Swordsmen and spears are way so different.

[Narayanese]

This is an interesting discussion (I'd much like to hear a definite answer).

When it comes to sword weights, have a look at http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm.

Butthe cost of the sword meant that it was relatively rare and thus often in the hands of a welltrained warrior.

According to ”Medieval Warfare” by H.W. Koch (Bison Books Ltd, 1978) the price of a sword was 7 cows, the price of a lance and shield together was 2 cows.
Illustrerad Vetenskap (a popular science magazine) the price of a sword was 126 gram silver, the price of a lance was 51 grams silver.
So I agree the price of swords probably meant swordsmen was generally from groups that trained more. In some early mediaeval intraction for youths I saw (can't find it again I'm afraid ) I was advised that one doesn't forget to bring one's spear to battle because it is very useful.

Have a look at http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources...lver5_body.htm . This is written by an 16th century englishman, so it isn't strange that pike and bill are favoured, those were after all the main military weapons (aside from guns) of the english. Notice how he considers any polearm short of pikes superior to swords. Maybe this isn't true for earlier era sword-and-shield-warriors, who used shieldwalls, but I do feel the length of spears would be very useful.

(btw I've had some sparring (one on one) with spear (not 100% representable since it's head was too light) vs sword and shield, it is a lot easier if you're the one with the spear)