Part of that is because his spear's name is a fricking Welsh nightmare to remember, but it's mostly because the sword is vastly more famous. He also has a knife and a shield that turns into a boat.
What leads you to believe he was primarily a spearman? His battle against King Pellinore had him wielding a sword, his battle against the Roman Leader Tiberius had him wielding a sword. Is it just because he killed Mordred with Rhon? Even his right to be King was decreed by him retrieving the Sword from the Stone, and depending on the cycle- The moment the sword was destroyed, he had to rush to obtain another from the Lady of the Lake because it was just that important. There's even tales of Sir Gawain borrowing Excalibur for quests because of it's vast importance. Rhon exists in name for like... Two myths? Period? It's only a step more relevant than his knife.
Well I don’t remember the name of his frickin spear but I sure as hell know Excalibur
"Swordsman" and "spearman" are both ridiculous video-game inspired nonsense. Knights fought with lances and they fought with swords. They also fought with axes, maces and daggers. They wrestle too, sometimes in the melee, others because their knavish opponents caught them unarmed, or because they had the feeling that the knight in unknown heraldry the cruel damsel compelled him to fight was actually his dear friend or brother. Take your Lancer/Saber bullshit to the nunnery!
>Swords were mostly used by nobility.
Depending on how strictly you want to define sword, this has never been true anywhere in the world. And even if you go with a strict definition of sword, the only thing that nobles did more than peasants was wear them as a part of their common dress.
Wut. In many parts of Europe and Asia it was utterly forbidden for peasants to keep and wear swords. Famously in Japan where a peasant would be executed for owning a sword.
This is why German peasants invented the grosse messer as a technicality to get around the law.
>Famously in Japan where a peasant would be executed for owning a sword.
Peasant couldn't wear daisho in public during the Bakufu because it was tantamount to pretending to be samurai. It was never illegal for them to own a sword.
>I uncritically repeat shit I heard on Ganker without researching for myself.
Why the frick are you like this? Actually read past the headlines. Certain TYPES OF SWORDS were status symbols that could only be owned by the nobility. Just because Watanabe the dirt farmer would be murdered for owning a katana didn't mean he couldn't own a tanto (12" blades were standard before the Meiji reformation, which makes them short swords, not daggers) and even wear if travelling between towns.
> Flexible, easily understood weapon with plenty of depth. > A weapon commonly used by knights, a classic heroic archetype. > Isn't as ubiquitous as the spear, giving a slight high-class edge which itself subtly implies power, but is understated enough to not come across as overbearing and gratuitous. > A weapon used in melee range, subtly implying courage by needing to engage the dangerous enemy up close.
what is the opposite of this, but still melee? like a niche weapon with really specific uses, that might be used by the poor, but may also be interpreted as being overbearing or gratuitous?
Scythe's. No one's using that shit, probably not even a poor farmhand if he has any other choice. But we've all collectively decided they're viable because of anime and video games and reaper imagery.
War scythes were a thing, but they tended to have their blades repositioned to align with the long haft. Likely the origin of weapons like naginatas or guandaos. I know central European peasants made something similar but I can't recall the name. No, I'm not thinking of a falx.
Goedendag, maybe?
A peasant (bourgeois) weapon, particularly good at fighting buttholes on horses while on foot, with strong cultural ties.
You show up with one of those, everybody knows which side you're on.
>a niche weapon with really specific uses, that might be used by the poor, but may also be interpreted as being overbearing or gratuitous?
like others have said that's the scythe 100%
it's symbolic in an entirely different way than the sword is, represents commoners (the fricking Soviet flag is a hammer and sickle, another grain cutting implement), it's not really made for war but people still used it for it occasionally because it's what they had on hand, and you simply cannot walk around with a scythe the way you can a sword so holding one sends a very different message. The only people wielding a scythe as a weapon are the fricking grim reaper or a peasant rebellion, both of which are near polar opposites of the classical prince charming hero on a white horse with a sword in hand or a warrior caste like knights
Axes, hammers, spears, bow&arrow and such are all either tools or hunting implement repurposed for warfare.
Swords are purpose-made for killing people.
Swords have the second most possibility for customization of any fantasy weapon (second only to shields). They are also less brutal than hammers/maces (even if they are more effective), and they have more distinctive fighting styles.
a sword is an expensive, symbolic weapon of war that you can wear even in non-combat settings for its ceremonial significance, often with elaborate ritual and pomp and circumstance surrounding the specific sword and its sheathe and how it's carried. Knights are not dubbed with a poleaxe, they're dubbed with a sword. Marine Corps officers are not handed a morningstar upon receiving a commission, they're handed a sword. Attending a formal ball in dress uniform with a ceremonial sword on your hip is acceptable, attending a formal ball lugging a twelve-pounder cannon behind you is a lot less feasible.
Axes, hammers, knives, spears, and other weapons lack the symbology and are often associated with everyday life, commoners, or aren't something you can walk around with as a symbol.
Call me a partisan, but I love spears. They have always been seen as a military weapon.
This. Imagine your favorite movie or whatever, but the protagonist is holding a pole axe. What, he's gonna stick it in the umbrella stand, or is he gonna sit the tavern with one hand holding up this huge swiss army knife?
This. Imagine your favorite movie or whatever, but the protagonist is holding a pole axe. What, he's gonna stick it in the umbrella stand, or is he gonna sit the tavern with one hand holding up this huge swiss army knife?
This is a sorely underrated reason why swords became the weapons of heroes.
A sword lets the hero move around a scene, deliver dialogue or perform stunts before seamlessly transitioning to combat. There's also the difficulty of choreographing a fight scene involving spears on a small stage or crowded set, the fact that a blunted sword is much safer to be hit with than a blunted polearm and the fact that swords lend themselves to flashy duels in a way that maces just don't.
Given the influence of plays and then movies on what we consider heroic, it's hardly surprising that the weapon that was most easily incorporated into popular media became the archetypal heroic weapon.
Underrated point. Kids who've grown up on D&D and take fantasy cliches for granted have no idea how indebted the entire genre is to swashbuckling flicks staring men in tights.
I wouldn't be surprised if theater did play a role in it, but I suspect there is something more.
In 18th, 19th, and very early 20th century warfare, cavalry and military officers carried swords into battle. Still even to this day, many armed forces around the world use swords as part of their dress/parade uniforms. Once repeating and self-loading weapons made swords less practical, why would so many armed forces still choose to bring swords into battle?
>Once repeating and self-loading weapons made swords less practical, why would so many armed forces still choose to bring swords into battle?
Because for most of history, officers were gentlemen, and a gentlemen carried a sword into battle. It wasn't until WWI exterminated Europe's aristocracies that the gentleman-soldier died out.
>Once repeating and self-loading weapons made swords less practical, why would so many armed forces still choose to bring swords into battle?
Because for most of history, officers were gentlemen, and a gentlemen carried a sword into battle. It wasn't until WWI exterminated Europe's aristocracies that the gentleman-soldier died out.
says swords are the weapons of gentlemen. Even in modern militaries officers are considered to be gentlemen (for the most part).
A significant part of what we consider (in the west at least) as a traditional hero is influenced by writing in the 17th-19th century. Most of this writing was done by gentlemen who treated protagonists as if they were gentlemen (look at Walter Scott and co.) thus they carried the weapon of a gentleman (even if they also used a bow or some other weapon.)
I'd go far as to say that the fact that heroes are traditionally gentlemen goes as far as determining what type of sword they use. A hero is more likely to use a one handed sword (or one and a half handed) than something like a broadsword or greatsword because gentlemen carried swords suitable for use with one hand.
pic is of a sabre you can get from some of the ROK army bases.
Because modern audiences can't handle badass shit like Gae Bulg or Lorg Mor or Nu-Endo, and while some people would recognize Ruyi Jingu Bang they think it belongs to Goku and is from Dragon Ball.
a sword is an expensive, symbolic weapon of war that you can wear even in non-combat settings for its ceremonial significance, often with elaborate ritual and pomp and circumstance surrounding the specific sword and its sheathe and how it's carried. Knights are not dubbed with a poleaxe, they're dubbed with a sword. Marine Corps officers are not handed a morningstar upon receiving a commission, they're handed a sword. Attending a formal ball in dress uniform with a ceremonial sword on your hip is acceptable, attending a formal ball lugging a twelve-pounder cannon behind you is a lot less feasible.
Axes, hammers, knives, spears, and other weapons lack the symbology and are often associated with everyday life, commoners, or aren't something you can walk around with as a symbol.
Because the sword is the definitive weapon of the aristocratic warrior class since the bronze age. It is a weapon that uniquely lacks any utility as a tool, and which requires significantly more metallurgical material and skill than axeheads or hammers (along with ifs little brother the dagger), so it is a wealth and social symbol as well as a military one.
Spears (on foot) are associated with peasants and formation combat, axe is associated with woodcutting. Mace, warhammer, flail etc were always a fricking meme.
Sword's only purpose is combat and it's much more expensive/difficult to make than a spear. It's associated with nobility because of that. As well as having a bit of that "swashbuckling" quality due to being a sidearm most of the time.
Sword historically was considered rather status-weapon than practical one, so dude with the sword -> someone important
Also, shitton of folklore about magical swords
excalibur
Ah right the least important weapon of a mythological spearman and noble king.
Well I don’t remember the name of his frickin spear but I sure as hell know Excalibur
Part of that is because his spear's name is a fricking Welsh nightmare to remember, but it's mostly because the sword is vastly more famous. He also has a knife and a shield that turns into a boat.
He's also a cuckold.
Just like we change Caledsomething to Excalibur, his spear Rhongowhatever is just called Ron in English which is kind of funny
>my spear, Ron. Mind its mustache.
Lancelot is fanon.
Welsh seems like an insane language.
>name your kid something evil as frick sounding like Medraut
>wtf you betrayed me!
You would think that wouldn't you, English orcus.
What leads you to believe he was primarily a spearman? His battle against King Pellinore had him wielding a sword, his battle against the Roman Leader Tiberius had him wielding a sword. Is it just because he killed Mordred with Rhon? Even his right to be King was decreed by him retrieving the Sword from the Stone, and depending on the cycle- The moment the sword was destroyed, he had to rush to obtain another from the Lady of the Lake because it was just that important. There's even tales of Sir Gawain borrowing Excalibur for quests because of it's vast importance. Rhon exists in name for like... Two myths? Period? It's only a step more relevant than his knife.
He may be referring to Lancelot. But other than that, he's an absolute moron for trying to downplay the importance of Excalibur.
It was a different sword in the stone. You can stop pretending to be an expert by skimming a wikipedia article now.
Caliburn, yeah. Excalibur was the sword from the lake. But in The Sword in the Stone it was Excalibur and that's what it is now.
>It was a different sword in the stone.
That much was clear from his post, good job owning yourself.
"Swordsman" and "spearman" are both ridiculous video-game inspired nonsense. Knights fought with lances and they fought with swords. They also fought with axes, maces and daggers. They wrestle too, sometimes in the melee, others because their knavish opponents caught them unarmed, or because they had the feeling that the knight in unknown heraldry the cruel damsel compelled him to fight was actually his dear friend or brother. Take your Lancer/Saber bullshit to the nunnery!
fpbp also swords is usually symbolic with high officials in armies
You know why, don't be moronic.
Swords were mostly used by nobility. Heroes are generally noble, so they use swords.
>Swords were mostly used by nobility.
Depending on how strictly you want to define sword, this has never been true anywhere in the world. And even if you go with a strict definition of sword, the only thing that nobles did more than peasants was wear them as a part of their common dress.
Wut. In many parts of Europe and Asia it was utterly forbidden for peasants to keep and wear swords. Famously in Japan where a peasant would be executed for owning a sword.
This is why German peasants invented the grosse messer as a technicality to get around the law.
>Famously in Japan where a peasant would be executed for owning a sword.
Peasant couldn't wear daisho in public during the Bakufu because it was tantamount to pretending to be samurai. It was never illegal for them to own a sword.
>I uncritically repeat shit I heard on Ganker without researching for myself.
Why the frick are you like this? Actually read past the headlines. Certain TYPES OF SWORDS were status symbols that could only be owned by the nobility. Just because Watanabe the dirt farmer would be murdered for owning a katana didn't mean he couldn't own a tanto (12" blades were standard before the Meiji reformation, which makes them short swords, not daggers) and even wear if travelling between towns.
Nah, actually it goes - hero = revolver
It's actually hero = car battery and jumper cables
Because it's fun, anon.
Would maces actually be the ideal anti-undead weapon?
Wouldn't maces actually be the ideal undead weapon?
maces are the ideal weapon period.
Swords were just easier to draw.
Haha
> Flexible, easily understood weapon with plenty of depth.
> A weapon commonly used by knights, a classic heroic archetype.
> Isn't as ubiquitous as the spear, giving a slight high-class edge which itself subtly implies power, but is understated enough to not come across as overbearing and gratuitous.
> A weapon used in melee range, subtly implying courage by needing to engage the dangerous enemy up close.
That's at least a few reasons.
what is the opposite of this, but still melee? like a niche weapon with really specific uses, that might be used by the poor, but may also be interpreted as being overbearing or gratuitous?
Scythe's. No one's using that shit, probably not even a poor farmhand if he has any other choice. But we've all collectively decided they're viable because of anime and video games and reaper imagery.
War scythes were a thing, but they tended to have their blades repositioned to align with the long haft. Likely the origin of weapons like naginatas or guandaos. I know central European peasants made something similar but I can't recall the name. No, I'm not thinking of a falx.
Goedendag, maybe?
A peasant (bourgeois) weapon, particularly good at fighting buttholes on horses while on foot, with strong cultural ties.
You show up with one of those, everybody knows which side you're on.
bec de corbin, or some variation of it maybe?
>a niche weapon with really specific uses, that might be used by the poor, but may also be interpreted as being overbearing or gratuitous?
like others have said that's the scythe 100%
it's symbolic in an entirely different way than the sword is, represents commoners (the fricking Soviet flag is a hammer and sickle, another grain cutting implement), it's not really made for war but people still used it for it occasionally because it's what they had on hand, and you simply cannot walk around with a scythe the way you can a sword so holding one sends a very different message. The only people wielding a scythe as a weapon are the fricking grim reaper or a peasant rebellion, both of which are near polar opposites of the classical prince charming hero on a white horse with a sword in hand or a warrior caste like knights
Axes, hammers, spears, bow&arrow and such are all either tools or hunting implement repurposed for warfare.
Swords are purpose-made for killing people.
>Pic
....Is that a boy or a girl?
Any hole's a goal.
Swords have the second most possibility for customization of any fantasy weapon (second only to shields). They are also less brutal than hammers/maces (even if they are more effective), and they have more distinctive fighting styles.
Call me a partisan, but I love spears. They have always been seen as a military weapon.
Swords are cool.
It's ingrained in European culture, sword = noble, and is based
The sword fits in a sheath that rests comfortably on the hip, can your weapon say the same?
This. Imagine your favorite movie or whatever, but the protagonist is holding a pole axe. What, he's gonna stick it in the umbrella stand, or is he gonna sit the tavern with one hand holding up this huge swiss army knife?
This is a sorely underrated reason why swords became the weapons of heroes.
A sword lets the hero move around a scene, deliver dialogue or perform stunts before seamlessly transitioning to combat. There's also the difficulty of choreographing a fight scene involving spears on a small stage or crowded set, the fact that a blunted sword is much safer to be hit with than a blunted polearm and the fact that swords lend themselves to flashy duels in a way that maces just don't.
Given the influence of plays and then movies on what we consider heroic, it's hardly surprising that the weapon that was most easily incorporated into popular media became the archetypal heroic weapon.
Underrated point. Kids who've grown up on D&D and take fantasy cliches for granted have no idea how indebted the entire genre is to swashbuckling flicks staring men in tights.
I wouldn't be surprised if theater did play a role in it, but I suspect there is something more.
In 18th, 19th, and very early 20th century warfare, cavalry and military officers carried swords into battle. Still even to this day, many armed forces around the world use swords as part of their dress/parade uniforms. Once repeating and self-loading weapons made swords less practical, why would so many armed forces still choose to bring swords into battle?
>Once repeating and self-loading weapons made swords less practical, why would so many armed forces still choose to bring swords into battle?
Because for most of history, officers were gentlemen, and a gentlemen carried a sword into battle. It wasn't until WWI exterminated Europe's aristocracies that the gentleman-soldier died out.
As
says swords are the weapons of gentlemen. Even in modern militaries officers are considered to be gentlemen (for the most part).
A significant part of what we consider (in the west at least) as a traditional hero is influenced by writing in the 17th-19th century. Most of this writing was done by gentlemen who treated protagonists as if they were gentlemen (look at Walter Scott and co.) thus they carried the weapon of a gentleman (even if they also used a bow or some other weapon.)
I'd go far as to say that the fact that heroes are traditionally gentlemen goes as far as determining what type of sword they use. A hero is more likely to use a one handed sword (or one and a half handed) than something like a broadsword or greatsword because gentlemen carried swords suitable for use with one hand.
pic is of a sabre you can get from some of the ROK army bases.
Same goes for why gunslinging heroes usually have a signature pistol rather than a signature rifle or signature minigun.
Because modern audiences can't handle badass shit like Gae Bulg or Lorg Mor or Nu-Endo, and while some people would recognize Ruyi Jingu Bang they think it belongs to Goku and is from Dragon Ball.
a sword is an expensive, symbolic weapon of war that you can wear even in non-combat settings for its ceremonial significance, often with elaborate ritual and pomp and circumstance surrounding the specific sword and its sheathe and how it's carried. Knights are not dubbed with a poleaxe, they're dubbed with a sword. Marine Corps officers are not handed a morningstar upon receiving a commission, they're handed a sword. Attending a formal ball in dress uniform with a ceremonial sword on your hip is acceptable, attending a formal ball lugging a twelve-pounder cannon behind you is a lot less feasible.
Axes, hammers, knives, spears, and other weapons lack the symbology and are often associated with everyday life, commoners, or aren't something you can walk around with as a symbol.
Why is OP = sucking hundreds of Black person dicks so common on Ganker? Nobody knows
Because in myth sword = hero
You dumb Black person homosexual.
Because the sword is the definitive weapon of the aristocratic warrior class since the bronze age. It is a weapon that uniquely lacks any utility as a tool, and which requires significantly more metallurgical material and skill than axeheads or hammers (along with ifs little brother the dagger), so it is a wealth and social symbol as well as a military one.
Swords were crosses. You had bohemian earspoons and all but it wasn't the same.
Spears (on foot) are associated with peasants and formation combat, axe is associated with woodcutting. Mace, warhammer, flail etc were always a fricking meme.
Sword's only purpose is combat and it's much more expensive/difficult to make than a spear. It's associated with nobility because of that. As well as having a bit of that "swashbuckling" quality due to being a sidearm most of the time.
>t. only plays vidya and doesn't read shit
Many such cases. Sad!
Sword or death.
What's common or not shouldn't affect your games.
King Arthur and Charlemagne
No, really
Some heroes did have weapons that weren't swords, like Cu Chulainn with his Gay Bulge.
Frick swords. I always pick a war hammer or maul if I want a 2 handed weapon for my characters.
Spear of Longinus killed Godspawn (or God himself, depending on how you interpert Trinity doctrine).
Can any sword claim the same?
No it didn't, Jesus was already dead.
Did you consider asking google?
Sword of Mars
Sword historically was considered rather status-weapon than practical one, so dude with the sword -> someone important
Also, shitton of folklore about magical swords