A spear or halberd were much more effective than swords.Swords were partially ceremonial and partially "nobility" weapons. Walking around with a spear in town is tiring, because its big, heavy and awkward.
On the other hand, swords can be sheathed. They were expensive to manufacture, so they denoted wealth. And finally, they were effective weapons at the end of the day.
Pistol vs Machine Gun is the best way to compare a Swordman vs Spearman. It is said that you can train a Spearman in a week to beat even expert Swordsmen (with years of training) regularly.
Spears / Polearms were cheaper to manufacture, more effective in the battlefield, and easier to teach. Swords were more of a "city personal defense weapon", very similar to pistols today. I'm sure the HEMA players around here know how much that range advantage gives you.
A Halberd was perhaps the perfection of Medieval combat weaponry. A long spear-tip for stabbing, a strong blade for cutting, and a hook for pulling people off of horses. Halberds could definitely do a lot more than swordmen, at much cheaper costs.
I mean, what is a swordman supposed to do against a heavy-Calvary charge? Halberdiers also outrange Swordmen, and have stronger formations. The two-handed poleweapon can be swung with massive leverage that can break shields and cut through even plate with ease. While the stabbing point can be dug in to brace against calvery charges. It was an effective weapon at all stages of medieval combat.
The only swordmen on the medieval battlefield were the legendary "Double-paid" Zweihanders (The Doppelsöldner). But the massive swords these Doppelsoldners used were approximately the same size as a halberd.
http://i.imgur.com/KPEFFD4.jpg
But they were expensive, and the full-metal massive swords that they wielded were heavy, expensive, and required extensive training. (ie: more expensive) It was more effective in the long term to just train more Halberdiers, and the Zweihanders left the battlefield by the 1500s.
In any case, the "Longsword" is much shorter than these Zweihanders, and is at a considerable range disadvantage against spearmen. Mind you, King Author of legend killed Mordred with a Spear.
Swords were probably carried by Soldiers in case their primary weapon broke. They are excellent sidearms (like Pistols today), but I personally am much more comfortable with a pole-weapon (Spear, Pike or Halberd) than I am with a Sword. And I started with Foil Fencing mind you.
FAQs
A spear or halberd were much more effective than swords. Swords were partially ceremonial and partially "nobility" weapons. Walking around with a spear in town is tiring, because its big, heavy and awkward. On the other hand, swords can be sheathed.
Why was the halberd so effective? ›
As the halberd was eventually refined, its point was more fully developed to allow it to better deal with spears and pikes (and make it able to push back approaching horsem*n), as was the hook opposite the axe head, which could be used to pull horsem*n to the ground.
Is a spear the most effective weapon? ›
A spear can cut, slice, and thrust with extreme effectiveness. It can be used to beat swords and soldiers to the ground. It can even be thrown with deadly efficiency when balanced in the right hands.
Is a spear or halberd better? ›
Halberd weapons have a longer range than spears. Also, they offer more versatility in battle due to their various attack options. Halberds are better suited for close-quarters combat due to their ax blades and hammerheads, which can crush and chop through armor.
What advantages do swords have over spears? ›
Sword is much more agile, faster weapon. It doesn't require huge open space. Like what a spearman can do when he is in a row stadning tightly surrounded by his mates. He can only pierce his spear forward.
Were halberds better than swords? ›
A Halberd was perhaps the perfection of Medieval combat weaponry. A long spear-tip for stabbing, a strong blade for cutting, and a hook for pulling people off of horses. Halberds could definitely do a lot more than swordmen, at much cheaper costs.
Why were polearms so effective? ›
Polearms were common weapons on post-classical battlefields of Asia and Europe. Their range and impact force made them effective weapons against armoured warriors on horseback, unhorsing the opponent and to some extent effective to penetrate armour.
Can an axe beat a spear? ›
Axes can beat spears too.
Why is spear the king of weapons? ›
Spears were a preferred weapon by many since it was inexpensive to create, could more easily be taught to others, and could be made quickly and in large quantities.
Is spear good for Self Defense? ›
Your arms are fairly lazy in this setup since the sharp point of a spear means that you don't need to throw arm power in your attacks. The length of the spear also means that the assailant will be unlikely to attack you so you won't need many defensive hand maneuvers (parrying/blocking).
One of the key disadvantages of the halberd was the fact that it was a pole arm and was effective only at a certain length. In closer combats, halberds were simply ineffective and had to be shed by the wielder who then had to resort to an alternate side-weapon.
Is Glaive better than halberd? ›
Glaive Beam does more damage and has more Shield penetration. Halberd Beam is much faster. Either would be supported by the Laser Charger II and a Heavy Laser (I haven't been using the latter, but I have enough scrap now to upgrade Weapons to level 8).
Is A Bow better than a spear? ›
As a general rule an arrow fired from a bow is less heavy than a spear. This makes it go a further distance at a higher speed when launched with identical energy. The spear has more mass, requiring more energy than an arrow to get to the same speed.
Why did Roman soldiers use swords instead of spears? ›
Overwhelmingly, by far, in effectively all periods prior to the advent of gunpowder, the most common way agrarian infantry fight is with a shield and a one-handed thrusting spear. The sword figures into this system, but the sword is a backup weapon, for use if the spear breaks, not the primary weapon.
Did Spartans use swords or spears? ›
The first reference to the Spartans at war is in the Iliad, in which they featured among the other Greek contingents. Like the rest of the Mycenaean-era armies, it was depicted as composed mainly of infantry, equipped with short swords, spears, and Dipylon-type shields ("8"-shaped simple round bronze shields).
What is the significance of a halberd? ›
The halberd was an important weapon in middle Europe from the 14th through the 16th century. It enabled a foot soldier to contend with an armoured man on horseback; the pike head was used to keep the horseman at a distance, and the ax blade could strike a heavy cleaving blow to finish the opponent.
What beats a halberd? ›
Pyros seem to fair the best against direct attack on halberds, as they both soften halberds up and deal massive damage. Overall, as it was well-stated, the biggest problem with halberds is stopping them before they destroy the entire base.
What made the halberd obsolete? ›
It enabled a foot soldier to contend with an armored man riding on horseback; the spiked head kept the rider at a distance, and the ax blade could strike a heavy cleaving blow. Firearms and the declining use of armor made the halberd obsolete.
How effective were Zweihanders? ›
The zweihander is a two-handed greatsword that was developed in Europe during the Renaissance. It was a versatile weapon that could be used for both cutting and thrusting and was particularly effective against armored opponents.
