【海外の反応】「歴史の主役は槍だったのに、なんで物語は剣ばっかりなの？」海外ニキの解説がぐう正論だった件

Just because they look cool. Spears were more common and were largely the more effective weapon for most of human history, but swords have aura.

Aside from the Roman Empire, which used swords as a primary weapon for legionaries (along with their enormous shields and some highly specialized throwing spears), swords weren't very common in open warfare. But they were widely used in individual combat of the kind popular in fiction. And they were a sign of nobility (in Europe but also elsewhere): they were very expensive, hard to maintain, used for duels, usable on horseback and required training to wield properly. So they're associated with tall tales of heroism, and have been for over a thousand years, because for most of history it was primarily noble people that got to be considered heroes, in fact or fiction.

Swords allow for individual skill and showmanship. A pikeman could be trained relatively quick and the most difficult part of their job was marching. A single pikeman was meaningless; they only became a strong fighting force when combined with several other pikeman.

It's not great fiction when your protagonist is but one of many in a crowd, and where the extent of the combat skill is to hold to pike outwards and walk straight into the enemy. It's more entertaining if your protagonist can show off individual fighting skill with a sword.

I think swords being propped up as *the* historical weapon has a lot to do with their being weapons of the nobility, and history’s general fixation on the ruling class.

Also, swords can cut a guy’s head off, which makes them 1000% more rad than spears, which can’t cut a guy’s head off.

Same reason pistol are the standard in fiction, when wars were fought with rifles.

Your common soldier fights with the long arms, spears throughout history, long guns after they became common.
It was the cool and important people that had the swords and/or pistols.

And the stories follow those people.