Why do people use swords?

[Waters Gate]

Lets take the example from the other end of the world for a change: Feudal Japan.

Now the Jappanese liked their swords just aswell, not that they wouldn't fight with anything they could get their hands on during their "medieval" period, they used pikes and bows and later even gunpowder just as the Europeans, and while there are deffinatly difference's between Japans and Europe during their medieval periods it is to say that there were loads of similarity's and that it basicly was about the eastern variant of it.

The Katana is a hell of a sword too. Maybe one would need to question less why the hell one would want to use a Katana, for it is very deadly indeed and was usually of high quality for what regards swords. The mongols got a taste of what it felt to be on the other end of those things when they tried to invade Japan, true the Mongol invasion largely failed due to losing much of their fleet in storms but it's not like they didn't land a few armies to take it to the Jappanese. The Katana was popular for century's afaik.

There are deffinatly many different types and models of swords though, which makes them lend better to certain types of combat, and much also depends on fighting doctrine's of the time and to some extend mobilety and/or quality of armor.

[Jasta11]

Lets take the example from the other end of the world for a change: Feudal Japan.

Now the Jappanese liked their swords just aswell, not that they wouldn't fight with anything they could get their hands on during their "medieval" period, they used pikes and bows and later even gunpowder just as the Europeans, and while there are deffinatly difference's between Japans and Europe during their medieval periods it is to say that there were loads of similarity's and that it basicly was about the eastern variant of it.

The Katana is a hell of a sword too. Maybe one would need to question less why the hell one would want to use a Katana, for it is very deadly indeed and was usually of high quality for what regards swords. The mongols got a taste of what it felt to be on the other end of those things when they tried to invade Japan, true the Mongol invasion largely failed due to losing much of their fleet in storms but it's not like they didn't land a few armies to take it to the Jappanese. The Katana was popular for century's afaik.

There are deffinatly many different types and models of swords though, which makes them lend better to certain types of combat, and much also depends on fighting doctrine's of the time and to some extend mobilety and/or quality of armor.

The Katana was good for what it was, and easily able to slice through the wooden, cloth or light mail armor that was omnipresent in feudal Japan. But put it up against heavy armor and it won't do much good. And just like the longsword for medieval knights, it was not a samurai's primary weapon; often, the bow was, or a polearm of some sort (Naginatas for instance). And like with the European knight and his longsword, it's the post-period romantization that made it the weapon of the samurai, when said caste no longer fought in actual wars and spent its time refining less practical, but more artistic forms of fighting, and fencing is definitely cooler than thrusting a spear.

And GRRM definitely has hints of said romantism in his writings. Rheagar charging in battle with a sword, on horseback, against someone in plate armor, using a warhammer, and also on horseback, makes about as much sense as a tank battle where one side removes the main cannon and bolts on an AK-47 instead.

[Narr]

The Katana was good for what it was, and easily able to slice through the wooden, cloth or light mail armor that was omnipresent in feudal Japan. But put it up against heavy armor and it won't do much good. And just like the longsword for medieval knights, it was not a samurai's primary weapon; often, the bow was, or a polearm of some sort (Naginatas for instance). And like with the European knight and his longsword, it's the post-period romantization that made it the weapon of the samurai, when said caste no longer fought in actual wars and spent its time refining less practical, but more artistic forms of fighting, and fencing is definitely cooler than thrusting a spear.

And GRRM definitely has hints of said romantism in his writings. Rheagar charging in battle with a sword, on horseback, against someone in plate armor, using a warhammer, and also on horseback, makes about as much sense as a tank battle where one side removes the main cannon and bolts on an AK-47 instead.

But as far as I know, the longsword was not a "sidearm". The mace was a primary knightly weapon, but the sword was as well, because of it´s quality and it´s versability.

So, I would not put the emphasis too much on saying it´s only for romantic reason it´s seen in stories.

When probably trained, fighting with a sword is really effective, especially against armor.

And the Robert vs. Rhaegar battle is not so senseless as you think. Robert is very slow with that hammer, and it is speculated that knightly combat was mainly about knocking someone down to pierce him or to make him yield. Under normal circumstances, I would bet on Rhaegar in that situation, especially thinking about the 2-handed warhammer, which as far as I know didn´t existed as a knightly weapon (Warhammers were one-handed)

[John Doe]

Btw, I should have specified I meant medieval broad/longswords in general, so no Gladii or something like that.

I know they can pierce mail for example, but I doubt any medieval armour can protect you against a good mace. Probably a sword doesn't require as much strenght to wield though and isn't as exhausting.

But it's probably the variety, I agree.

[The Mother of The Others]

if you imagine a kung-fu guy going up against each of these weapons, they'd have an easier time grabbing the axe and fighting for control of it to create a jump ball situation. you'd have less leeway when trying to go after a sword wielder, there's less of an area to target and more that can go badly for you. With spears they have to specifically line you up for a prodding, or else they're pistol whipping you with the spear, which is fine, but it may or may not keep them alive, whereas with a sword they could be gutting you with those same flailing motions. Also, once the sword industry caught on, it was probably tough to compete with the sword union shop of blacksmiths, the way it's tough for those who are trying to leave coal and oil behind as the energy sources with all the lobbying power.

[joluoto2]

Btw, I should have specified I meant medieval broad/longswords in general, so no Gladii or something like that.

I know they can pierce mail for example, but I doubt any medieval armour can protect you against a good mace. Probably a sword doesn't require as much strenght to wield though and isn't as exhausting.

But it's probably the variety, I agree.

Swords are good at cutting down the men not wearing fancy armor, i.e. most of them. It's when you come up against other armored knight when swords become less useful.

[Shostak]

It's pretty difficult to ransom that lordling if you've taken a mace to his armour and killed him outright. Aside from being cool, and symbolising chivalric values, swords are perfectly adequate against peasant soldiers armoured in mail or worse, while letting you happily defeat and capture the plate armoured enemies without damaging the goods. Let's also not forget that plate armour is incredibly valuable, imagine how miffed you would be if you went through all the trouble of seeking out and defeating the kingslayer, only to discover that his shiny expensive armour's all ruined.

[Bronn Urgandy]

Because swords are cool.

We can speak all day of pointy ends, Valyrian Steel, gaps in armor, and impossibly skilled fighters to justify it, at the end of the day it's because most people, probably Martin among them, find swords cooler than other weapons that would be more effective within in the time period.

Yep. Swords are cool and sword-fighting is a more romantic form of combat, if I was a writer I'd change little rules for "cool factor" as well, see also my opinions on "tactical blunders" in the series

[JonisHenryTudor]

What is the advantage over spears, axes, or maces?

In close combat spears and axes are almost useless. Swords are more versatile, and maces are blunted objects. No less dangerous, but blunted.

[Mal Malenkirk]

Sword can be used as mace (halfswording). Mace is unwieldy.

You are mistaken. Halfswording is when you use the sword like a short spear (one hand on the hilt, one on the blade). It was a common technique when using a longsword for example (RL longsword are two-handed weapons) and used to try to defeat armor (Either through raw power when not facing full plate or through greater precision of the thrust to aim at the weak spot).

What you are thinking of is the 'murder-stroke' (mordhau) technique when you try to ring the other guys bell by inverting your sword and slamming your pommell/cross guard in his helmet.

[Grimbold]

You guys should really specify the length of the weapon you're speaking of.

I don't recall which discovery show was it, or if it was online, but they were testing the damage of such weapons. In the end - what i got from it anyway - if that a warhammer or mace was equally dangerous. It's power lies on the shock. A blow will do more than break some ribs.

[Jasta11]

But as far as I know, the longsword was not a "sidearm". The mace was a primary knightly weapon, but the sword was as well, because of it´s quality and it´s versability.

So, I would not put the emphasis too much on saying it´s only for romantic reason it´s seen in stories.

When probably trained, fighting with a sword is really effective, especially against armor.

And the Robert vs. Rhaegar battle is not so senseless as you think. Robert is very slow with that hammer, and it is speculated that knightly combat was mainly about knocking someone down to pierce him or to make him yield. Under normal circumstances, I would bet on Rhaegar in that situation, especially thinking about the 2-handed warhammer, which as far as I know didn´t existed as a knightly weapon (Warhammers were one-handed)

Knights fought on horseback most of the time, and their primary weapon was thus a lance of some kind, with usually a sword or mace for close quarters or if the lance broke. As such it's often considered a sidearm, useful but not the primary weapon of a knight.

Swords are not useless against armor, but there are far better weapons, blunt ones first and foremost. You need to aim for the gaps (usually by half-swording, which is never done in the books as far as I recall) and even then it can be a long shot against the kind of full plate that seems common among Westerosi noblemen. Hammers and maces are more effective, as are pikes and two-handed weapons in formation.

Robert used his hammer with one hand, and is never described as slow anywhere, before he gains about a hundred pounds at least. Robert is indeed hailed as one of the finest warrior of his time, won more duels in battle than anyone in the series, and he didn't get there by being slow.

Martin is better than most fantasy authors when it comes to realism in melee combat, but he slips every now and then still. Omnipresent swords are one example, Ser Vardis using a shield with full plate is another, or Tyrion being a killing machine (having a higher bodycount than Jaime on page) despite having half the reach of his opponents.

[TerrorVoid]

Btw, I should have specified I meant medieval broad/longswords in general, so no Gladii or something like that.

I know they can pierce mail for example, but I doubt any medieval armour can protect you against a good mace. Probably a sword doesn't require as much strenght to wield though and isn't as exhausting.

But it's probably the variety, I agree.

Mace is not that easy to land, you know. It is heavy and unwieldy. Sword is twice if not trice as long.

Halfswording longsword gives you the same mace with bigger reach and abilty to transform back into longsword.

[TerrorVoid]

Btw, I should have specified I meant medieval broad/longswords in general, so no Gladii or something like that.

I know they can pierce mail for example, but I doubt any medieval armour can protect you against a good mace. Probably a sword doesn't require as much strenght to wield though and isn't as exhausting.

But it's probably the variety, I agree.

Mace is not that easy to land, you know. It is heavy and unwieldy. Sword is twice if not trice as long.

Halfswording longsword gives you the same mace with bigger reach and abilty to transform back into longsword.

[Jasta11]

Mace is not that easy to land, you know. It is heavy and unwieldy. Sword is twice if not trice as long.

Halfswording longsword gives you the same mace with bigger reach and abilty to transform back into longsword.

... half-swording is not what you think it is. If anything, it turns the sword into a small spear, to be used in precision strikes against an armored opponent.

''turning a sword into a mace'' is more the purview of striking with the pommel, which is not the same thing, and reduces you to the same range as a normal mace for less effect either way. It's a valid tactic, but again one that is never used in the books as fas as I can recall. Everyone uses their sword with slashes and thrusts.

[TerrorVoid]

Mainly because there is no plate armor in series. Literary every character wears boiled leather and chainmaul.

[yanmaodao]

The sword is more ergonomically efficient than hafted weapons such as axes, hammers, and maces. While the bulk of the weight of the latter weapons were at the head, the center of balance of a sword was a lot closer to the wielder, due to counterbalancing effects of the pommel and crossguard. This also made the sword quicker than a hafted weapon, especially in terms of recovery speed if one of your swings misses.

It was also more versatile. It could stab, cut, and bludgeon as needed. You could use the crossguard as a makeshift mace to beat someone, and this made the sword a better weapon for close quarters than an axe, hammer, or mace, though still obviously weaker than a knife or dagger. (Though some swords like katanas lack crossguards.) Stabbing or thrusting is the quickest attack you can make, requiring the least muscle engagement and body movement. This again gives the sword a speed advantage, as well as a reach advantage. (This generally applies more to straight-bladed swords; curved swords can thrust better than a lot of people think, but it's obviously a lot harder to be precise.)

Swords slice, axes chop; the finer cutting action of a sword gives it an advantage against unarmored or lightly armored opponents. Axes could bury themselves in a body so deep that it's hard to take out. (Some swords, such as cutlasses and machetes, chop rather than cut. Of course, most wouldn't consider a machete a sword.) Of course, against an armored opponent, you'd be aiming for the gaps in the armor, and slicing weapons could get stuck in the straps and buckles, that a chopping weapon would shear through. Generally, this was a bigger problem for straight-bladed swords than curved swords, due to the latter's better cutting edge.

I love swords; I named my handle after one. (The yanmaodao, or goose quill saber, is an elegant-looking sword/saber hybrid.) But I'm aware of their shortcomings. By the late middle ages, swords were falling out of favor because they're fairly useless against armor. Hammers and maces became better battlefield weapons, and multifaceted polearms like pollaxes and halberds were better armored dueling weapons in addition to being better battlefield weapons. As many have said, the sword was a sidearm. Humanity's default weapons prior to the invention of guns was the polearm and the bow.

[Jasta11]

Mainly because there is no plate armor in series. Literary every character wears boiled leather and chainmaul.

That's quite simply not true and you know it.

[Bastard of Nightsong]

It's hard to write an interesting spear fight.

Prince Oberyn would like a word with you.... :cool4:

In all seriousness, it's a combination of all the things people have said already: versatility of attacks, status of the bearer, defensive abilities, romanticism by the author (although you see in the battle descriptions that the masses of foot use spears and bows, not swords). And above all, people use swords for the same reason that the Martians worked themselves to extinction turning their planet into a spaceship. "Because it's coool."

[Cladinator]

Like everything in combat, the situation dictates.