I’d invite discussion in both historical context and modern context(obviously against the same class of weapon, not an AK47).
They are large, bulky, and require two much of an opening to use. I’d be willing to bet in no rules combat a group of fighter armed with small machetes would be more effective.
So why were they so iconic?
There are a lot of historical reenactors on this page that would know, Historum:
http://historum.com/search.php?searchid=2725254
For its length and weight it gives you three things: impact, cut, and thrust. That’s basically what you want. Pure impact weapons are shorter and heavier, cutting weapons shorter while pure thrusters are longer but clumsier. Best supported by those weapons, depending on the circumstance.
Something I read about which I didn’t know is that you can actually get stabbed A LOT without dying or being significantly inhibited in fighting. Sure, the advantage of a smaller blade is that you’ll be more likely to cut your opponent. THe disadvantage is that it would be harder to get a killing cut, whereas those great swords, wielded by a strong enough warrior, could cleave someone in half or take a large enough chunk out of someone so as to disable or kill with one cut.
Reading a lot of discussions on the topic, people in the know will usually point out that, on the battlefield at least, the sword was more of a sidearm than anything - most infantry would use spears or javelins, which gave much longer reach (and could be combined with shields for a ‘shield-wall’ type push).
However, swords are useful in two respects - one is that they can be carried on the person easier than a spear, so they make more sense for someone travelling alone or in a small group (as opposed to part of a large army on a large battlefield). They also have the advantage of versatility - a sword can thrust, slice, and parry/block. These are probably the reasons why the sword is so pervasive in pop culture… oftentimes the sword-wielder is alone or part of a small group, fighting often 1v1, going places other than battlefields.
Arguably, a machete IS a sword - certainly much closer than a spear, or axe, or mace, or other medieval hand-to-hand weapons. If you’re thinking of, say, a hand-and-a-half sword, the main advantage over the machetes would be reach (and, by mirroring it, the disadvantage would be need for room, though not much room is needed for thrusting). It’s worth noting that many historians would dispute that swords are “bulky” or at least, heavy, this reference for example says that swords were often between 2.5-4.5 pounds.
While it stopped being a primary weapon at the time of caesar, there were too many instances wherein the primary weapon (bow, javelin, spear, halberd, even cannons and muskets) failed to decise the battle. In those cases, it fell to man-to-man sword play.
The “wielded by a strong enough warrior” is a point where I think well sure if you have a very strong warrior, and he gets a perfect swing and force going yes it will do a lot of damage. But you could say that about almost any melee weapon, I was thinking more of your average person which would be more likely.
A good point first point though.
I would like to say that many swords actually had points.
On topic: A sword is versatile. You can do a lot with it, and being that it’s expensive, it marks it’s owner as not a grubby commoner.
I’d rather have a sword than a spear if I were in a city setting. On a battlefield, probably not, unless I had a shield. Then I’d take a sword to go with it over a spear short enough to use with one hand.
I’m no expert, but I’ve trained a bit on the Chinese broadsword in my youth. A skilled swordsperson can be very fast and scary, and not have to lug an 7 foot pole everywhere they go.
I agree with you in the city setting, the main down side to the spear I see is that it is basically only a stabbing weapon and once inside a certain distance is almost useless.
Huh? Swords? No, they didn’t. The gladius was the primary weapon of the legionaries until the late Roman Empire. And then they just switched to to the spatha*, a longer sword.
The gladius was a relatively short sword, but it was totally a sword.
Roman infantry never used spears as a primary weapon, as far as I know, since the introduction of the manipular system waaay back when (although my knowledge of the waaay late period is sketchy, too).
And the gladius was most certainly for formation use, not individual gung-ho action. It was for stabbing, not slashing. Stabbing you can do in formation, while protected by your shield.
Stab, stab.
(*For apparently unclear reasons, although my wild ass guess is that Germanic troops who were increasingly making up the army were already used to longer swords when they entered Roman service, and the Romans couldn’t be arsed to re-train them.)
The primary offensive weapon by then was the javelin, though the sword usually settled it at the end. You also had cavalry and seige weapons.
Huh? The primary offensive weapon was most certainly not the javelin. That doesn’t even make sense on the face of it. Yes, the legionaries carried a couple of javelins (pila), but there is a limit to how much damage you can do with those. Mostly you can cause disorder and force your opponent do drop his shield. Maybe you hit a couple of guys, but when you’re out of javelins, that’s the end of that part.
The rest is the stabbing. Lots and lots of stabbing.
And yes, the Roman armies also had skirmisher auxiliaries using javelins, bows or slings, but those were most certainly second bananas to the guys with the swords.
Cavalry was important, but not the key part of the Roman army for most of its history (or at least not until it begins to play a bigger role from the third century).
Apologies if I’m being whooshed somehow.
Not the way I remember frim Gibbon and others. The first file peels off and charges, hurl their pillum and then draw their swords. If the enemy can survive the next file peels off and repeats it.
Dude, I think you’re confusing the large part of a battle that comes after the “if the enemy survives” part (which they do) with the one before.
My cite: All the Roman history I’ve ever read.
Or rather, think for a moment about what you just said:
The Romans employed line rotation, but it wasn’t “throw pila, bugger off, next”. The “if the enemy can survive” part of you sentence includes what happens after the “draw their swords” part. That’s where the main killing will happen. And you’ll probably be at it for at least a while until you manage to rotate the line.
Pila were often designed to be one-time use, and bend on impact, to stop the enemy from throwing them back. And in any case, when they’re thrown, you’re probably not likely to see them again no matter what. That’s not a “primary weapon” ever, anywhere, when you carry two of them. The primary weapon is going to be the more repeating one.
Of course, in practice, everything is variable, and you kill your enemy in which ever way is the most expedient on the day. Creative tactics matter, certainly (for instance, Caesar employing a line of legionaries using pila as spears to rout Pompey’s cavalry at Pharsalus). Can you use javelins (and other weapons and tactics) effectively and even creatively? Sure.
But still, in a nutshell: Things are probably going to get stabby.
As for another question (that nobody asked): Why did the Romans switch from a spear phalanx to legions using swords waaay back when, in the first place? Short answer: a) They picked it up from the Samnites, and b) it turns out that legion beats phalanx. The textbook answer to why that is: A legion is more flexible, while a phalanx sucks unless it maintains a rigid formation. The textbook example is Cynoscephalae. There’s probably more to it, though.
And another question that nobody asked: Does anything beat legion? Yes. Horse archers, and arguably cavalry in general. But that’s a different story entirely. And, obviously another legion. And ambushes! Also, AK47s.
You do know that the romans were the only army in the world that bothered to practice with the pillum. You also know that use and practice of that weapon among romans was by law limited to the army. Even civilians weren’t allow to use it for hunting. That should give you a hint of how strategic a weapon it was.
I meant peel, throw, draw, close, stab.
^^
I remember a battle wherein the macedinian phalanxes were chopped up from behind by sword-wieldung legions.
That would probably be Cynoscephalae, yes. 
Yes. The stab is going to be the more important bit, is what I’m (in theory, convincingly) arguing.
Anyway, I think I’ve said my part on this for the moment.