>>28508358

>>40649360
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81ZB3oiOMLY

>>40579372
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDOTgZnRQek

Swords are side arms
>But muh Knigh-
Knights mainly fought with lances, spears and maces. A sword is considerably harder to kill a guy in plate with than a mace.
>Okay but what about muh Samura-
Samurai may be known for Katanas, but the reality is the majority of them were horseback archers, when pushed used Yaris and Naginatas and the Swords were mainly ceremonial or symbols of status.
They also fucking loved guns.
>Okay well Vikings OBVIOUSLY had swor-
Vikings scrapped together whatever shit they had around mostly. Swords did exist especially in the latter Viking era where they were much more wealthy, but again it was mostly a status symbol.
Swords are weapons of status. power and ceremony. Are they functional weapons? Definitely, but for the vast majority there were other more suitable weapons to arm yourself with depending on the situation.
There's a reason Landneckhts were paid so handsomely, because they were experts with specialised weapons doing an insanely dangerous job.
I am now open to swordfag cope replies.

>>507365958
>silencedsaars