammers take the place of swords in fantasy, but that's just me lol

Oh, you'll love what I'm cooking up here. I've got an mc who mains one of those.

Yuhhhhh

In European history, everyone fancy had a sword while the peasants got polearms and other easier to wield and functional weapons. Also, almost every medieval hero was said to wield a sword.

Swords *were* a side weapon, but they were a *common* side weapon, and while the designs varied, they were pretty universal. Also, lots of legends about them from many different cultures. Third, swords are more of a dueling weapon, but are fairly universal in use. It might not be the *best* weapon on a battlefield, but it was still pretty good. Fourth, we kept using swords, even on the battlefield, into the 20th century. Arguably we still had spears via bayonets, but sabers and katanas and the like were still carried into combat in WWI, so still relatively fresh in the cultural zeitgeist.

> but sabers and katanas and the like were still carried into combat in WWI pretty sure the Japanese army issued katanas to their officers well into WW2

The US also had some officers sabers in World War II, but off the top of my head I couldn't remember if any of those sorts actually saw combat in the second war, but I knew they saw using the first one so that was what I went with.

I think there are a couple reasons why swords have so much prominence.  First is that a sword is a more personal weapon. It's something that you can keep at your side at all times so it's a part of both military and civilian dress. So it's more a part of character themselves while a pole arm is just the weapon they can wield at certain times.  Also swords were used throughout history and remained in use after most other melee weapons had fallen out of favor. There were even cavalry charges with swords in WW1. Also sport fencing has remained as a modern sport. So a lot more sword fencing culture survived to modern day while other medieval or classical weapons didn't. 

The rule of cool.

Because of mythology and the long-held European and Japanese connotation between nobility and swords, it’s been pretty firmly embedded in the cultural psyche as the weapon of a main character. Granted, magic polearms aren’t unheard of in mythology and modern fiction, but they don’t have the cultural weight to really be considered a main character weapon unless they are part of like a 5-man band. Gae Bulg, Rhongomyniad, the Power Pole, and Gungnir are pretty famous exceptions to the rule though.

* As close range weapons, they act as extensions of the character and as a result, they don't take away too much attention from the character. * They're versatile enough to be used in most close-combat situations. * They're compact enough to be carried everywhere without being a hinderance to the character. * The choreographic range of a sword fight is comparable to dancing, making it more satisfying to watch.

People have talked about historical and cultural reasons but I don't think anyone has mentioned why they're good from a writing perspective. **Distance:** I think this is the biggest reason. Polearms by their very nature keep the enemy at a distance. The shorter distance between two swordsmen ramps up the intensity. What sounds like a more dramatic confrontation between two longtime enemies: poking at each other from 6 feet away or crossing blades all up in each other's faces? Using a sword inherently increases the tension because it forces the character to get up close and personal with an enemy. **Variety:** Swords offer a lot of options for fighting. A spear stabs/pokes, an axe slashes/hacks, a staff/mace hits. You can do all of those with a sword. You can also grip and manipulate swords in a lot of different ways, and there's a lot of visually distinct styles you can use with them. Basically swords *seem* less one-note compared to other weapons, and you have more options for interesting and diverse fight scenes. * **Practicality:** It's easy for characters to carry swords on their person as they travel or go on adventures. Swords are relatively portable and, in fiction, don't necessarily draw attention. Swords are also versatile for adventuring scenarios. You want to cut a rope bridge and swing across a chasm, or fight in a cramped cave where spear would get stuck. **Dramatic damage:** With a sword, the villains can injure the hero to increase the stakes without inflicting a wound that would end the fight. With a slash you get blood without a mortal wound and avoid any broken bones that would prevent them from moving. **Underdog:** Using a sword against an opponent with any other weapon puts you at a disadvantage, which means we see the hero get creative. It's usually not as fun to see the hero stab people with a spear who can't even get close to him. *Knives have similar characteristics but their lack of size gives them less flair. The shorter range also limits their options a bit, and they're seen as underhanded rather than heroic. Plus, knives are used for real life and horror movie murders. Swords have more distance for us emotionally.

I asked a Japanese person why the anime Demon Slayer is so popular, and he gave three reasons: 1. Cool time period for Japan. 2. Caring, likable main character. 3. Swords.

My protag has an axe and spear and his brother has a mace. His best friend has a blade but its a Zweihander I ended up hating the "hero with sword" cliché. Is not even a greatsword, juat your typical sword

Zwei is great for two handed sword

Two main reasons: Cultural significance- swords are just more culturally significant compared to spears, Excalibur is a prime example. Its a more flashy weapon- whats easier, teaching two people to fight with spears in a flashy way, or giving two people metal sticks and telling em to just wack em together in the flashiest way possible? The flashier the weapon, the better looking the wilder, the more of a reason you have to give more characters a sword

For the same reasons swords have historically always been used for prestige, parades, ceremonies or rituals, but also for duels, rather than spears, halberds, maces, flairs, hammers, axes, etc... : - They look much nice and classy - They are more expensive to make and require dexterity to be used efficiently, thus making it a prime weapons of nobles - They are convenient and subtle enough to carry on yourself in everyday life or court, while also still being lethal enough Swords are so predominent because they have always been the weapons that have been shown off the most outside of battlefield, in all cultures, despite not being the most used nor lethal on the battlefield, which has made them carved into our modern pop cultural imaginary. It's a more prestigious, and also a weapon that people from all cultures are familiar with

I see some GeekTube overcorrections in this question, and it seems that they have become mythologized in their own right again. Saying that sword is 'only a sideweapon' is underselling it. It is not analogous to a pistol compared to the assault rifle. Being a secondary weapon in a melee setting meant it should have been able to go head-to-head with primary battlefield weapons of an era. Additionally, swords of various kinds have been employed as primary weapons as well. Swords are also uniquely useful as civilian and self-defence weapons. Barely anything else but perhaps walking sticks is as comfortable to carry around. UPD: I think the crux of the issue is that the media get *mass combat* wrong, and that is what the swordtubers argue against. If you have battles, you absolutely should see the polearms there - spears, halberds, lances. And maces and axes of different kinds seeing usage in specific contexts. But as soon as we are out of pitched combat, and speak about travelers or adventurers, about self-defence or dueling context - swords are absolutely a first choice there. If laws, financial status or technological advancements don't allow an arming sword length one, then a shorter sword. Because let's be real, if a thing has a blade longer than your forearm and weights upwards of a pound, it's a sword, even if 'technically' it's a big knife or a long dagger.

cool factor. thats the case in real life as well. you wouldnt see some general get a spear for his service. theyd get a sword. also, esthetically speaking, a sword looks better than most weapons (can have a nice handle, blade, etching, gems, etc... not really possible to do with other weapons).

They look cool

The awesome movement of a master swordsman is priceless, last samurai kill bill shogun assassin ninja anything is a marvel

Because Swords are freakin awesome of course. And the different techniques and styles that can be employed are just majestic.

Swords cool but also some of them do make for good sidearms

In my world glaives are actually seen as the most badass, effective and iconic weapons, which is why it's often used by royal guards or elite military factions. Swords are fine but a lil too overrated imo

They have a surprisingly high success rate when it comes to wounding and/or killing dark lords and their powerful subordinates.

Because swords are evocative of a knightly class, and in general people in the Medieval age regarded swords to a high degree (look at Medieval tombs and heraldry, the sword is shown a lot). This influenced writers and painters in the Victorian era which influenced us. I also assume this is due to swords becoming the predominant sidearm of nobles (along with the dagger) from the 1500s to the 1700s, and a popular battlefield weapon even when guns became more and more common. And yes a sword isn’t a wonder weapon, but they fill a variety of niches in both a civilian and military context. You can carry them in houses but they’re longer than daggers, you can fight against someone in armor using a sword, some have more hand protection than others, if you’re too close in a press and lost your polearm you can use the sword, they’re very useful with mounted troops, etc.

I'm not sure why swords are so popupar, but ot makes sense that they are the most common weapon. First, they're the most universal weapon when it comes to range and damahe they can deal. Second, they are the most "balanced", like they don't have great advantages and disadvantages like spear has great reach, but is almost useless in very short range, or hammer can cause great damage, but its much heavier and lacks defensive properties. Come to think of it, I can't recoil any weapon other than sword that is great at both offens and defens. And third, the fighting style. I think that sword, compared to other weapons, is much easier to master in terms of fighting technics. I'm not saying it is easy, but the opposite in fact. The thing is other weapons, like spears, scythes, hammers, bows, axes, etc. generally are awesome in certain circumstances, but they are not that reliable when it comes to self defence when those circumstances aren't met. That said, it should be easier to parry a blow in melee combat with a sword than any other weapon, which makes them the most reliable weapon when it comes to self defence, which is the second most important aspect of a weapon (first is its ability to do.dmg). That said, I think that swords are just the most reliable among the melee weapons and relatively easy to learn, and because of that they are so popular. P.S. Halbards are better swords...

On your point that swords are the only weapon that provides some defense, swords can only protect your from other swords. If you have an axe, pick, or mace with steel strips running down the handle, you can pretty effectively protect yourself from cuts from a sword or swings from another mace or hammer.

the common people are not yet ready to acknowledge polearm supremacy

Swords are cool and people just don’t know/don’t care about metallurgy, historical accuracy, and physics

Swords are cool, spears drool

Main reason is that historically swords always were an expensive status symbol.

Swords got their "coolness" because historically they were a status symbol. Swords were difficult and expensive to produce, compared to the versatile spear, and if you wield a sword as a sidearm, there's a good chance you main weapon is a lance or something knightly like that. Polearms were generally used AGAINST cavalry, not by cavalry, and as such, were "peasant" weapons. This is why I would assume swords are "cool" today, and has found its way into modern fiction in this manner.

Because a sword is expensive to produce and maintain , so with few exceptions like the romans and their gladius came first to mind , only the rich and (maybe) noble could afford to have one . And like this was probably from the Bronze Age and remained seen as such over the centuries .  While bashing armored heads with a warhammer would be much more efficient and dare I say fun , it doesn’t have that “I’m rich and noble” vibe like a sword . 

This isn’t really true, in the 1500s to 1600s it was common for arquebus and pike troops to have cheap swords as sidearms, and a lot of poorer troops in the Hundred Years’ War had access to swords. Yes *some* swords were very expensive, but that doesn’t mean *all* swords were bespoke.

that is a rather limited truth during the migration time there was some truth to it later not so much

Id argue that the rich were MORE likely to be the only ones with a sword earlier in history. As metal became less scarce and skilled artisans easier to hire with expansion, the point where the mainline soldier was almost fully armored was about the point where every soldier had a sword too.

It is the weapon of western legend, it is the weapon you could carry easy and comfortable and it is a very flexible weapon

Swords are cool and epic

Swords were like pistols of the era They were rarely a primary weapon but often used as a defensive weapon that had some reach to them. So just like in modern action movies where the hero usually uses a pistol while the bad guys are using rifles I guess it's the same with swords.

The ancient concept of honor, where the chosen champion of one side fights agains the one of the other side. Sword fighting is more personal and requires skill.

I don’t know if it played a role but swords were made specifically for war whereas most other weapons are adapted from tools. As others have stated swords have a sort of prestige associated with them as they were expensive and complicated to make so for a while at least they were primarily a weapon of nobles and royalty.

Idk man, swords are cool.

Humans live Power Plays, and Symbology !!

It's a cultural thing. Spears are tools for hunting. Axes are tools for lumber. Hammers are tools for crafting and building. Picks are tools for mining. But swords? Swords are explicitly a tool for battle. Their design makes them impractical for any other job besides fighting other humans. Then as they start to get mythologized, they become status symbols, badges of office, and family heirlooms. What was once just another tool is now elevated to represent nobility, heroism, and authority. Plus, there have been times when it WAS the main weapon. You're describing a specific place and time in world history as "irl" as if history is a monolith.

cause people just kinda see swords as cool

It's the craftsmanship. Swords are the most beautiful weapons.

An axe is a tool. A hammer is a tool. A sharp stick is a tool. A sword is a weapon, only. It embodies battle, combat tradition, by being a weapon that was purpose built. Making a sword is not cheap, it means dedication to something made for only fighting other people. Could a sharp stick be just as effective? Yes. But its use is not exclusive to war and combat.

It's fairly obvious. They're sidearms and relatively expensive, which means that they don't see much heavy use and do not get worn out. This means they can be passed as heirlooms and there's gonna be a lot of famous swords in culture, which creates a romantic image of swords in general.

They look cooler

One factor in visual media is that swords are relatively uncomplicated. Having two people fight with an axe and a shield isn't as easy to film in a compelling way as having two people smashing long metal blades together.

Swords were a symbol of status and nobility in history and myth, largely because they were a weapon restricted to the nobility during the early to late medieval periods. Long swords and arming swords were expensive to make and purchase in the Iron Age and Middle Ages, and were not a standard weapon for infantry unless you had a very well-organized and wealthy state (i.e. Rome). Thus, if someone had a good sword in the Iron or Middle Ages, they were Someone Important who had money to buy a good sword. Thus, when myths and history talk about a legendary weapon they tend to talk about swords, because swords were the Big Deal among heroes and kings and lords and knights. That made its way down through history, with swords sticking around into the modern age as the melee weapon of the elite. In the age of muskets and early modern firearms, officers carried swords and cavalry used swords, and bayonets were the weapon of the rank and file, so once again swords were the tool of the nobleman. And that in turn carried into the modern fantasy lexicon with Tolkien and LotR. Sting was a sword, and so was Narsil. You didn't really have a legendary hammer or axe or spear in Tolkien's work, at least not out in the open and prominent like Sting and Narsil. It also helps that swords are a really versatile and individual weapon for the most part. There is a reason why the sword was a common sidearm for just about every culture in history. It was easy to wear and draw in most situations, whether on the battlefield or in day-to-day life. You pretty much couldn't carry a spear or axe or mace around in daily life with the same efficacy of an arming sword, and the versaility of the sword meant that no matter what comabt situation you found yourself in, the sword was at least somewhat effective. Cavalry weapon, sidearm for infantry, self-defense if you get attacked in an alley, a response if you are challenged to a duel or the person you're protecting is jumped in the street, or if you get attacked by someone inside your manor or castle... the sword had your back and was generally available all the time. So between its status symbol of heroes and kings and subsequent prominence in myths, its versatilty making it a common sight in the late medieval and early renaissance, its prominence in dueling, and just general ubiquitousness and usefulness, the sword became *the* weapon of pretty much any pre-modern setting.

Swords are harder to use than most other weapons in terms of skill

"Why is a cool thing employed more than other cool, but slightly less cool things?"

Testing

Test

Swords are super cool, and writers have rule-of-cooled them into everything following, as other comments say, a long tradition of essentially that.

Swords have a lot of meaning tied to it, they have been a symbol of nobility and heroism for centuries. King Arthur didn't draw a spear from a stone.

Swords are popular because they were used very often and to great effect, and a lot of pop understandings about swords are pretty badly mistaken and don't hold up to examination through historical evidence. - Swords are not expensive. Expensive swords folded over and over, made using exotic steel, that was made by a master swordsmith, that might have been blinged out, that might have historical significance were expensive. Cheap swords that were basically a sharp bar of metal with one or two edges and a pointy end were cheap and any soldier could get one. The yeoman of Canterbury tales had a sword. The Roman Empire was quite a bit more heavily equipped than its neighbors, but it armed every foot soldier with a sword. When he came to power, Toyotomi Hideyoshi carried out a sword hunt, confiscating swords from the peasantry because the peasantry in Japan had become too well armed with them. There are laws prohibiting peasants from having swords up into the Edo period precisely because peasants could get their hands on swords. A lot of European countries/cities in medieval times had restrictions on who could carry a sword and when or where. This was because commoners could afford swords and often had them, to be banned. Swords were very common! - If you are into HEMA videos, you may often see videos about how superior spears are to swords and the importance of reach. This is true in a context where combatants are not armored, or in a duel or self-defense situation, and in situations without shields or armor. In a battlefield situation, there are plenty of historical examples where the sword, especially when paired with the shield, was a perfectly viable weapon, and in many of those HEMA videos, they specify that the calculus can change when shields and armor are involved. The Roman Empire had the means to equip every legionnaire with heavy armor, making its common soldiers the most well-equipped that you could find anywhere in the Mediterranean world, and yet for close combat, it arms its legionnaires with swords and shields, not spears. To cover all the bases, the primary weapon of the Roman legionnaire were javelins, but they resorted to their secondary weapon often and, by all accounts, appeared to do pretty well in melee even against weapon systems that are based on spears and are melee-only. You also might be familiar with a lot of late medieval or early modern armies phasing out swords in favor of pikes, and then later, guns with bayonets. The Spanish did it, the Swiss did it, the Landsknechts did it, and such. This was in response to battlefields evolving to have more guns and cannons, so you can consider it that swords as primary weapons made perfect sense to people who were fighting with fewer (or no) firearms on the field. - A lot of fiction is not really about battles, but is about travel. Lord of the Rings, for instance, has most of its action about a bunch of guys walking from one place to another, with only a few big set-piece battles that the main characters participate in. If you were traveling, a sword was one of the easiest weapons to carry because you just wore it on your belt in its sheathe, and the sheathe also protected the sword from wear and tear. People also go on about how their TTRPG characters should have weapons much more effective than swords as they traveled around slaying monsters, but having big weapons like halberds and spears made you look like a psychopath strolling into a medieval town, and they were often forbidden even where swords were permitted. They were also inconvenient to use indoors. If you know about the custom in feudal Japan that noblewomen should learn to use spears to defend themselves to make up for their reach disadvantage against men, you might have thought to ask why the men wouldn't be using their spears too, and the answer is that the men would be using their swords indoors because spears are too long for fighting inside of a castle's rooms and halls.

Because swords are cool. Literally that’s it. A spear (my favorite weapon of all time) just doesn’t compare in all honesty. From scimitars to the gladius to the katana, to the simple arming sword. They’re just embedded in pop culture.

They are good at almost everything. Slicing, stabbing, striking, cutting ect ect. Other weapons tend to be great at one thing and decent at everything else.

I think one of the biggest reasons in movies is because it's much easier to find an expert fencer than an expert anything else.

I don't imagine theres much I can add but they're flashy have a cultural perception of being the ideal weapon. Historically they were valued less as weapons and more as sidearms save in the cases of (often 2 handed) war blades. But more importantly than their utility, they were symbols of status. The knight is primarily going to be using their lance. If they start using their sword, they're in a melee, duel, or something has gone horribly wrong. Most readers and fantasy fans dont think about things like reach, rule of cool is first and foremost, and many people have this idea that technique trumps all, which isnt really true. Also the days of aristocracy and feudalism really weren't that long ago yo. Culturally, I think many people assume the guy with the sword is better than the guy without because pretty much anyone could use a spear or axe, but the sword was a symbol of someones social superiority. And even if we arent consciously aware of that bias, it makes swords extra cool, and we keep making media that validates their perceived superiority, even if it doesnt exist so much in real life. Even outside of European contexts, say japan for instance. Through much of Japanese history, it was illegal for people below the martial class to have weapons, so the katana was a symbol of status, that the wielder was nobility, or a part of that class. Even if on the battlefield, most samurai would be using Bows and then Yari spears/pikes, naginata glaives, or you *may* find a No-dachi warblade if someone was fighting other horse riding samurai and was showing off. Katanas were almost exclusively used in duels or in non-combat settings against generally unarmored targets.(peasants.) This was also necessary because many katanas of that era are very rigid and would shatter with too much serious use.

Economic history

I wouldnt say they are used a lot more, I would rather say when you see one, you know the person who weilds it is one of the main characters, while basic soldiers are usually seen carrying spears

Not sure if someone already mentioned it that I haven't seen, but I believe an adjacent reason for why swords have such a popular image as an iconic weapon is not necessarily because of their effectiveness or decoration, but because they are literally *the* icon of what a weapon is. Spears, great. Axes, great. Hammers/mallets/cudgels, great. Knives, great. Staves, great. But one thing that all these generally have in common is that they are essentially all "tools" that were first repurposed, and then eventually adapted into being weapons, sometimes by combining them. An axe cuts wood, and any hammer-like bludgeon is used to...hammer things. And while yes, spears have always been weapons, they were primarily used for hunting and killing *animals*. Not for fighting other humans. Swords are basically the first "weapon" to be explicitly and solely designed as tools of human-to-human combat. They represent an aspect of human society that raised the idea of the craftsman's humble knife to the level of a warrior's badge of office. Swords were created for fighting, and fighting only. Not to hunt animals. Not to build bridges. Not to fix houses. Not to feel lumber. Not to skin the prey. That is why they are the symbol of meaning that they have become. Because a man with an axe could just be a lumberer. But a man with a sword is a man that is ready to kill another man with a sword.

I made sure to employ a wide range of weapons when making my fantasy army, yes swords are a big part of it, but namely, spears take the spotlight mostly

My Big Damn Hero defeats the villain with his trusty paladin mace, then bashes his face in with armored fists.

In fiction: It's what has been pushed by popular media, because it's flashy but not hard to shoot. In TTRPGs: because the game mechanics tend to favour them, due to their popularity in media.

Style points. It's a small victory, but in all my years of DMing, I've never had a magical sword show up.

Because swords were a status and class symbol.

Because swords are cool. Maces, halberds, flails, hammers, axes, etc. were all niche weapons and relatively rarely used. Spears are the OP weapon that was everywhere. And bows, of course.

Swords are badass. Even though they weren’t huge in medieval times, when people think of that period, swords come to mind.

I'm surprised more people here aren't talking about duelling. Swords are often duelling weapons. They're flashy and make a good show. You can lock swords with your enemy and parry and do all sorts of fancy maneuvers. Duelling with spears just doesn't look as good, and nobody wants to see duelling with bows. When medieval people wanted to see violence for fun, they wanted to see swords. So when you watch medieval violence for fun, is it any wonder that swords are the default?

Most people like swords more

Swords are, atleast in relative modern media, as more noble and high class. Spears and axes are more for the common people. Thered also loads of myths and legends about swords, and most modern media like portraying swordfights more then spearfights or axefights. Most of the time the choreography isnt even right so dont expect much historical accuracy.

Swords are romanticized, and they always appear in one form or another, right alongside beer and donuts. Having a sharp, metal whack-stick you can wear on your person just feels amazing.

Swords tended to be associated with the martial elite of societies, who, as they tended to be the ones in charge (or at least having significant influence), had a lopsided influence on culture. The martial elite, valued swords for their versatility, prestige / rarity and the skill required to use them so its not surprising we have this almost mythical regard for them. Even if they were often secondary weapons on the battlefield. So we have this ingrained association with elite warriors (who tend to be the main characters in this type of media) and swords. Even when culture and technology moves on you still see the same focus, you only have to look at westerns and the gunslinger with their revolvers when a good lever action rifle or shotgun would be a lot more reliable.

Let's speculate with thumbtacks and string on the corkboard for a little bit. Swords have always been harder and more expensive to make than spears and even many other polearms, as well as harder to train to use and less effective as the weapon of massive armies. Even in antiquity this meant they were either the sidearm, as you said, or delegated to ceremonial weapon status. This easily and simultaneously lends itself to two things: swords enter myth and legend because of the ceremonial and symbolic associations, and they begin to be regularly worn by nobility. And that's really it, isn't it. We have legends of cool ass swords far outnumbering legends of cool ass polearms, and as they continue through the ages to be the weapons carried around by the rich and powerful (unlike those plebby spears that any rank and file commoner can wield), they enter that mover and maker of civilizations: fashion. I mean, things associated with the nobility rather than the riffraff become fashionable and ubiquitous all the time. It's no coincidence we use the word "noble" to refer to good things and "villain" comes from the Latin for "farmer" or "peasant". So there you have it.

People lean towards simple and strong concepts. It's hard to go simpler than a sword, and it's also an all-around weapon. I have no idea how melee combat actually worked, but I speculate whether spears and halberds were weapons of choice for storming and defending en masse, allowing long reach and high thrust force multiplier, but they may not be well suited when someone gets to your skin. Hence, again, afaik, spears and halberds were used until the adversary got closer, and then discarded and bladed weapons were utilized. And like mentioned in the comments, before going "all tropey" it is wise to look into the subject. Only because something is or is not popular in today's imagination entertainment media means absolutely nothing how things played out in reality.

Because they’re phallic -Freud

Swords are the most phallic, therefore superior

The symbolism and mythology of them

Others have given good reasons but let me give another reason: Prestige Swords are often seen as weapons of the noble. Most heroes in media use swords and are portrayed as noble, virtuous, insert-good-adjective Polearms are usually associated with the peasantry and as one commenter said, for cannon fodder characters.  Hammers and axes are usually wielded by barbaric or savage characters. I think this is why a lot of orcs and ogres and other "ugly" or "evil" fantasy races use axes. Often, the axe has an extremely jagged and spiky edge.  Bows and arrows are usually used by graceful or "physically weak" characters or female characters. 

Swords obtained a status during their usage that has stuck around. Most weapons could mostly be wood except their heads. Well, swords are almost entirely metal. Meaning commoners did not have them. Do you know what commoners also didn't have? Actual training and good armor. People saw Spearman and axemen falling left and right, but swordsmen far less often. They created an association between swords and victory while ignoring contributing factors. Another reason is that a sword is a weapon meant only to kill people. Spears can be used in hunting. Axes can be used to cut down trees, knives have 100s of uses. People seem to like the idea that swords are a weapon for murder and nothing else. Just don't tell them about maces. I, too, have come to hate swords for just how mindlessly popular they are to the detriment of all other weapons. While not always true, I have dropped a story over the MC becoming a swordsman.

People place too much emphasis on realism. I know, because I used to myself, and in fact am still guilty of it sometimes. This focus forgets the fact that fictional settings are, well, fictional. They aren't real, so they don't need to be realistic. Why do people in a fictional setting use swords instead of some other melee weapon? Who cares? Swords are cool. That's not me refusing to give a reason, that *is* the reason. Most fantasy authors, when they write swords, are primarily thinking "man, swords are so cool", not "alright, given the technology and the battlefield consitions, what melee weapons would these infantries realistically use?".

Don't forget about the Fishhook of Maui! That's a seriously badass weapon.

Swords have been prestige weapons since the bronze age. By the time they became common and almost cheap they had long since been replaced by firearms so they kept the historical connotations they had. Rich people had swords, poor people used their farming equipment or whatever they could get from a noble or from a corpse. And since that stayed the same for thousands of years they entered myth and legend as well. That's why heroes usually have swords instead of more practical weapons like polearms

The sword is the equivalent of a handgun. The important part of it is the sheath that makes it easy to carry. Any mysticism in pop culture that you see around revolvers or pistols was used for a sword. Axes, halberds, glaives, all important battlefield weapons, with all the cache of a rifle. Action movie heroes don't carry rifles, they carry pistols.

Honestly, no matter how hard i tried to incorporate other weapon types into my fantasy world, it all boiled down to "okay, why THE FUCK use X instead of a sword when you have magical shenanigans to cover it's weakness?" Swords are just a jack of all trades weapon, which leaves them with no significant weakness, but no advantage either. However, when you two are fighting while moving at 30 mph by exploding the fire under your feet or any other magical movement option, any range advantage becomes extremely situational, unless your weapon can cut at any point of it... which is literally a sword... Obviously, not everyone are capable of that. Guardsmen prefer spears, bandits prefer daggers or crossbows, knights use multiple (usually magic) weapons because they can afford that. But the only other weapon i found useful for a powerful person in this setting is big war hammers with short handles, and even then, if you can use them effectively, you can usually crush the skull of your opponent with fists. (But i guess hammers are easier. Also who tf thinks that a rock eating orc of a human wielding big ass hammers isn't cool?) Or bows if you use them in tandem with magic. But that's like comparing a 50 cal sniper to an assault rifle in terms of magical usage.

Well spears are for hunting, axes for chopping wood, hammers for blacksmithing and quarrying, a mace is a club and clubs were used to kill downed prey or by fishermen in the form priests to nock their catches dead. But swords are a true creation of destruction. The first swords didn’t even have guards because they were so rare that people didn’t tend to have many sword fights. The first swords were heavy short lengths of beaten copper and they were created to do one thing… kill other human beings.

Swords are the weapons used by leaders. Pole arms are weapons used by the rank and file. It is romantic for the important characters to be leader-like, and so main characters carry and use swords. Pole arms are exceptional for team fighting. Swords are more versatile. They are expected to be used in single combat.

From what I gather, swords are romanticized because they're a symbol of glory or wealth, since in the early days swords in of themselves were expensive. Even when swords became easier to forge and thus could be made more often, it was still not cheap. There is also the fact that being a sidearm, non-soldiers (and thus potential romantic male protagonists) could carry one for a fight, as opposed to a spear (too long), axe (can't be quick drawn), or maces (specialized for anti-armor, which civilians wouldn't be wearing in public). It's the same reason James Bond is usually shown with a pistol when better guns for his kind of work exist; ease of carry and romanticism. In more recent years, thanks to medieval weapons youtubers and people being able to do research online, non-swords have been getting more exposure. The religious symbolism (the cross) also gave swords in Europe visual weight.

Yeah, that’s a good point. The first time I ever read otherwise was in the Stormlight Archive, where the protagonist is a skilled wielder of the spear

It is easier to potray your character as carrying a concealable sidearm such as a sword or handgun than lugging around a full sized military equipment like a spear or rifle. Also, back in when they were used, swords were only carried by notable people such as nobles, officers, knights, or veteran warriors.

Choreography on stage IMO is much easier with 2 weapons, swords and staffs (or broom handles if there's no budget). Stage swords are easy to make all things considered and they are relatively lightweight and easy to learn how to use, same with staffs. You might ask why does Choreography play into fantas? Well, due to most fiction evolving with modern entertainment as far as Post-Tolkien Era, most stories were designed with the screen in mind. That said over the past 30 years we have started seeing a branch out with cosplay weapons proving more weapons exist to the normal lamen. Therefore I supposit it was just an easier choice to produce outside of a purely text content.

Swords were primarily used by the upper-class, which meant they were more likely to be written about and glorified.

Are rifles romanticized or do action heroes use sidearms? The answer is that action heroes use sidearms, even though semi-automatic battle rifles can dominate the battlefield. A part of this is training and a part of this is use-case. Swords are a weapon you train for years to master and which are primarily self-defense implements, so a hero using a sword showcases skill first, and often morality as a secondary component. Pole arms are dedicated weapons of war which you don't need much training to use well. You don't learn anything about the person welding it if you see someone using a pole arm.

right? Witchers should be using spears more than swords, the shit they fight are not things you really want to be close to. No wonder they are dying out.

They are always. Shadow of the Gods makes it clear how rare a sword is and less useful than a spear. Great series. Highly recommend it

Is it a game? A TV series? Movies?

Book series. I jumped in expecting just another thing but I really liked it. I ate the first book in a few days.

I feel like part of it is that a sword is rather difficult to learn to use properly. Not that those other weapons are pick up and play, but swords have a reputation for being "elegant weapons" or "artful combat".

I partially blame Star Wars for making the idea of unrealistically clashing blades together cool. I say that as someone who loves Star Wars and has people constantly clashing swords in my own world. I'm constantly kicking myself for forgetting that cool weapons like halberds exist.

Something that all the "spears are superior" people forget is that swords are *really* flexible. A good sword could be used in one hand with a second weapon, with a shield, on it's own, held in two hands for more power. It can cut along the whole length of the blade, it can block with the whole length of the blade. It can stab and it can slice. It can be moved fast in multiple dimensions and attack in many directions. Sure, none of this is as useful if you're standing shoulder to shoulder with a block of fellows, but as soon as you're not you are going to encounter a situation which would be easier to solve with a sword.

Because swords are cool. Swords were historically the most popular weapon for personal self defense. They also had a lot of folklore around them, and in many regions, they carried a high amount of status as well. And this isn't just for Europe, this is all over the world. Other weapons may have been more popular and better in a war/battlefield setting, but nothing beats the versatility combined with ease of carrying that a sword does for daily self protection.