There's just such heavy symbolism with each weapon. The sword is seen as beautiful and elegant, because it is relatively simple...to anyone that doesn't make swords, anyway. The gun, on the other hand, is a machine. It thus symbolizes a sort of modernism that doesn't really go along with fantasy. Sort of like how factories are industrial and not generally involved in fantasy either. There's something cold and brutal about a gun, whereas the sword is a symbol of heroes.
This is why I specified sawed-off shotguns without chokes. I've fired unmodified shotguns without chokes and they do what you say they do. When I was in Canada about thirty years ago, I had the opportunity to shoot a sawed-off shotgun with a barrel only about eight inches long. Much shorter effective range, but a much wider spread! At close range you don't have to be very accurate with it. I don't own any firearms now, and haven't since 1986. So I haven't had experience with them since then. Sorry if my knowledge is out of date.
Not sure I understand the comment tbh. Swords were very common and historically have been for a very long time - at least since the iron age. Predating iron, even wood and some forms of stone were made into cutting dagger-like and sword-like implements. Every human culture came up with the idea - why? It is a pretty effective weapon when pitted against others in it's class, although spears and possibly staves are also good contenders as a very versatile overall weapon type. A club or axe has a limited cutting edge whereas a sword may have a three to four feet cutting edge, doubled in some cases e.g. the Broadsword. Warfare - as we are all aware is one of man's earliest issues. From the study of chimps we can see that internal warfare exists in primates - they regularly raid and murder other chimps that do not belong to their group. Even dolphin 'gangs' of adolescent males show behaviour which, although not fatal, is most certainly violent towards other 'non-gang-member' males and females. However, I believe the real infatuation with swords is a psychological one. I think that the gestalt of the sword carries more meaning that the iron or steel. The sword conjurs to the human mind a time of primitivism, of polytheism, of wilderness and majesty when awe and magic, fear and freedom where still very much the norm. We tend to forget the harsher sides of the reality of that kind of life i.e. death from the flu, plagues, unsanitary living conditions, rampant STD's, unregulated violence, lack of any justifiable law and order and so on. In our dreams though, I think we regularly long for that world of mystery and magic albeit a sanitised version. The modern world is often too obvious, visible and controlled for our dreams. So we seek solace in fantasy worlds where we can travel safely and cleanly and return for a ncie cup of coffee when we are done - with ne'er a hint of mud on our hems!
I prefer writing sword fights (or even hand-to-hand fights) over gunplay. Why? Style. Physical combat has much more room for individualism than firing a weapon. You can wield a sword with the wrath and raw power of a barbarian or with the grace and efficiency of a samurai. The way a person wields his/her weapon says a lot about his/her character and I just don't see much room for that type of self-expression with guns. Swords have both an offensive and defensive component. You can block, parry, dodge, or attack, and there are countless variations of all of the above. With a gun, all you can do is shoot or pistolwhip someone. (You can also run, use cover, seek a better position, etc, but you can do that with any weapon.) I'm not saying guns have no room for individual style, but it's important to remember that guns (especially modern ones) are designed to mechanize the process of killing. An ideal gun is one that removes the human element as much as possible. This isn't to say there's no skill involved, but the skills used in firing a gun are very mechanical compared to the skills used when wielding a sword.
This is in reference to, "it's not going to make a dent in his armour" It was not fencing. The sword of old is one laden with iron. Only a mighty man can take it. And it will slice through armour. That's a sword.
Depends on the cultural context....see Japan and watch some Akira Kurosawa -widely regarded as historically accurate in his depcition of Samurai figh scenes and overall historical battles from the Japanese feudal ages. Likewise the mongolians - who nearly conquered the world on horseback with small light weapons, silk shirts and bows and arrows. Swords - like anything else, shouldn't be cliched...there are many different types and styles.
The heaviest swords - Gaelic claymores and German zweihanders - weighed about half a stone. That isn't much, when wielded with proper technique. And most stabbing or swords (as opposed to the two crushing weapons mentioned above) couldn't cut through armour. They just clanked ineffectually against it, unless it was thrust directly forward or targeted at the weaker spots on your opponent's armour, such as under the shoulders or the neckline. That was why a lot of medieval knights went into battle wielding maces, and shook troops rushed in with battleaxes.
As someone who has a carry-conceal permit and enjoys going to the range, yes, accuracy is important with a gun. Even when you're relatively close to your target. Back to the subject at hand.... In a story that takes place in a bona fide, legit Medieval setting, then yes, swords are important, because people actually used them (at least, knights and stuff did, and those are often the types of MCs used in medieval settings). That's like asking why horse-drawn carriages would come up frequently in a story taking place in 1700s-1800s London, or why female characters would always wear burkas in a traditional Middle Eastern area. As has been mentioned, sword skill-building could also build on a character's personality, but whether that comes into play or not, it's definitely part of the setting. However, I will say that I think the Medieval stuff is often overused. If that's the setting your story calls for, or even if you just think that's a cool time period and choose in advance to set your story there because of genuine interest, cool. But I feel that there's often a stereotype that "fantasy = dragons, swords and elves in ancient times," even when there are many more types of fantasy out there. This might lead to new writers using medieval settings just because it's portrayed as default, or people automatically assuming that someone's fantasy story is naturally that kind, even when all they know is that it includes fantastical elements (of any unknown nature). I personally find that kind of annoying.
I own a WWII Katana, and I have to say that hearing it swish through the air with proper form is awesome. To me, it takes a lot more training and discipline to master a sword; the better the swordsman, the more discipline he has. (I used "he" because women historically didn't wield swords, despite how hot that is) Modern soldiers also have this discipline because of how much training they have undergone, but it's not the same. I mean, people use to devote their lives to "the way of the sword," but you don't really get the same romanticism with guns. It's also a lot easier to use a gun when you don't really know what you're doing. You can give a punk off the street a gun and he can do a lot of horrible things. You give a punk off the street a katana and maybe he sends a few people to the hospital. People don't really use swords practically anymore because the more-practical, less-stylish guns have outdated them. This is what made the lightsaber such a revolutionary idea; it took the style of the sword and made it relevant in futuristic times.
I'm going to have to disagree VERY strongly on that point. A few things I'd like to point out: 1. A sword requires less aiming skill, since you have an almost infinite amount of lethal vectors at any time. A longer blade, a much more deadly weapon, whereas a gun has only 1 lethal vector at any and all times (shotguns an exception). 2. A sword requires only the knowledge to swing one to do damage (Not saying wielding a sword's easy- it can be deadlier with less experience), but to use a gun you have to know how to turn the safety off, how to properly load/reload, and how to aim. 3. Modern medicine can help people with bullet wounds. It can't help reattach a limb. Traditionally, though, I'll have to agree with Mr. Kenobi, there. You can predict what a sword may do, and despite arguments I've given in defense of firearms, a sword still stands as a much more respected weapon in my heart. It's not a matter of whether a gun is better than a sword, or vice-versa, but it's a matter of how much respect a sword holds. Esteemed commanders are given swords because it's a much more clean and elegant weapon. It's a much more respectable and symbolic weapon and it'll always have its value.
@ Funky and Griffin- I respect what you both are saying; I just wanted to include my thoughts: #1- I thought we did have modern medicine that could reattach limbs? I've heard stories of people loosing their entire arm, only to have it reattached. Yes, it cost lots of money, and the person would have to go through therapy to get some (if any) control of their limb back, but it happens. #2- Guns are bit more complicated, as you have to routinely clean them (I watched a Youtub. If they get dirty, they'll jam up and not work. A sword? Just wipe it down, keep it sharp and you're good to go. In a fight, a sword can be better because you don't have to think about how many bullets left before you have to pause and very quickly reload to fire again. #3- A punk street kid with a katana is just as dangerous as a punk street kid with a gun. You can't even get close to him or he'll swing at you. Plus, like Griffin said, he wouldn't have to worry about reloading, just keep swinging like a madman. The way I see it is this: Even though technique is everything, nothing is going to stop a newbie from grabbing a sword, realize immediately that "pointy end goes into bad guy" and start swinging like crazy. Sure his sloppy footwork will get him either seriously injured or killed, but the classic amateur style with sword-fighting is "keep swinging at target and hope it kills it!" #3.5- It's the same with a gun, only this time it's "shoot a bunch of times and hope to hit the target". The drawback with this is that the newbie would have to consider a) if the safety is off, and b) if the gun's loaded at all. Otherwise, it's better to either use it like a mini-club or run.
My point is: It is really easy to kill with a gun. It is harder to kill with a sword. You can't deny that.
I don't deny that. =) I'm just saying that both can be deadly or ineffective, depending on surroundings and usage.
In a zombie apocalypse, use the sword. It never runs out of ammo and never needs reloading. I keep a five foot sword in my room for just that purpose. Kidding. It's a prop sword and a thing of beauty and I could not brandish it as it is almost as tall as I am LOL.
^ lol! xD I have a sword I bought from a Medieval fair a few years ago that the guy 'claims' is real (like with the other weapons like maces, daggers, etc), but the blade is so dull, I could rub my hand against it without causing any injury at all. I'm not sure if it's just the dull blade or if the guy was lying. Though the sword is perfect for me. Not too long and not too short.
Medieval swords did have dull blades. Granted, they weren't that dull. But they were nowhere near as sharp as people seem to think they were.
Swords are not kitchen knives and they are dangerous - they are not toys. As a result, most sensible retailers of medieval memorabilia sell the sword dulled - so as to prevent johnnie from hacking off his sisters hand. But as the post above says...during the medieval era in Europe, swords were not so sharp, it was more of a 'hack and bash' implement than a stabbing / lashing weapon. In any event, four feet of steel does a lot of damage when swung with force at an offending person. By contrast, Japanese swords were pretty darn sharp...but they went up agaist non-steel armour and the slashing cut was very effective - not so in europe where footsoliders wore steel armour, chain etc. The problem you have with a sharp sword is that it tends to get blunted or have the edge damaged reasonably easy.
