Did Swords Actually Kind of Suck?

Think of a common warrior from any point in history — a European footman, an Assyrian footsoldier, a viking, a Mongolian horselord, whatever. You probably imagined someone holding a sword, right? If you didn’t, good on you. But for everyone else, shame!

Swords, you see, are made of metal and are super expensive to make. They require an extremely experienced and devoted blacksmith who doesn’t mind spending days on end getting arthritis in front of a searing fire. Throughout history, the vast majority of warriors would have carried simpler weapons like a spear. A talented few would have a bow, sling, or another projectile weapon.

So did all the effort required to make a sword yield an unstoppable superweapon? Not really. Swords certainly had their time and place, but like any tool, they weren’t right for every situation.

Who Used Swords?

The technology used to make swords has been around since about 3300 BCE. The earliest iterations were found in Arslantepe, Turkey, and were made from arsenical bronze. They were relatively crude and soft, and it wasn’t until the “dark ages” that extremely durable steel swords could be found.

Even though we tend to associate the middle ages with knights and swords, the middle ages were relatively devoid of steel weaponry. Because earlier societies like the Greeks, Romans, and Assyrians each experienced their own “golden ages,” they tended to use swords far more often in large-scale infantry combat.

In the Assyrian or Roman times, a regular soldier might be equipped with a spear for ranged attacks, as well as a sword and shield for close combat. Slaves, organized production, and plentiful supplies all made this level of coherence possible. In the dark, middle, and Viking ages, soldiers tended to make do with whatever they had on hand. Sometimes this meant using hammers, axes, or even simple clubs.

While the availability of swords throughout world history was far from linear, the technology for producing them was quite linear. The blades of late-middle-age knights were almost incomparably better than those of Mesopotamian, Hellenic, and early Eastern warriors. Carbon Steel is generally regarded as the premier sword-making metal, and it would have been stronger, more flexible, sharper, and more durable.

Sword technology arguably reached its apex with Japanese samurai, who fought hand-to-hand well into the 1800s. A master-built blade was more than capable of slicing through a fully-clothed opponent. Today, Japanese descendants of samurai still produce unrivaled replica weaponry, which can sell for many thousands of dollars.

When Were Swords Useful?

If you believe what you see in Hollywood movies, you probably think that swords are simply the best weapons for cleaving through armor, shields, spears, and helmets. After all, why would the richest classes use anything but the best? The truth, as a number of youtube videos illustrate, is that it’s much easier to hit enemies with a longer, lighter implement than a shorter, heavier one.

This is why knights, samurai, and other fabled warriors as often as not used weapons other than swords, including lances, poleaxes, and halberds. Like any good craftsmen, ancient and medieval warriors always tried to use the right tool for the job.

Both swords and shafted weapons were effective, but their effectiveness depended on various factors, including the type of combat, terrain, and the skill of the warriors wielding them.

Spears and similar devices were usually the most common weapons because they were relatively easy to produce, required little training to use effectively, and allowed soldiers to attack from a distance. This meant that they would have profoundly shaped the battlefields they were used in.

The distance between ranks within an army and the distance between opposing forces very often depended on the length of the longest shaft weapons being used. In some cases, as with Alexander’s Macedonian army, a simple increase in the length of men’s spears make a force almost unstoppable.

long weapons were especially effective in open-field battles, where soldiers could form phalanxes or other formations and use their implements to repel enemy charges. In this type of combat, they were commonly used against both cavalry and infantry.

Swords were extremely versatile, but they weren’t the best at anything. They could crush, but they weren’t as good at crushing as maces. They could jab, but they weren’t as long as spears. They could cut, but they couldn’t cut as forcefully as axes.

They were perhaps most useful in close-quarters combat, such as in city streets or in the confines of a building, where spears would be less effective due to their length. Additionally, swords were a virtual necessity in one-on-one combat, where they could be used to parry and deflect an opponent's attacks before delivering a lethal strike.

What Was the Best Ancient Weapon?

Swords and spears were effective weapons in historical combat, but they both fell short when enemies were armed with powerful bows — especially the English longbow variety used in the mid to late middle ages. Against a coordinated group of archers, or even a random artillery attack, melee weapons were worse than useless, and they often proved a hindrance to properly blocking with a shield.

Ranged weapons, therefore, might be considered the best weapons of all, since they were usually quite difficult to counter. But a horse charge could make quick work of archers or slingers, so could they really be considered the best? And is this rock-paper-scissors discussion going to go on forever?

It may seem like a trick answer, but the most effective soldier on the ancient or medieval battlefield was simply the one with the most advanced, lightest, and most protective armor. This is why we see a constant evolution in battlefield armor throughout history, starting with simple leather and ending with modern tanks. For every change in weaponry, there’s almost always a corresponding change in armor, and big upgrades have led to some very uneven battlefield exchanges.

An early knight or armored cataphract could stride into battle, confident that few other warriors possessed weaponry advanced enough to take them down. Against such a foe, a lowly spearman with a round shield could do little but hope for a numerical advantage.

If you want to immerse yourself deeper in the world of ancient combat, check out Kur, a mythological Mesopotamian epic, full of battles, history, and bright characters, including some of history’s most underappreciated gods and goddesses.