As a another data point here is a HEMA fight between spearmen and sword & shieldmen.
Note how the swordsmen only win when they charge in and get inside the range of the spears.Also note how they only do this after getting slaughtered the first time.
Also note that when they charge in the spearman next to the one beging charged tends to hit them.
Note that the spear isn’t exactly ‘slow’. Just has a minimum effective range.
Spears were mostly used for throwing or for presenting an enemy with a very prickly looking fence during onrushes.
Norse swords were fairly long, heavy, two-handed blades meant to batter as much as cut.
Sabers, cutlasses were mostly used for slashing. The quality of European blades varied but generally not as well engineered as Japanese blades although the Japanese had a variety of blades, also.
Nihonto or shinken, which are the refined wakizashi, tachi, katana, and tanto, were highly engineered. The tempering, folding or layering, clay quality and type, balancing, curvature. thickness and other aspects of geometry, etc. are all very specifically selected for these blades. They are very artistic and there is more involved in their smithing than simply removing impurities. If one wanted to buy a real antique or even a modern nihonto or shinken with hamon, they will pay thousands, likely $3 or $4000 and up and up and up.
Fighting styles varied a lot. Most of what is in movies follows few tactical guidelines and is flashy but not very utilitarian or pragmatic for anything else.
You may find the Japanese Book of the Ancient Sword informative if you are interested enough.
I once watched two medieval martial arts enthusiasts (one an author of historical fiction - in fact, this fellow: Christian Cameron - Wikipedia ) do recreations of historical medieval sword-fighting. Three things stood out:
(1) just as you say, it looked a lot like two crabs trying to crack each other’s shells - more like really deadly wrestling (and dirty infighting) than movie swordplay. That armor really worked - to get through it with a sword, you had to jab at weak spots. Hence the popularity of hammer-like shell-crackers - but there were, naturally, rather heavier. Swords (contrary to some modern notions) were pretty light by comparison, one of their advantages over (say) a war hammer.
(2) No-one could keep it up for very long. The armor wasn’t really heavy (the stories of guys having to be winched onto horses are all exaggerations of much heavier ‘jousting’ armor of a later date) - but it was very tiring to fight all-out for long: and if you got too tired, you were dead. That’s one reason knights fought in more than one line - if you got tired, you took an opportunity to switch with your buddy behind you for a breather.
(3) Spear-like weapons were still useful. The idea wasn’t so much to stab through the armor, but rather to knock your enemy off his feet, either by pushing him over or entangling his legs. Once he was down it was easier to find a chink to crack his armor. Some weapons had hooks on one end, and spikes or hammers on the other - to pull knights over, and crack or poke through a chink.
No. They were one handed and quite sharp:
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_sword.htm
*Viking sword
Swords in the Viking age were typically double edged; both edges of the blade were sharp. Swords were generally used single handed, since the other hand was busy holding the shield. Blades ranged from 60 to 90cm (24-36 in) long, although 70-80cm was typical. Late in the Viking era, blades became as long as 100cm (40in). The blade was typically 4-6cm wide (1.5-2.3in). The hilt and pommel provided the needed weight to balance the blade, with the total weight of the sword ranging from 2-4 lbs (1-2 kg). Typical swords weigh in at the lower end of this range. Blades had a slight taper, which helped bring the center of balance closer to the grip.
detail of inlaid crossguard
The modern reproduction shown in the photo above and to the left was made by Jeff Pringle and is a copy of a sword from the late 10th century found in the River Thames in London. Like the original, the reproduction blade has a greater taper than is typical for Viking age blades. The blade of the reproduction is 66cm (26in) long.
Both the original and copy have an intricately fabricated iron inlay on the blade, and precious metal inlay on the hilt and pommel. The copper and silver herringbone inlay design used on the reproduction was taken from an early 10th century Norwegian sword.
The photo shows a well-preserved Viking-age sword that dates from around the year 950. It’s an exquisite example of the bladesmith’s art from the Viking age. The overall length is 89cm (35in), and the blade length is 77cm (30 in). The total weight is 1.04 kg (2.3 lbs).
The sword was well used during its lifetime, showing battle scars and evidence of honing along the length of the cutting edges. The balance of the weapon in the hand is extraordinary, and it becomes an extension of the swordsman’s arm, eager to go where directed.
The sword bears the ULFBERHT mark as an inlay in the blade, discussed later in this article.*
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/293832-Hiker-Finds-1-2K-Year-Old-Viking-Sword
“the same spear Grásiða was used to kill Björn Þorvaldsson at Breiðabólstaður.”
Another mystery solved.
Agreed with DrDeth. I do not recall ever seeing a two-handed Viking sword except in fiction.
And to respond to The Other Waldo Pepper, swords are best used for stabbing. Records from the Napoleonic Wars indicate people suffered grievous wounds from slashing attacks, but stabbing attacks were more likely to be fatal. Most swords from the ancient and medieval worlds were stabbing implements, and experiments on animal carcasses indicate stabbing allows deeper penetration and better chance of penetrating armor.
Fine by me. So which would you stab faster with: a sword, or a spear?
I would not generalize though - some swords were intended for stabbing, others more for slashing.
The Romans clearly believed that stabbing was the proper use of the sword:
From De Re Militari by Flavius Vegetius Renatus: http://www.digitalattic.org/home/war/vegetius/
On the other hand - the British cavalry sabre was primarily used as a slashing weapon. Hence its curved shape, and heavier tip - admirably designed to slash.
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/c_swordpoint1.html
This weapon was designed for slashing only - it could not easily be used to thrust.
It isn’t obvious which was better - I suppose it depended on one’s overall military strategy.
Going back to first principles a bit, and much of this has been said piecemeal by others above …
Movie combat is one-on-one, or a group of one-on-ones. This is true whether it’s swords, airplanes, or a brawl in a Wild West saloon. Everybody spontaneously picks one dance partner & proceeds to dance with him.
Military combat is a team sport. Folks plan and train to fight as a unit. What works best in a 20 vs 20 is very different from what works best in a 1 vs 1. And this too is true regardless of era, arena, or tech.
In sustained combat, eventually the group tactics break down and some folks find themselves fighting as singletons. By and large those are folks whose side fell apart and already took heavy casualties. They tend to not be singleton winners, but rather simply the last to fall during defeat in detail.
As such, almost any depiction of 1-on-1 is not real world relevant to military practice of any era. It may well apply to police, robbers, vigilantes, assassins, brawls, duels & such throughout history. But that’s not my area, so I’ll shut up now.
Fun fact: The final model of British Cavalry sword was designed to thrust, not slash.
An analogy would be hand to hand combat nowadays…
Historical sword fighting in a life-and-death battle would have as much in common with staged fencing or kendo, as a karate bout does with a street fight. All the conventions, pretence at elegance, and staged elements go to pot, and everyone does whatever it takes to make sure they aren’t the one getting pummeled.
And both would have as much in common with Hollywood (or Kurosawa) swordfights as IRL fights do to kung-fu movies.
Certainly: the debate over ‘which was better’ continued right up until the sword became totally obsolete in the West as a weapon of war. During the Napoleonic Wars, the French favored the thrust and the Brits the slash. After the war, the Prussians adopted the “slash” school (and the British sword). As this sword demonstrates, by 1908 the “thrust” school was back ‘in the saddle’ in Britain, so to speak. 
I would not take from this that thrusting was the one true way of sword-fighting though: each party had reasonable critiques of the other (as the wiki points out - if you are on horseback and you thrust your sword through someone, you may break your wrist or not get your sword back!).
But there is room for a filmmaker to do action scenes that are more reflective of reality. It could make for a more successful film to a jaded audience used to the other way.
I just think it takes away suspension of disbelief to see a fight where they have to “cooperate” with each other to make it work.
And this is the key point.
What’s your purpose in holding your weapon and trying to hit the other guy with the pointy end? Are you trying to rob him? Are you trying to impress your buddies? Are you avenging your father’s murder? Or is stabbing people your job, and your goal is to stab him before he stabs you and your buddies? Do you stab people only when 1000 of your closest friends are backing you up, or do you stab people alone in the middle of the night?
Before the gunpowder era, and well into it, the primary method of winning battles was to stand as close to your buddies as possible, and advance together with your buddies. 10 guys close together could easily defeat 3 or 4 guys strung out at random. This is how Roman legions or Greek hoplites or Macedonian phalanxes could chop through vast armies of opponents. Then your spear is not just a spear. Your spear doesn’t just protect you, it protects the guy next to you, and his spear protects you. And there’s a guy behind you, and he has a spear as well. And you all march together, and you all do exactly what your unit commander says, and you massacre anyone who does differently.
The Roman legions switched to stabbing swords rather than spears, but the point remains the same. You don’t win wars by being an ultimate badass. You win wars by marching faster, and carrying more supplies, and fighting as part of a group. And when Roman legions fought against people who thought the point of war was to show off to your buddies what a badass you were, they massacred them.
And when you die it’s not usually because you came against an unstoppable badass who was just much better at swordfighting than you. It’s because your group fell apart, and you no longer had your buddies to protect you. Then it doesn’t matter that the guys who killed you are much worse at swordfighting than you, because there are 10 of them and one of you. And so ancient battles are not a matter of getting your guys in there to chop up their guys. Yes, you win by chopping them up. But you’re trying to break up their cohesion, so they’re no longer fighting together. And when they can’t fight as a unit, your guys massacre them. Or the other way around. Most of the casualties come after the battle is lost.
For the same reasons you don’t see people watching street fights as a sport (except in some towns when the pubs kick out 
) they aren’t very interesting to watch. They are unpleasant, short and not very glamorous. Though occasionally realistic fight scenes do feature in hollywood (the final scene of Saving Private Ryan, and some of the fights in Game of Thrones spring to mind).
Another analogy would be the famous film of the battle of the somme. The iconic scene (that is featured in almost every WW1 documentary) of British troops going over the top was actually staged for the camera, even though the filmmaker did capture real footage of troops going over the top, it wasn’t as dramatic as the staged version, so the staged version is what was used in the climax.
Actually, before the discovery of Toledo steel, Europe had a similar problem as the Japanese. The Celts developed Pattern Welding in the 2nd and 3rd centuries:
I don’t know when, exactly, the Japanese started to develop pattern welding but according to the Wikipedia page on Japanese swordsmithing, the technology was imported from the Chinese. And most of the large influence of Japan by China occurred in the 400-600 AD time period (e.g., Buddhism, manyogana, etc.) So it is likely that the Japanese both didn’t develop the technology - which actually probably originated from India - and even having gained it they still were much later to the party than Europe.
Now it’s possible that Japanese pattern welding surpasses what the Celts achieved, I’m not sure. But it’s not a uniquely Japanese practice nor did they invent it.
Then you’re talking dueling which is out of the ambit of the OP
Spears for melee (vs javelins) tend not to be top-heavy, as that makes for shitty point control, and they are still thick staves of wood so they can still serve as a staff for blocking when someone is inside the point range.
I think you’ll find the spear is way faster than the sword at the initial jabbing bit.
Too much armchairism with regard to combatives. To warriors it was pretty clear. In battle: full armor, using bow, lance, mace, halberd. Outside the battlefield: your sword, unless you’re on guard duty. Real or mock duels between the sword and the spear or halberd happen regularly. No real conclusions you can get from those but samurai need their swords with them at all times.
Weren’t those big heavy 2-handed broadswords designed to cut thru a mess of spears?
Nah. They’re meant to crack armor, or cut through shorter, lighter swords.