NeutralDrow said:
If you have to actually
transition from attack to defense, I'm fairly sure you're doing it wrong...but I think I see your point. Given how effective staves are in close combat, however, I'm afraid I disagree.
I suspect this is why one sees spearmen often making use of a shield or other forms of personal armor for defense.
That might also be because they're in formation. Armies usually like having their soldiers armored.
On the other side of the coin, a small sword (or a foil or epee) can defend and attack in the same motion and is sufficiently light to perform the actions seperately with amazing speed (though the single-tempo would still be preferred in a real duel because a double time approach could certainly lead to a stabbing).
They're also fairly easy to defend against if you're properly trained and carrying anything...or even if you're not. It's a lot harder to grab a longsword (or even a true rapier) with your bare hands than a smallsword.
It is this very flexibility that lead to the sword being called the "Queen of weapons", and it is also the very reason swords were usually the last option in a fight. One would certainly be better served with a spear than a sword from the outset because one simply cannot discount the utility of a longer ranged attack.
That also depends, again, on the type of sword. A lot of the sword's popularity is due to its status as a prestige weapon.
The reason for a transition is simple. While the blunt portin of a spear or halberd may indeed hurt an unarmored or lightly armored foe, all such weapons are designed primarly around a single point of offense. In the case of a spear, one is on the offensive so long as the spear point is facing the opponent, but if one wishes to defend against a thrust from a similar weapon they must move their point from the target at least to a degree and then sweep the weapon in some direction or another to deflect the blow. In the case of a weapon like a halberd, one would be required to make an even more significant transition from attack to defense as more force is required to stop a chop or a cut than a thrust (in the case of thrust often the key is simply using leverage to slightly redirect momentum whereas with a cut or chop you are required to halt the momentum of a fairly massive implement in this case). Simply as a result of being a long and relatively heavy weapon, the transition is going to naturally be more difficult than with a smaller, lighter weapon. As a result, such weapons are, as I said best used with a strong attack, relying on a formation and personal armor to provide defense.
And while one may beieve that a small sword or similar weapon is easy to defend against, I suspect you'd think otherwise if you picked up fencing as a hobby! The thrust is actually significantly more difficult to defend against than a cut simply because you must intercept a blade in motion and redirect it. With a cut, one simply needs to intercept. If one looks at sport fencing as an example, you will find that though there are 10 parry positions, only four of them are commonly needed (that is, quatre, sixte, septime, and octave - with those four parries one can generally deflect any attack to the front, even if they aren't always the most efficent). In sabre, one can potentially use all 10 foil parries along with several only used in sabre, but one generally only needs three of them (not being a sabre fencer I cannot name the positions). And keep in mind that were the weapons live, a mere half-kilogram of force at the tip is all that it takes to drive the weapon through your body. Though the epee and small sword were not designed to be used as cutting weapons, both came complete with razor edges for a portion of the length to ensure the weapon would be extremely dangerous to grab, not to mention hold on to. Just as important, were your opponent unarmed then you have such an extreme advantage in combat that there would have to be an extreme disparity in your armed skill versus your opponents unarmed skill for them to have any real hope of escaping without significant injury. Without a real option for defense the only thing someone could do is displace and hope to grapple, but the fact of the matter is a fencer can throw an attack far more quickly than one can evade. Yes, displacements to occur with varying degrees of success but often this was as a result of a greater strategy that lead to the attacker throwing their attack along an expected line - something that would be impossible to force were you unarmed.
Of course, the assumption that it may be easier to defend against a small word than a rapier is also a bit of a misconception. While relatively light compared to previous weapons, the rapier still spanned up to five feet and weighed as many pounds. The length and weight of the weapon mean transition between lines of attack is difficult meaning you would be forced to choose the line before the attack and would not likely be able to change during an attack (a maneuver known as a disengagement or derobement). If you combine that with a generally slower attack you come to realize that defense against a rapier is actually easier than it is against a small sword or sabre. The rapier's inflexibility resulted in a circular fighting style (versus the linear one in use by the end of the age of sword) and often rested on the use of an idditional implement for defense. Again, while five pounds might not be a lot of weight, when you combine it with the length of the weapon the result is a weapon that is relatively slow in any transition when compared to something lighter and is also significantly more difficult to change directions with. In comparison, functionl sabres often weigh less than 2.5 lbs and a small sword or dueling epee weighins in under 2 (in fact, if you look at the modern sport epee, it is literally a sharpening away from a dueling implement).
I will not disagree with your last point however - much of the sword's prestige comes not from it's actual utility but from it's perceived place in history and lore. The sword was the weapon of the nobility. Afterall, it takes little training to become proficient in the use of a spear, but to master the sword takes more than a lifetime - and during the era of the sword only the rich could afford to spend their time in such a pursuit. And, at the end of the day, an untrained man with a sword against a master is all but a dead man, but even an untrained man in the use of a spear stands a chance against a well trained foe.
