It probably had more to do with the fact that spears are good for hunting and swords… well i don’t think hunting with a sword would be very practical.
I’m not just talking about Europe here.
So who do you think would win a novice with a spear or a novice with a sword?
“well i don’t think hunting with a sword would be very practical.”
It’s not. …but for every time, every place, there are insane people. 
Just out of curiosity, this is a boar hunting sword (Schwein-degen) from the early XVI. century.
Nor would a hunting spear be very practical on the battlefield. Keep in mind, utility and martial blades were VERY different. For example, military axes had heads with edges that were much more sword-like; very thin in cross-section, which made them better-suited to cutting flesh. The sort of axe any peasant would have access to would have a much thicker, wedge-like edge better suited for splitting wood.
Would a farmer’s wood-axe work as a weapon in a pinch? Sure. But it wouldn’t be nearly as effective as a true battle-axe.
Likewise, a hunting spear would have a different design than a spear designed for warfare (boar spears, for example, had crossguards to stop a boar from charging up the shaft after it was stuck).
And incidentally, there was such a thing as a hunting sword, the use of which dated to the 12th Century. They were used for finishing off game rather than wasting further shot.
Doesn’t matter. Even in Asia the sword was a secondary weapon to the spear.
Swordmaking is INCREDIBLY expensive technology requiring a great deal of skill, regardless of where you are. Keep in mind that Rome was unique among ALL civilizations as having a sword (first the gladius, later the spatha) as the primary melee weapon of its army, and it owes a lot to Rome’s accomplishments in scale; they had mass production on a level you wouldn’t see again until the Industrial Revolution, and mass production = lower prices.
Swords require a lot of high-quality steel because of the nature of the weapon. It has to be light, with enough rigidity that it would flex back into shape rather then bend, but enough elasticity that it won’t snap under stress. The edge can’t be so hard that it becomes brittle or so soft that it won’t hold an edge. This is why so many early European swords were pattern-welded; to get the necessary properties irons with different carbon contents had to be laminated and twisted together. It wasn’t until late in the Middle Ages that you had quality homogenous steel in sufficient quantities that you could cheaply make an entire sword out of it.
An axe or spearhead, by contrast, only really needs to worry about the edge.
Insufficient data. The fight could easily go either way.
Just a side-note, since this went beyond Europe - I think Japan makes a pretty good example, just because of all the cheapass swords there. I know a lot of katana fanboys like to say that katana were super expensive and ermagerd high quality and exclusive and such, but during times of war they were generally pretty cheap to acquire… if somewhat low in quality (forge flaws, surface pockets from bad welds, etc). I mean, yeah, there were plenty of good smiths, but a LOT more bad ones. The late 1400s - early 1500s were basically the dark age of Japanese smithing - there are a lot of swords left over, but they’re mostly shit. Usable though. It got so bad with everybody carrying swords around and basically peasants rising up through the ranks and becoming samurai and all that, that they sent the military out to confiscate all the swords on several occasions, and basically decided nobody else could join the samurai class around the late 1500s.
Even then, with all those swords floating around, yup - 100% still a sidearm. Spears were still #1 on the field for basically everybody but the archers. Even the guys with really, really big swords mostly used spears.
Here’s a little bit posted by Karl Friday on why swords were so damn interesting despite being a secondary weapon - worth a read. (via http://www.e-budo.com/archive/index.php/t-3795.html)
"That’s a very good question, and I don’t have a completely satisfactory answer for it–at least not yet.
You’re right that the sword seems to have been a backup weapon for warriors through the medieval period, and became a key weapon and symbol of samurai identity only in the Tokugawa period, when samurai almost never saw battlefields, but DID carry swords around as part of their everyday dress. Researchers on the topic have been agreed for a couple of decades or more that the early samurai were bowmen, and the thrust of work being done on the Nanbokucho and Sengoku periods during the past few years points VERY strongly to the conclusion that missle weapons (first bows, and later guns) were the primary weapon of 14th-16th century battlefields as well, that bladed weapons came into play only in special situations or after one side had broken ranks and begun to run, and that even then samurai preferred (and feared) spears over swords.
The fascination of men like Bokuden or Muneyoshi with swordsmanship probably had to do with a combination of factors.
First and foremost is probably the overlap between sword and other military skills. The idea that fighting is basically fighting, regardless what weapon you’re using seems to have been a fundamental part of samurai military thinking from very early on. Hence warriors could use sword practice as a kind of microcosm of martial art–a vehicle to generalized expertise–including expertise in generalship. In this context we need to remember that men like Bokuden were the equivalent of officers, who usually directed squads of foot soldiers from horseback. By the 15th century there seems to have been quite a bit of specialization of function in Japanese armies. The archers and gunners who appear to have been the main offensive weapons of late medieval armies were all low-ranked soldiers, as were the pikemen who protected them.
A second factor is the effect of four centuries of post-medieval memory. We tend to forget that Bokuden, Muneyoshi, Hidetsuna, Matsumoto Bizen-no-kami and other famous late 15th and 16th century warriors were all famous in their time as spearmen, as well as as swordsmen. And most medieval bugei ryuha involved the use of numerous weapons; sword-only schools were really a product of the Tokugawa period. I suspect that much of our received image of these guys as sword specialists is the result of selective memory born from early modern and modern obsession with the sword.
A third factor is the symbolic value of the sword, and its value as a personal and dueling weapon. Swords are a central part of Japanese myth and warrior ethos, appearing in the very earliest written records, and were a standard side arm of the samurai from beginning of their history. They were the weapon a warrior was most likely to be carrying, even in civilian dress. And they were both the sexiest and the most practical weapon for one-on-one duels and other off-battlefield tests of skills. Most of the great swordsmen from the sengoku era in fact made their reputations primarily through duels and matches, not wartime, battlefield exploits.
In other words, we remember Bokuden, Hidetsuna, Muneyoshi and the rest as swordsmen because they were most famous for their sword fights. But that doesn’t mean that they were just swordsmen–or even that they were primarily swordsmen. It just means that they were especially good at or especially fond of swordplay, for a variety of reasons that are only indirectly related to what they actually did on the battlefield. The situation here reminds me a little of the final scene in “Quiggly Down Under,” when Tom Selleck (whose character was famous for his expert marksmanship with a rifle) shoots down the bad guy using a handgun, and remarks “I never said I couldn’t use one, I said I don’t LIKE 'em.” "
Im not a fan of polearms after chivalry. Even though the game isnt extremely realistic it completely ruined long swords and pole arms for me. That damn vanguard class is OP.
There are crazy people, but also people that simply make mistakes. I was listening to a podcast about the crusades (excellent podcast, highly recommend it - link here), and there is a story about Godfrey of Buillon, one of the leaders of the First Crusade. To preface this, I like to call him “Good-Guy-Godfrey.” Of all the leaders, he seemed the most forthright nice guy. When the crusaders eventually captured Jerusalem, he first, tried quite hard to stem the slaughter that the crusaders eagerly inflicted upon the populace. Then, when everyone wanted to make him king of Jerusalem he declined stating that the city of God should have no king. However, he did let them set him up as the head administrator, and he led justly and effectively until he died. Now, as far as I’m concerned he only has one, not-even-black-mark on his record. While marching down to Jerusalem, he came across a bear(?) (i’m pretty sure it was a bear…). He decided to try and hunt it down… with his sword… while on horseback… In the process of bringing down the bear, he managed to injure - and badly at that - his leg, with his own sword. It took a while to fully heal, and even then, the histories record that he walked with a slight limp ever after. The only significant mistake this guy made. At least the only one recorded…
Anyways, that’s my little story 
The use of polearms in a large battle is one thing, but travelling, enter into buildings and carrying it all the time with you…i am not seeing that…
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Otherwise, you should get stopped and questioned about your business if you are walking around with a polearm. It’d raise a lot of eyebrows to say the least.
isn’t it similiar as today?
If you were to carry a hand gun in some regions in the world, no one would blink an eye. But if you were to carry a sniper rifle at your back, that would be a whole different story
great point of view! xD
IMHO, the polearms are A MUST HAVE for KC:Deliverance!
So, I will back up the devs if they need more time to finish the game properly and/or make polearms the next stretch goal. @warhorse, we are with you from the very beginning and we will support you to the very end 
Please make the game we desire with any means necessary! No shortcuts 
I don’t know what to say after reading all the negative info…
No horse combat, no polearms… in a Medieval Realistic First Person RPG?!
Wow, this ruined my day…
I prefer to wait until 2017 and have all the above MANDATORY features rather than playing a half-cooked game. What do you think @SirWarriant?
I completely agree.
IMO, those zweihanders were probably also used to chop the spear shaft. Why so hard to believe?
I have clean cut through a 5 cm living poplar branch with a single strike from a production sword, so it is not such a big deal, if the swordsman could properly strike the shaft.
I think i rather agree with you. Without pole arms that leaves us with little weapon varity. And i had my heart set on using a spear so I’m rather disappointed. Of course I’m still extremely excited for the game but i think the game will just feel less complete without pole arms.
Glad Warhorse was honest about it though. Most companies would choose to tell us after the game was out that pole arms were no longer included.
The problem with this is again that everyone talks about this, noone does. If the pike has two-point support, then you could probably chop it in half, but the end with the spearhead floats freely and because of the arm lenght it requires really little force to push it away. In fact, you can push away a simple longword with two fingers. This means that a reasonable amount of force goes into displacing, and not damaging the pike. This goes of course, if you only hit one pike and the force doesn’t distribute to other pikes. Mind you, you are standing in the middle of a pike phalanx*, with pikes directed at your face and chest, and you are trying to achieve a clear cut on one of them with a weapon that has a full lenght of more than one and a half meters.
But let’s say, you do so. Let’s say you cut off one or two spearheads. While you did so, the second rank will impale you for an owergrown cocktail cherry.
I’m not saying there is no way you are right, but in my opinion and based on my experience of handling a greatsword, your best bet is to get through the danger zone of the pike’s spearheads and start working on the pikemen themselves. In the former, the sword can be a big help, yes, but why stand there and play woodcutter?
*something like this.
Would not be cool if no polearms are included
but good things needs time
One word: Langets.
It’s one thing just to chop through wood (easier said than done, too, consider that pike head is going to be moving). Good luck chopping through wood AND the iron strips reinforcing the end of the shaft and attaching the point.
And as @pras noted, you’re far more likely to displace the pike head than hack it off in a live combat situation. AND it’s not just one pike you had to deal with: A pike square was usually about 100 men in a 10x10 formation. That means ten rows of pikes sticking in your face.
If you’re going to try to hack off each individual pike head you’ll be there all day, whereas you’re more likely to be able to displace multiple pike heads at once.
I think the no horse combat is just a rumour. There will be no longsword in horse combat, but warhorse would not have this exeption if there were no horse combat at all. So I am sure we will see horse combat. Its just a rumour.
Even the thing about Polearms is not fixed. Warhorse is working on it, but they are not sure if they will get it in the right way, so they say “no polearms” to not make false expectations.
Warhorse are making morst accurate game ever, so I think they know exactly how important polearms are, they are not lazy.
Yet no half-swording, and a completely arbitrary decision to not allow longswords on horseback. 
