Depends. A well made Katana is both an amazing piece of engineering and craftsmanship and trash.
The Japanese HAD to fold steel. They had poor quality ore and inferior metallurgy technology. The folded steel blade of a katana got around issues with the material by imbuing different areas of the blade with different properties- a relatively hard and brittle cutting edge that can be made quite sharp, a relatively “springy” spine that can absorb impacts without breaking. A very clever way to deal with the problem at hand and a big part of why Katana have only one cutting edge. The back of the sword isn’t made of metal that is good for a cutting edge. Now when we add up the issues with metallurgy and some other factors- the Japanese didn’t really develop much thick metal armor. So the curved single blade provides more cutting edge for the same blade length than a straight blade would and gives certain advantages in geometry for slashing. BecauSe the blades are brittle (and other reasons)
Katana weren’t the best swords for “sword fighting” like movies and TV with lots of blade on blade combat. They were very labor intensive to make and thusly expensive- some costing as much as a home at the time- so beating your katana blade up and nicking it weren’t something you’d want to do if it was avoidable. European swords of the “Middle Ages” which is what most people think of when talking about the subject- they generally weren’t as clumsy as tropes and myth say. Of course there are good and bad swords- cheap and expensive etc. but Europe had better ore and generally more advanced metallurgy. They didn’t need to develop a locator intensive and complicated art of folding pig iron because they could work steel alloys and had knowledge of some basic tempering and other processing techniques to make metals better suited to their uses.
The average sword you’d picture from Europe of the period wasn’t particularly heavy at all despite another sort of trope. They tended to be well balanced and manageable weight for the sorts of swords most people might carry. They had all sorts of intelligent design aspects often- for example, it was common for the lowest part of the blade on a European sword of the time to be dull. This part of the blade would generally not be used for cutting and is too close to the hilt (to where you hold it) to offer any lever effect to magnify your force. By making it dull however- you could hold the sword by the bottom of the blade. Why would you do that? Simple. Imagine you have a 3 foot long sword and need to enter a hallway where you might need to fight. A sword is not a good weapon in such a cramped space. By holding the speed higher up the part you swing becomes shorter and it is better suited for close quarters and tight spaces.
Another neat design element on many swords? The hand guard of the sword was often not only there to protect the hands and to an extent the forearms- it could be used as a pick or axe/hammer by swinging the sword by the blade, or if you turn the sword upside down you could use the sword to disarm an opponent! Despite common tripe again- there were European martial arts and fighting systems. Remember- Europe was home to frequent wars. Are we so conceited to believe that a continent that literally had a war called “the Hundred Years’ War” never took the time to develop any sort of techniques for fighting more effectively man to man…? Period battles often devolved into brutal melee- soldiers didn’t want to die then any more than now and worked on methods to try and survive fighting person to person.
So don’t get me wrong- the katana is an effective weapon and it isn’t made of glass or anything- they fought wars with them and they fit the tactics and such of the place and time. The fighting styles and sword styles between the straight double edge European swords many associate with knights and such like arming swords and bastard swords, claymores etc. were different for sure. But not everyone in Europe used straight double edged swords nor fought in armor against armored opponents. Which brings us to… the spear.
On a horse? Generally you’ll be better off with a spear or halberd or similar “pole arm.” Fighting from the ground and the other guy is on a horse? Again- polearm aka spear. It’s a lot easier and safer to reach the guy on the horse or kill the horse with a long spikey pole. The spear is going to give you reach in a ground to ground fight- if your enemy has a sword, they’ll have to close the distance enough to touch you without getting poked by your spear or hit with the “stick” part. So the spear can certainly have the advantage over a sword- except…. Remember when I said that it was a feature of many European swords to have the lower blade dull so you could hold it higher for tight spaces? Well… spears can suck in cramped spaces or choose quarters. If you can’t swing the spear or get distance and a fighter gets inside the reach of the spear- you’re basically unarmed. Spears will generally be heavier and take more effort to swing than a shorter weapon too- so stamina can play a role-
If your opponent or opponents can tire you out without getting killed- they can have a much easier time getting inside your reach and having you be too tired or slow to effectively fight back. The fighting style and mindset of the two weapons is also very different generally- when you fight with a sword you are mindful of reach- ideas you want your opponent where they are inside your reach but you are not within theirs. This is true of spears and most weapons. With a sword however the reach of two weapons will generally be pretty close sword to sword. So you must be going on ready to enter your opponents reach and fight within it. A spear is generally opposite- you want to keep distance. To clarify one point quickly- when I say “spear” I am not referring to throwing spears or speaks intended to be used as thrown weapons. There is some nuance there and while many throwing spears can be used as pole arms and not just thrown- often they are not nearly as sturdy for drawn out person…
.. fighting or specialized to be primarily an effective Melee weapon- and of course in theory any bladed weapon can be thrown and be lethal as such even if not intended or designed for the purpose- but many weapons it is less practical for the average user and perhaps even foolish to do so.
So continuing on- “spear” is a very general term and if we add the larger class of “pole arms” there are so many varieties and specialized applications it’s near impossible to speak comprehensively on all “spears” much the same as swords or even “katana” or “long swords” etc. so this is all very general and theoretical except where specific examples are given.
Anyhow- the dynamics of weapon handling change when you are “one on one” versus in formations and using strategies or in an all out melee. It generally isn’t practical to focus all your attention and energy on one opponent on a massive battle field full of enemy soldiers- this means certain “tricks” that can work in a duel don’t work as well. A pole arm is a pole- you can grab the non blades part. You can wrestle it from the holder or break it or hook your leg over it and bear your weight on it to floor the holder or tie them up or disarm them. You can do all sorts of things in individual combat that change the advantage or balance of weapons- and when it is multiple vs. one that changes even further. In a total melee- being tied up or immobile or focused intently on a single opponent can easily get you killed. There generally isn’t time to be tricky or fancy. You lash at whatever is in reach and keep moving.
When forces meet there will usually be an array of armaments. A squad with swords probably doesn’t want to try to fight the squad with spears squad to squad- but ifthe squad with swords is backed by a squad with bows they may suppress with arrows to allow them to get inside the spear formation. Calvary may be called to deal with certain threats but you may not want to expose your Calvary to other types of threat and so on. That’s all part of tactics that come in to play on battlefields vs. brawl tactics vs. individual combat. Advantagedoes have a lot to do with weapon type- but the terrain and other factors influence advantage strongly- and when we start saying things like “katana vs. claymore” or “rapier vs. hatchet” etc- we have to also be aware that the time and place and specific armaments and topography, architecture etc. play a big role. Let’s step into the modern world a bit.
As weapons and tactics and battlefields change what weapons and equipment are good or not changes. Big burly tanks used to be “unstoppable” but advancements to weapons made it so that even small portable weapons could harm heavily armored tanks. Advancements in targeting made it much easier for aircraft and artillery and other tanks or anti tank guns to hit giant lumbering tanks. Battle theaters became larger and war faster paced. So big super armored tanks with giant cannons became out of favor for smaller, faster tanks that could travel further and need less maintenance and be more versatile. The destroyer was once the primary naval ship for offering fire support to troops from sea. Aircraft Carriers took the job because they can theoretically hit further, harder, and with more precision while fulfilling additional roles like recon/intel and even offer rescue or serve as the forward base if needed.
So in the modern world- if you were to build a massive navy and base it on destroyer strategy you’d probably find yourself outclassed on far off soil and at sea compared to a modern navy based on carrier strategy. Of course that can change and likely will at some point too- and drones will likely change what weapons and systems are most effective as well- and as the US and other nations have found when fighting wars around the globe against “technologically inferior” forces and terrorists… the best military for fighting a war against a super power isn’t the best military for fighting a guerrilla fight and vice versa. Sophisticated jamming and detection can be useless against low tech or no tech solutions. Weapons made to easily shred modern high tech armor might not work well against good old cold rolled armor plate or improvised armors. There is a tool for every job.
To that point and sticking to modern analogies- swords were and weren’t so ubiquitous? A sword generally isn’t a “peasant weapon.” Historically good swords were expensive. They were also often illegal for non nobles or non military etc.
a sword is in some ways like a pistol- it is relatively concealable and works at shorter ranges and tends to be well suited for “one on one” fighting. They are light enough to carry around and really their only use is killing people. Non gun nuts don’t hunt food with a pistol and most militaries don’t give their general infantry pistols as their primary weapon (in fact historically and in the modern age general infantry may not be issued or choose to carry a pistol at all…) because pistols are good for carrying easy and killing people at relatively close range.
If you want to hunt you use a rifle (or bow) generally. If you want to go to war a rifle is generally preferred. Physics right? It’s easier to shoot and be accurate with a rifle. It will handle more use before it wears or has issues generally. They can generally hold more bullets conveniently. They tend to have more range and power. Your army generally doesn’t need to conceal their weapons- ideally they’ll have them at the ready. The distances in war are generally (ideally) not where soldiers are 20 meters or less apart from the enemy- and if they are then a blade may be a better choice. So likewise- the sword tended to not be the most common everyday weapon. Especially in caste and feudal societies or serfdoms and where people didn’t have all this disposable income and free time.
Even if a sword cost as much as a single meal (generally they would cost far more…) why would someone often living at a deficit buy something that can only kill people, requires upkeep, and you need to have the time and energy to train with it let alone in those days- you couldn’t YouTube or even likely get a book or go to the nearest town and find someone to teach you to use a sword. Lots of people farmed and did labor- they had sickles and scythes and knives and such if they really needed something sharp… and that’s the other thing. Why bring a spear when it’s sword distance? Why bring a sword when it’s knife distance? The cheaper, more common, generally more familiar knife is even easier to conceal and highly effective for personal defense or sneaky murder scenarios that a lay person was more likely to encounter than a… duel with a knight or a sudden impromptu battle field…?
Historically when “peasants” have fought they’ve used weapons that were farm or work tools and improvised weapons like sharpened sticks or blunt clubs and staves.
Many “peasant martial arts” come from this as well- and a lot of iconic or well known martial arts moves you see in movies etc. and think they’re either cool or pointlessly flashy? A lot of those are from peasant fighting. Things like peasant revolts or militias and home defense etc. a “standing split kick”- the one where someone is standing up and kicks a leg straight up so they are doing the splits but standing? People often think that’s a pointless or flashy move- and in 2022 it kinda is- but if you were a poor person who didn’t have horses and had to fight armed guys on horseback- being able to kick a guy off his horse so you could kill him on the ground where he didn’t have all that advantage was pretty practical.
As a matter of fact many weapons evolved from or are basically unchanged from things like farming and work tools of a period and place. Kama and all sorts of things based off threshers and pitch forks and such. Aces are obviously able to be designed as a tool and used as a weapon or designed specifically for war. The knife is a classic because they find use in the kitchen or dining room through history but also every day life as a utility tool. Even in 2022 the knife is still a weapon with advantages. If you were sitting across from someone with a gun- a knife is one of the best weapons you could have. At that distance- your odds of being able to respond and use the knife to neutralize them as a threat before they can bring their weapon to effectiveness against you are generally way better than if you also had a gun- especially if you’re responding to them making the first move. If they’ve begun brining their weapon on you and you also have a gun- your chances of beating them to the
First shot from 1-2 steps behind aren’t good. Your odds of pulling the knife and using it before they can draw, ready the weapon to fire, and aim are very good. Likewise- a shot, especially taken quickly without time to properly aim- may not kill or may leave the other person able to shoot back. Closing the distance with the knife so the gun is mitigated as a threat and hitting a vital spot, sensitive area, or severing their tendons/nerves etc. to prevent them from firing or holding the weapon is still generally a better bet. Likewise- at close distance and especially from “surprise” the knife can trump the sword or spear. Just as the sword can possibly get inside the reach of the spear, a knife can possibly get inside the reach of a sword. It is faster and less obvious to draw or can be kept ready without the other person knowing you are already armed.
Knives are also fast. As fast as you can make them anyway- but the shorter the weapon the lighter it can be, and lighter plus shorter means you can generally change directions faster and easier and make more strikes in a period of time- so you get more hits or a greater overall chance to score hits by statistics.
It is hard to dodge a knife and they tend to be short and everything that isn’t already in your fist tends to be dangerous. That makes them difficult to grab or parry. Because they can be so fast and hard to see- over reaching or getting off balance against a knife is very dangerous as you are wide open. That means things like kicking can be very bad ideas against a knife- effectively limiting your options to fight back. If this seems difficult to grasp try this game:
Have a friend or partner stand within arms reach of you. Now- each of your dominant hands are “danger” and you may use your non dominant hand and arm
Normally but cannot score points with it. If you touch them with the dominant hand- that is a point. Ok. Now- you must lock your dominant elbow, wrist and hand straight. They may have their full motion. Try to touch them with your hand and they do the same. You probably don’t have to do it to figure out that they would likely tag you a bunch of times more than you unless your woefully mismatched. This basic principle applies across melee weapons to some degree. Reach can be a huge advantage if you have the space to use it and the mail set- but tactically such as in warfare your enemy will use a variety of formations and strategies and diversity of equipment to mitigate such advantages.
Weapons like whips, chains, etc. can be very effective against swords- they combine some of the advantages of a knife or shorter weapon with some of the advantages of a longer weapon such as reach. Many such weapons can easily disarm a sword at a distance and still also be effective five at closer ranges. At very close range they may lose some of their advantage in momentum unless you leave yourself open by swinging in large arcs which slow down your response and leave the effective end of the weapon inactive while you bring it back- but a decent weapon of such type and a skilled user can fight well close in as long as they have the space to leverage the weapon. Spears generally have an advantage against such weapons as they will generally have superior reach and inertia so the techniques that can make it easy to disarm
Or deflect swords may not be as effective.
To sum up and do the TL:Dr- there is a tool for every job. When a situation is literally life or death you ability to choose the “right tool” is critical. Of those three general types of weapon none is “better” than the other or universally advantaged to the others- the circumstances and particulars of the fight would matter a lot as well as the fighters. Swords are generally not the “best” choice in the modern day for a bladed or melee weapon and even historically often weren’t the best choice of weapon. There is a lot of “meta” in sword combat- the styles and tactics of a time and place and so forth mattering a lot as well as the design of the sword. Swords generally require more practice and training to be effective than others weapons- especially ones that are more familiar from daily life etc. spears are a good all around infantry weapon but not the best choice for personal defense in general.
The Japanese HAD to fold steel. They had poor quality ore and inferior metallurgy technology. The folded steel blade of a katana got around issues with the material by imbuing different areas of the blade with different properties- a relatively hard and brittle cutting edge that can be made quite sharp, a relatively “springy” spine that can absorb impacts without breaking. A very clever way to deal with the problem at hand and a big part of why Katana have only one cutting edge. The back of the sword isn’t made of metal that is good for a cutting edge. Now when we add up the issues with metallurgy and some other factors- the Japanese didn’t really develop much thick metal armor. So the curved single blade provides more cutting edge for the same blade length than a straight blade would and gives certain advantages in geometry for slashing. BecauSe the blades are brittle (and other reasons)
So continuing on- “spear” is a very general term and if we add the larger class of “pole arms” there are so many varieties and specialized applications it’s near impossible to speak comprehensively on all “spears” much the same as swords or even “katana” or “long swords” etc. so this is all very general and theoretical except where specific examples are given.
a sword is in some ways like a pistol- it is relatively concealable and works at shorter ranges and tends to be well suited for “one on one” fighting. They are light enough to carry around and really their only use is killing people. Non gun nuts don’t hunt food with a pistol and most militaries don’t give their general infantry pistols as their primary weapon (in fact historically and in the modern age general infantry may not be issued or choose to carry a pistol at all…) because pistols are good for carrying easy and killing people at relatively close range.
Many “peasant martial arts” come from this as well- and a lot of iconic or well known martial arts moves you see in movies etc. and think they’re either cool or pointlessly flashy? A lot of those are from peasant fighting. Things like peasant revolts or militias and home defense etc. a “standing split kick”- the one where someone is standing up and kicks a leg straight up so they are doing the splits but standing? People often think that’s a pointless or flashy move- and in 2022 it kinda is- but if you were a poor person who didn’t have horses and had to fight armed guys on horseback- being able to kick a guy off his horse so you could kill him on the ground where he didn’t have all that advantage was pretty practical.
It is hard to dodge a knife and they tend to be short and everything that isn’t already in your fist tends to be dangerous. That makes them difficult to grab or parry. Because they can be so fast and hard to see- over reaching or getting off balance against a knife is very dangerous as you are wide open. That means things like kicking can be very bad ideas against a knife- effectively limiting your options to fight back. If this seems difficult to grasp try this game:
Normally but cannot score points with it. If you touch them with the dominant hand- that is a point. Ok. Now- you must lock your dominant elbow, wrist and hand straight. They may have their full motion. Try to touch them with your hand and they do the same. You probably don’t have to do it to figure out that they would likely tag you a bunch of times more than you unless your woefully mismatched. This basic principle applies across melee weapons to some degree. Reach can be a huge advantage if you have the space to use it and the mail set- but tactically such as in warfare your enemy will use a variety of formations and strategies and diversity of equipment to mitigate such advantages.
Or deflect swords may not be as effective.