For one thing, a sword uses a lot of metal, which is very expensive. In close combat fighting, which most battles generally turn into, a sword is a much better weapon as a spear. Only when facing a spearmen unit from the front are the swordsmen at a disadvantage. Against cavalry, a spear is of course much better than a sword. Spears are also pretty ineffective unless used in large numbers. Finally, for fighting on a wall, nothing beats a sword. In city battles, block the streets with your spearmen and put your swordsmen on the walls.Originally Posted by Lucjan
As an aside, after the invention of the bajonet, soldiers were trained in phalanx tactics once again, with a lot of success. Actually, the bajonet probably killed more men than bullets untill they invented the repeating rifle. In one of the Lara Croft movies, we see her fighting a man armed with a sword using an old .303 rifle from parade rest. This gorgeous bit of cheography, which represents actual training methods, clearly shows how effective a man with a rifle can be without firing a shot. Good examples of effective single man spear fighting is shown in the movie Troy.
EDIT : As for the Romans, who were always outnumbered, they quickly realised that once the army closed untill they were face to face, a spear was not very usefull. The large shields made an effective wall which pushed into the enemy horde, which could not wield their weapons due to lack of space. Then the gladius would come stabbing out in the sliths between the shields to deadly effect. Always try to use the Roman troops on guard (i.e. in formation) , except when charging. They didn't get their ass handed to them in a regular battle untill the Parthians used their missile cavalry on them.
EDIT : econ21 is quite right, their fighting style developed fighting the Sabine guerillia warriors in the south of Italy. The swords proved much more usefull in the woods and hills during their ambushes.
Bookmarks