Sigh:- ok

Falx, I don't know why I said were axes, they were the first two handed "chopping" weapon that came to mind (had a long few days). They are not axes, but then they are not really swords either. More a spear/sword amalgam. I was wrong.

I'd also suggest you spend a moment pondering why bears, boars and elks alike were hunted primarily with spears, not sword or axes...
Well there's no big secret here. Its because 1) again ease of manufacture and in the greater part 2) So that said hunting can be done from a distance of (relative) safety. To get close enough to kill a bear with a sword, means that the bear is close enough to also dismember the wielder with a huge paw swipe.

Nonsense.
What part of getting a pointy piece of metal atop a wooden shaft shoved into your squishy inner organs, from a distance that simply cannot be matched by any other single-handed infantry weapon to boot, are you claiming is "less lethal" than having the selfsame organs compromised by a pointy or sharp piece of metal at closer quarters ?
Spears may not be able to shear off random extremities the way things with proper cutting edges can (although I'm given to understand a quick "tip slash" can do wonders to someone's neck arteries...), but they kill stuff as dead as anything else when poked into someone's guts.
Nonesense? Learn to reply politely if you will..;)

Yes of course having a spear thrust into the abdomen can be lethal, but then so can having a steak knife. The point was about general lethality in battle of a weapon. In Greek "hoplite type" fighting, many, many battles resulted in tiny amounts of casualties, often less than 5% for the losing side. A spear can only generally be used to thrust (hoplite type spears). In close combat, a sword (lets say Gladius), despite being designed for thrusting at the enemy from behind the protection of the shield, all types of gladius appear to have been suitable for slashing and chopping motions. Also, a sword is more effective in parrying or deflecting blows. A 2m long spear is great at a distance, and in a tight formation, but the tight formation and the relative unwieldyness of the spear are telling in close combat.

Stabbing was a very efficient technique, as stabbing wounds, especially in the abdominal area, were almost always deadly. However, the gladius in some circumstances was used for cutting or slashing, as is indicated by Livy's account of the Macedonian Wars, wherein the Macedonian soldiers were horrified to see dismembered bodies.

Though the primary infantry attack was thrusting at stomach height, they were trained to take any advantage, such as slashing at kneecaps beneath the shield wall.
Yes, there can be really only one form of "lethal", as a fatal car crash is only as fatal as a fatal plane crash. General versatality, in causing fatalities is what Im really referring too, and for that I still insist the sword wins out over the spear.

Nobles and Elites carrying spears? I won't deny that they did. Why? Can't honestly say I'm sure. Partly tradition, partly because it was easier to fight an enemy similarly equipped in a "mutually assured minimal casualties way" (see hoplites comment), partly through a lack of high quality swords (speculation on my part).

Spears then in general for the same reason as killing a bear. Because it can be done at greater range and more safely, plus totally agreed, they work excellently well in a close tight formation. But then why should anyone attack from the front, as the Romans proved. Just go around the sides, engage in close range sword combat and negate the spear wall. Then the sword wins out. THAT's why CA put the spear / light_spear penalties vs Infantry in the first place.

So, ok let's not get off on a bad footing then Watchman, and agree to politely differ