Polearm vs Sword

Note: the argument I am responding to is in bold, and my response is the unbolded text underneath.Swords are more nimble, and easier to use. Pole Arms move very slow, while swords can enter strategic positions in the opponents stance. Pole arms may be more useful for blocking, and more powerful in striking power, but swords can take advantage of the slow speed of the pole arm to put in some quick stabs or slashes. As both the video I posted demonstrates, as well as the very quote that Con references later in his post, "a pole arm is not slow." As explained earlier, the polearm wielder can use the weapon like a lever or see saw, with a small amount of motion in the hands translating to a large amount of blade motion. Completely contrary to what Con argues, it is the sword's guard that faces difficulty because of how quickly the polearm can change direction.My experience comes from fencing, and being a member of Nashville's Medieval Combat Group. I am trained in both pole arms and swords, along with things like battle axes. Pole arms can crush armor, making it useless, but swords can take advantage of the gaps in the armor, like around joints, and gaps in the face shield of the helmet.The Nashville Medieval Combat Group is not a HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) organization, they are a LARP organization. They focus on fantasy as opposed to replicating historically accurate and proper technique. As for fencing, I myself am a competitive sabre fencer with some experience studying proper historical sabre manuals. Although one learns to duel quite effectively (although sport fencing still doesn't translate exactly), learning to defend against a polearm is a different thing altogether that no fencing club prepares you for. I contest Con's claims to personal experience, especially given that what they've said is demonstrably false given the video of an actual spear vs sword duel I provided, containing two master martial artists and historically accurate technique (and some catchy music, too!)" Well, he's going to have a whole lot more room, and he'll probably make use of a whole lot more thrusting maneuvers. If he has any skill at all he will be able to really take advantage of the length he has. But, if you're equipped with a shield, that advantage goes down the drain, because it allows you to smother his offense (the biggest strong point of a pole arm), and rush in with your own. The closer you get the poorer a pole arm is at the defensive.Not important in the context of this debate. I might as well make the argument that if the spear wielder is a knight in full plate armor on an armored horse with a polearm that the shield's advantage is rendered useless.There are big differences between a two-hander, a hand and a halfer, and a singlehander w/ shield in terms of use against a pole arm (or against anything for that matter. A true two hander gives you more length to work with, but no free hands for shields. Which means you'll have to be fast moving in, because a pole arm is not slow. Even if you've batted it to the side, rushing in can be tricky against a skilled user. Again, if he's familiar with the weapon, he can keep you at a distance, especially if you only have one thing in your hands. A bastard sword gives you the advantage of length and power, while still giving you the freedom of an extra hand when you need it. This is excellent for grabbing pole arms. If you can tug on it, there's not a whole lot they can do, especially if it's long. Sword and shield, well, the advantage there is obvious."This quote only serves to emphasize the inherent advantage of the spear. There are certainly work arounds for a skilled swordsman, but that doesn't eliminate the advantage. It's comparable to learning techniques to defeat a larger, stronger opponant in hand to hand combat. Are there things you can do to defeat them and take advantage of their weaknesses? Certainly! However, if they're of equal skill to yourself and have a foot on you, you'll be at a serious disadvantage regardless of the actual outcome. Additionally, although this quote correctly suggests trying to bind the spear and close in, as the video that I have referenced so many times shows, this is extremely difficult to pull of, especially if the spear wielder retracts the blade or uses the butt end. Additionally, if they can hit you several times before you can close regardless, there is still an obvious disparity.While Swords are better in maneuverability, As previously demonstrated, this is false due to leverage. Also, spears of mid length is not particularly heavy or unwieldly due to its wooden construction.pole arms keep their enemy away from them. No disagreement here.Once the swordsman get up close and personal, the pole arm becomes a stick. Not so if the spear is retracted and used like a dagger or short sword. Additionally, a stick (or in this case, a wooden shaft) is more than capable of killing a sword wielding human, as Miamoto Musashi was happy to demonstrate.The pole arm does have an opposite side for closer encounters, but only a trained professional will be able to use it, and only a very well trained, battle hardened veteran will be able to think of changing ends during a fight.Yes, but we've already established that both fighters are equally skilled, and it takes FAR more skill to effectively bind and close in on a polearm. Since both combatants are the same size, have the same experience,skill, etc., it is easy to assume that both combatants are complete strangers, and do not know each others fighting style.I disagree, since both were standard weapons in the east and west, and anyone following a true martial art would learn about both. The fact that among those who learned both with extreme effectiveness (knights and samurai), the polearm was far, far preferred makes this point quite clearly.