Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5862360" data-attributes="member: 58197">Okay, I just don't get this. Where is this idea coming from that "warfare and technology" militate against the use of swords? If that were the case, swords would never have existed! They were damned expensive and difficult to make. Just about any ranged weapon you care to name--bow, sling, javelin--was cheaper to produce, usually by an order of magnitude or more. But the sword, in one form or another, was a staple of military technology throughout history.If you look at the history of warfare, it's dominated by three weapons: The spear*, the sword, and the bow. That trio shows up over and over, from Africa to East Asia, from antiquity to the Renaissance. Everything else was optional, but if you wanted to wage war any time before the spread of handheld firearms, you brought those three weapons or you went home and cried. (After that point, the spear and sword stayed but bows were gradually supplanted by guns. The spear was next to get phased out, and the sword went last.)[SIZE=-2]*Used in melee. Some armies did make use of throwing spears, most notably the Roman legions, but in general the spear was a melee weapon used in formation.[/SIZE]</blockquote>