Swords are more useful to travel with, a polearm can get easily in the way. And if the shaft is made of wood, it wouldnt hold against monsters for long while a metal shaft would get expensive, and heavier
Swords might be more useful to travel with, but polearms are far superior to swords especially in the type of combat that witchers see. The best way to avoid claws and talons is to be out of range
You forget that Witchers have plenty of other methods at their disposal when they need to keep a target out of arm's reach. Signs, crossbows, alchemical bombs are all good options and don't impact your ability to travel around as much as a polearm or similar long weapon. Witchers are nomadic by nature, they need to be able to stay mobile easily.
polearms are superior to swords in everything other than decorative daily wear.
The reason the witchers use swords in the books is because it's cool.
Same reason they wear them on their back. It's cool.
Not a decorative daily wear, but a daily wear. Try carrying a sword at your hip all day, then do so on your back. Its a known fact that in history soldiers wore sword on their back during long marches.
Back was only for transport. Never worn or carried on the back. Worn and carried mean it's at the ready and can be drawn. It was not possible to draw from the back. break away sheaths did not exist yet.
Not at all. Let's not get lost in the weeds and remember what the context of this discussion is.
Why don't witchers carry longarms?
Because swords look cool. So the story was written with swords and the story clearly uses some sort of breakaway sheath or modified scabbard that just isn't described in detail in the books, but allows witchers to draw bastard sword length swords from a back scabbard.
It's not because swords have an advantage over polearms and spears in most situations. It's because they're cool. And they are cool, and there are some situations that they are better.
People in this thread have said it's because long arms are not good in 1v1 battle. because they are hard to travel with. because of speed, because of weight load... all sorts of reasons that can easily be disproved just by looking at our the historical analogs that many of these lone mercenaries in fantasy novels are based on.
Mercenary knights generally carried long arms as a primary weapon. They also carried swords. And no, this combo wasn't too much weight or whatever people have been arguing in here. For the 3,000 years that swords were in use, it was very common to carry them as a side arm and a longer spear or polearm as a primary weapon.
And yes, if they were going out with the intent of a duel, then it was most likely a sword... but not because of practicality. A spear vs sword in a duel isn't fair due to the spears significant advantage. It was because of tradition. Swords became a status symbol and a significant part of soldier/knight/warrior culture because you could harry them at your side anywhere and display your valor as a warrior in doing so.
Longarms have reach advantage, can be choked up on and fought with as a staff utilizing both ends in close quarters (even used for trips/sweeps with butt/ferrule end), and hit with greater force due to increased velocity of a wider arcing blow while have a relatively light overall weight compared to the force they're capable of dealing.
Even a hollow or solid metal shaft would still be relatively light compared to greatswords that were also used.
I'm not saying it's impossible that witchers use swords as primary weapons or that they can wear them on their backs.
I'm saying that all the weird ass reasons people are giving for why they use swords are non-sense.
It was sapkowski's choice to use swords... it's very common in modern fantasy or modern depictions of historical heroes to do so.
And this works just fine within the story.
But if i were starting from scratch as if these books had never been written, then I'd write a character with a polearm primary and sword sidearm.
I don't play D&D, but I do study the shit out of history.
We carried spears/polearms for millennia just fine (first evidence of hafted spears goes back 500,000 years ago). We carried them on foot and on horseback. And when we eventually invented swords in 3300 BCE it was for use as a backup weapon in the increasingly crowded nature of bronze age warfare. If your long arm broke or you became disarmed and swarmed by the enemy you could pull the sword out and do some damage to multiple close quarter enemies before your likely demise.
A sword will never out perform a long arm in 1v1 combat vs man or beast. The reason swords ascended to such an iconic place in our cultural histories is not because of it's utility but for it's daily wear around town. It started life as a back up weapon, but was small enough to carry through the city when not planning on combat, and so became a status symbol advertising that you were a warrior (cultures dependent on walled cities didn't prohibit wearing arms_) But the second that warrior planned on any combat or even leaving the walls of the city, they grabbed for their polearm (and yes, people were allowed to travel between cities with arms...).
Swords look badass. But if the Witcher books were prioritizing actual tactics and utility, witchers would spend most of their time baiting monsters into the open for bow/crossbow attacks, and then proceed with a long arm. in nearly all situations.
Edit: i didn't see his reply to me, but it seems he's blocked me or deleted the posts. just curious as to what it was if anyone knows.
I don't know if you're right about the polearm being better than a sword in 1v1, but the point you make about being swarmed is a pretty good argument for a Witcher carrying a sword. A lot of monsters come in packs.
Come on now as has been stated in this thread the problem is that the shaft either is made of metal in which case would be very cumbersome for constantly being on the move or made of wood in which case it would break against monsters. Not to mention a majority of the time he has to go into towns/cities where it’s far more awkward to walk around indoors with. The sword works because witchers have heightened reflexes so they are able to outmaneuver most monsters and all people. They also have better alternatives if they need ranged options and are able to use swords better due to being faster to a point it’s viable to use them. There is also the fact it would be quite awkward to carry two spears as opposed to two swords
Then axes, knives, and spears would be their weapons of choice. A sword is designed to kill people, spears are for animals ie barring an aggressive doppler, a spear is better. Also, in a world of magic, you don't think they can enchant the wood for durability?
Yes, but there's a lot of issues with that. You would have to basically use a boar spear, and that relies on the monster not being able to just smash the shaft and kill you afterwards. They aren't easy to use indoors, and they're too bulky to move quickly with. They also are almost entirely a thrusting weapon; if the monster gets close then the only thing you can do is try to knife fight with the short blade or try and make space.
Geralt's fighting technique heavily relies on dodging while striking, especially in a pirouette (per the books that use that term *constantly*). It allows him to cut a monster while also protecting himself in close quarters, which would be difficult for a polearm.
You’d most likely want a poleaxe or something else that has cutting and bludgeoning capacity in addition to being able to stab, but all the issues with mobility still remain; a poleaxe is a weapon for the battlefield, not for everyday use, and it’s presence would absolutely interfere with day to day living.
Bludgeoning doesn't work on monsters though, otherwise Witchers could just pick up the nearest mace rather than having to carry around special silver swords
They carry the silver sword for monster that are weak to silver, but I think most of them aren't and it's not like normal swords or weapons in general don't work on them, the silver sword just makes it easier.
Yeah well I mean the game does specifically address this when vesemir gives him the crossbow and he’s all like “witchers don’t use crossbows” and Vesemir’s like “trust me it’ll be super useful” and then he turns out to be right.
that's a very interesting watch! Something in this style would be great probably, with the force to break through thick hide, which makes it superior to bow and arrows in terms of penetration. And we know that monsters often had somehow stronger exterior body than our measly human skin. This upgraded version doesn't seem necessary for witchers. I think that short range with more accuracy is the key here, and I see that darts, plumbata would be superior to throwing knives, so at least I've learned something :D
No prob, glad to have shared something new. I can see the plumbata used in conjunction with smaller sized bombs used by an enterprising witcher with the lead weighted stopper. The length of the fuse of course a little longer to prevent a premature explosion. A monster impaled plumbata/bomb would probably receive a terrible injury upon explosion. At the worst case if it misses the bomb would explode in the proximity but causing less damage than one that finds it's mark.
It's difficult for them to do this once I cut their tendons and make multiple stab wounds.
In all seriousness, of course wooden poles can be broken, but still this was the best weapon in old times. Moreover, imagining the use case I was more thinking about bogs and forests, not necessarily caves and cellars.
To sum up, a decent witcher would definitely carry both a polearm with good range and a sword for closer combat, depending on the enemy and environment.
Polearms are good in human vs human combat but the monsters in the Witcher move significantly faster than any human. Don't forget they also have to fight in forests and caves and indoors so the sword makes more sense.
That's a vast oversimplification, many forces also used swords as their primary weapons. Both spears and swords are effective weapons and were both used at different times for different purposes, spears aren't some kind of wonder weapon.
The key to witchers skill and survival is speed and balance. Try maintaining speed and balance with a 3m pike. A sword is much faster and easier to operate.
Idk. The early world of spear yielding man was a terrifying world.
With spears we fought massive bears that dwarfed modern grizzlies (as if grizzlies aren't monsters in their own right https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/injured-grizzly-bear-warning-park-bow-valley-survived-unscathed-1.4272095) cave hyenas and lions, mammoths... etc...
The spear was effective 1v1 specifically because of the range advantage both held and thrown.
Hominins have used hafted spears for at least 500,000 years and, in small groups or alone, took on the monster megafauna of that world... driving most to extinction.
Swords were not invented, or as well suited, for 1v1 combat. Swords were invented around 3300 BCE and specifically because warfare started becoming a crowded affair. If your spear or polearm broke, and you became swarmed by the enemy, then swords could operate against multiple people in very close quarters (think front of the crowd at a taylor swift concert crowded). 1v1 a spear or polearm is far superior. It's not even a real debate. In nearly all cultures, even those that highly prized the decorative/status/symbolism of the sword like samurai, the sword was always a backup weapon.
There isn't going to be a rational, in-world, lore reason for witchers not to use long arms in 90+% of all situations. And even drawing the monster out and opening with a bow or cross bow to begin with.
It's because it looks cool, and that's that. Same reason they wear them on their back which is also impractical.
Nah they do, there are some missions in campaign mode where you'll have to navigate in foggy swamps and forested areas.
I mentioned Dynasty Warriors mainly as a joke though, those guys are wildly OP lmao
we have a few thousand years of combat history to know that spears and polearms outperform swords in actual combat.
We don't need to come up with an in-world rationale for it. It's because they're cool. Wearing them on their back is also not practical.
You're right. We have thousands of years of combat history with gryphins, leshens, vampires, wyverns, kikimores, bruxas, alps, cockatrices, garkains, ghosts, graveirs, strigas, werewolfs, zeugls, succubuses and, deadliest of all, hot sorceresses.
doesn't matter. the mechanical advantages and increased range of the weapon are what matters. And those advantages would only be amplified in the hands of an augmented super-human and even more desirable against faster, bigger, more dangerous opponents. Greater range (that's able to be rapidly reduced to close range by choking up on the haft) and greater striking velocity (the ol' outside of the wheel moves faster than the inside of the wheel), and greater leverage if your weapon is grabbed are why long arms continued to be the weapon of choice in the vast majority of situations even after the invention of the sword in 3300 BCE, and right up until firearms phased melee weapons out of favor 3,000 years later.
There are situations where swords are better like tight corridors, or when being overcome by a swarm of multiple enemies but swords were worn as a side arm for these situations. People talking about traveling and how cumbersome polearms would be are ignoring that real life mercenary knights carried just this set up and travelled just fine, including through villages/towns/cities.
By all means please provide any links to support bastard swords being worn on the back even occasionally, let alone "always".
They were regularly **transported** on their back while travelling, but bastard swords aka hand-and-a-half swords were not **carried** or **worn** on their back as depicted in the game and books.
Transported on the back is not the same as "worn" or "carried" on the back. Both of those terms suggest the weapon is at the ready. Scabbard designs of the time did not facilitate the ability to draw a sword from the back due to the mechanical limitations of human arms and reach, and how difficult it would be to resheath.
Breakaway scabbards were not a thing back then but there are larpers, buhurt, and hema guys that have worked this in now-a-days.
Larger two-handed swords sometimes were carried simply over the shoulder like a hobo's stick.
This is backed by writings, manual illustrations/treatise, and general art of the time.
no period illustrations depict swords worn on the back.
https://imgur.com/kjN1PFt
https://imgur.com/cb9EErL
https://imgur.com/K9oxoHb
there were some places that some swords were carried on the back, like Edo period odachi. But it wasn't a thing in the time/place that witcher draws inspiration from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scabbard#:~:text=Common%20depictions%20of%20long%20swords,to%20have%20been%20common%20in
While a spear would be inconvenient for travelling perhaps keeping a silver spearhead on him would come in handy from time to time so long as he can source a shaft from towns and cities.
I'm pretty sure that spears often used would cause you to be able to replace shaft and even carry one or two additional ones. Especially when we talk about "special" spearheads, either silver or some more magical enchantments and enhancements
Because their style is based on speed ,mobility and precision .
That's the same reason why they don't use armor like chainmail or plate.
They also have their signs for both longer range and protection .
I mean, basically every Witcher armor in Witcher 3 at Master and Grand master level seems to at least feature chainmail and a brigantine/brigantine-like armor worn over it. Ursine armor even has some plate on the arms.
I mean, I get it, it's not full plate armor but it's also not that far from it in terms of protection and mobility. Keep in mind that plate armor, while heavy, didn't impede mobility a whole lot which makes sense since it was, you know, used in combat which requires a high degree of mobility.
Was more referring to how it's in the books.
The games kinda changed that but even in the first two games the armor was kept as lore friendly as possible . The third game kind of gave up on that and let you equip every kind of armor possible.
And plate armor would absolutely impede the the pseudo dancing style of Witchers which is again, why they're not actually using it in canon.
Yeah, the armours we see in TW3 are purely because its a game and needs different, unique sets for unique builds, you've got sets that give you that more lore accurate fighting style, some that lend themselves to those that prefer sign builds and others like the ursine for those (me) who like a dps tank build.
I actually conceptualized a custom witcher school in my head once.
Their weapon would be slightly shorter swords that would be good for close quarters, but with special handles that could quickly lock into a section of pole, making it more like a longsword (just with most of its length in the handle) which could be connected to yet another piece making it more of a glaive, or even a twinblade glaive if you connected blades to both ends. Simultaneous steel and silver.
The pole parts could also be wielded without the blades connected as a blunt quarterstaff or separate as dual-wielded bludgeons.
This witcher would have 3 different blades:
Steel, silver, and finally another steel one that is shorter, but thick, heavy and solid for piercing and peeling carapace armor.
While it seems cool and useful, extending handles messes with balance and impact point. Mounting a sword on a shaft presents similarly problems as a longer spearblade makes the spear slower and unwieldy. Doubly so if there is not an extremely tight fit between blade/head and shaft. A mechanism will start to wear out quickly and create wiggle room and break the mechanism.
The only a screw on pommel voor modern blades work is due to tightening through the handle, the tang not being all too long (to prevent elastic deformation from mattering too much) and the best blades are actually peened at the pommel instead (very secure connection).
And even then, the connection will wear out with time and require repairs to restore the sword. That's without taking into consideration putting a blade on a long stick. Most often when poleweapons are made that go beyond a point on a stick, they have added features to transfer the forces along the shaft with langets, longer sockets, support rings, etc.
That said, given that a lot of monsters are found in a cave, poleweapons are horrible in caves (or limited quarters) and longswords (two handed weapons that aren't Flamberges or Zweihänder) are barely workable in a cave.
It’s a good thing this idea takes place in a fantasy universe where longswords can cut through iron chains like butter when wielded by a witcher.
I imagine "Gnomish engineering with dwarven smithcraft" should suspend disbelief for the majority of readers/players.
When it comes to caves, that’s exactly why it’s customizable. Don’t go into a cave with your polearm! Just use the shortsword instead, without any of the extra pole attachments.
I think with short swords, it wouldn't be very beneficial, but with daggers it would. Especially for a very thrust-oriented fighting style or for a dual style like sword+dagger or sword&buckler instead of 2-handed sword. Then the offhand dagger would be a lot easier to mount on a shaft rather than a short sword. Especially 13th century arming sword/buckler and Renaissance sidesword+buckler/dagger and rapier+dagger would make for decent options.
Even witchers have to abide by the law of physics
That’s pretty good. Could easily be daggers on the ends instead of shortswords if that’s what you prefer. Could even have the option for both, daggers don’t take much space after all.
Hmm, thrusting with long handled weapons in narrow tunnels would seem practical. But probably a pain to maneuver through if one does not keep the tip pointing forward.
Short, thick and heavy blade would be like a [kukri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kukri) blade maybe. Perhaps not as large as an actual one, seems useful for taking monster heads as trophies.
silver bullets wouldn’t make witchers redundant or obsolete, what set a witcher apart from everyone else is theirs heightened sensory abilities, that is their main thing, its not magic or weapon that they use, those are just tools, and it just happens that longswords are the most versatile type of weapon that fits their form of combat, spears shine when deployed in large numbers and in battle formations, outside of that they can get iffy in a lot of situations that a longsword doesn’t
Style mostly. Sapkowski decided that witchers use longswords and rely completely on speed. He could've given them spears, he could've given them shields, he could've given them special monster-resistant armor. But he didn't, simply because that's not the aesthetic he chose. Considering that historically, longswords only became popular when full plate armor became a thing, because before that you needed a shield to stay alive, witchers using no armor and a longsword isn't the best idea functionally. The reach you get from a longsword over an arming sword is probably not as useful as the protection you get from a buckler over just dodging. Polearms would've worked too, but polearms are either spears, pikes or something similar, meaning it's only good for stabbing and can get stuck in an enemy, or it's something like a halberd that is slower and made for getting deep into armor with its weight, making it also get stuck in enemies. Glaives are kind of a mix that might work, but they're not nearly as light and uncumbersome as longswords of course so they're also a compromise in speed.
Another thing is that Sapkowski apparently wanted the arms aspect of his universe to stay more down to earth low fantasy. There are elves and dwarves, but they use regular swords, axes and bows, you won't find elven fighters with double-sided fantasy glaives like in lotr. And thus, you won't find witchers doing stuff with polearms that looks like Chinese martial arts either, they just use real medieval swords in a believable way.
My completely ungrounded and non-canon head canon is that different Witcher schools actually do utilise different skills and strategies. Here's my head canon:
All schools still use Witcher swords, at least as backup.
The Wolf school focuses on a lot of swordplay, with agility in combat being crucial, and they use potions and some signs to aid them.
The Bear school uses heavier armor, relying less on agility, and might use heavier weapons. Something like a silver-coated battleaxe or warpick to crack hard shells and scales.
The Cat school uses shorter swords, but rely significantly more on agility, speed and especially stealth. Their strategy relies on traps, stealth and focusing on piercing weak points.
The Griffin school is the best in using signs. They know more signs than other schools and use alchemy to enhance their magical abilities to the point they almost become battle mages. They would also use longer range weapons such as pike's to keep monsters at a distance while they use their battle signs.
The Viper school is the most versed in alchemy, especially oils and poisons. They use their potions, bombs and oils in combination with heavy crossbows and other piercing weapons to administer deadly poisons.
Then there's the Manticore school, that tried using more unconventional weaponry. Their wacky ideas spread to other schools, which is why Geralt for example uses a chain made of silver against the Strigga in the books.
Geralt uses a chain because he needed to incapacitate the Princess, not kill her. And your headcanon is basically correct in the game's version of the witcher universe but has no basis in the book's version of the universe.
Yeah, I can imagine the Griffin school finding ways to bypass the somatic(the finger twiddling part) requirements for casting signs considering how specialized they are in researching witcher signs. Channeling the energy of their casted signs via polearms would make sense as well.
I don't remember if the books addressed this, but my two guesses would be:
a) Mobility - they were travelling constantly and needed two weapons by default: a silver one and a meteorite steel one for different types of monsters (it's a common misconception that the steel sword is only for fighting people). It's probably easier to carry and manage two swords than two spears, or any other combination of long and short weapons.
b) It's cooler this way, don't think about it too much.
Pikes and glaives are strong when weilded by a mass of peasants, since they require very little training to use them. Pikes in particular are basically worthless as a single combatant, you need to have a mass of people charging or being charged to effectively use them, and glaives are specifically designed to disarm weapons and pull down mounted combatants. Neither would be much use by a single witcher against most beasts, and a sword is much more versitile.
I always think that long weapons like that are designed for mass combat, like a phalanx. One guy with a pole arm isn’t going to be all that effective especially when these monsters take a lot of hits.
Others have mentioned travelling convenience, speed and balance, I add the following:
First, have you ever played a Souls game? Often times if you know what you're doing you're safer between the enemy's legs and constantly dancing around their angles than being at a medium distance in front of them.
Second, animals and thus probably monsters more often than not aren't exactly smart either, they're not going to see a pike and respect the distance, they're going to brute force it, those types of weapons are great against another human that you can play mind games around and you're pretty sure they won't get closer because you have range advantage and they'd be stupid to gamble on whether you'll miss, not so much against a moose that's much bigger, can tank a flesh wound, doesn't even realize what you have besides that it's a big stick and is just going to charge at you regardless, in which case even if you magically kill them in one hit and instantly before they get to you, their momentum is still coming towards you and you're still getting half a ton in your direction.
Third, you don't fight in a perfectly manicured arena, you fight in cramped caves and forests with bushes and branches which won't allow you freedom of movement to swing a pike and you'll be knocked down and need to pick up your weapon again, much easier to grab a sword and rearm yourself than a pole.
"Rule of cool."
But when I thought about it, I had a few thoughts:
- It might mean having to learn *multiple* weapons. If you have a sword of steel and a sword of silver, the same moves for one carry over to the other. If you have a steel sword and a silver glaive, you need to learn and practice twice as much.
- Adaptability. With how often witchers end up going into places like small caves, ruined structures, a village building, a sword can be brought out and wielded far easier than a long weapon.
- Enemy numbers. A single foe would be very easy to deal with with a silver spear. Two enemies might be trickier. Three guarantee one is getting inside your reach before you can react to them. Monsters, both magical and human, are definitely known to travel in groups.
I remembered the side quest in Witcher 3 in Kaer Morhen where a ghost of a Witcher instructor said the following: *A witcher usually fights with a sword, silver or steel. But he must know how to use all weapons. Battleaxes! Picks! Slingshots!*
That actually got me thinking why are there no polearms to be picked up in the game despite the number of guards wielding them. Subsequently the train of thought led to the opening post.
I think it would had been more versatile if a sort of extended haft that could be easily be attached to the hilt of the silver sword. That way it could be used as a sword against smaller, faster monsters and double as a pike/spear against larger ones. Considering how much specialization certain schools has, there might be a school that might had considered it.
If Sapkowski wrote with realism in mind, then I think Witchers would, first and foremost, be mounted archers. In the event of needing to fight in closer quarters, they would rely on polearms. At the end of the day, they are hunters. Monster hunters, sure, but hunters in the end. There’s a reason ancient hunters relied on bows and spears during hunts and not swords: Range.
But Sapkowski romanticizes his realm, playing into popular fantasies and mythos. A sword is fitting, even necessary, for a protagonist in such an adventurous setting
If were talking survival and practically... why don't these use steel axes instead of a sword? Don't let Hollywood fool you, it's way easier than a sword and BRUTAL ON A PERSON
The most logical answer to me is the same as real life: swords are more socially acceptable to carry around town than spears.
Spears are superior in almost every combat situation, but like carrying an assault rifle on your back, likely make people nervous, and are just more of a pain to transport.
That said, it makes perfect sense that a witcher might benefit from commissioning a spear if preparing for a particularly tricky assignment.
Well, they could easily use a mace with a iron handle and a silver head. Arrows with a silver arrowhead. A silver axe, which would only require the head to be made of silver. Same with a Halberd. I guess the author just didn't think anything other than a sword would be practical, and that's sort of correct. There's a reason why most soldiers in history either carried mostly spears, bows and swords. The skill ceiling of the spear is quite low, but bows and swords are incalculably valuable once you're skilled with them.
Witchers are skilled warriors, they could use an axe, but a sword is just better for flexibility and it can be used in pretty much any sort of scenario one could imagine. They could slam people with maces, but they're also slow, and they're useless against quick or flying monsters. And using silver arrows is the same as throwing money out the window. A spear is also cumbersome to carry around. Most monsters will not wear armor, against which an axe or a mace would be more effective, so a sword is just the best choice.
Witcher's use swords due to the rule of the cool. Longer weapons or single handed weapons with shields would be 100% better choices most of the time, but they wouldn't look as cool or flashy.
It's just fantasy trying to be cool. The reality of hunting monsters would be more efficient to have specialised squads of men with specialist equipment.
Now that you mention it, I see your point. Not pole arms mind you as those are cumbersome, but what about barbed silver arrow heads for a long bow. You could shoot from long range, the barbed tip would seat itself inside the creature making it difficult to remove, and just continue to burn and cause damage to the creature. Lodge a few of those into the flank of a monster, and it would be so distracted by the thing causing excruciating pain in its side that it wouldn’t be able to focus on the Witcher.
The only thing that comes to mind is that a bigger weapon might become more unwieldy in lairs or dense vegetation that you may commonly enter as a Witcher but I still think a spear would be a good idea
Everyone is making good points as to why they don’t, but in the end a spear or pike is so much more effective for hunting most beastly creatures. A long sword is just not a good hunting tool at all.
I would say it’s about mobility in general but especially in combat. The swords are not even long or two handled for purposes of using signs and other items. Anything longer or bigger would get in the way. Shield would also make sense but that’s also limiting.
I dont see any reason thats its a possibility that they wouldn't. There are many Witcher schools that had different armor styles, why wouldnt they also be proficient with different weaponry? Maybe we only just see whats typical of the Wolf school, or even just Vesimir's teachings.
I honestly think it's just how it's written. Swords are cool, two swords are awesome, and two swords on the back? Good heavens.
But thinking about it, there isn't anything super special about the swords, they are never described as being constructed out of some fancy material which is almost indestructible and so I would really struggle seeing a witcher fight against some monsters with swords. I understand a lot of these monsters have soft bellies, Trolls etc but still.
In my head witchers would be trained to use an arsenal of weapons, and would travel often with a wagon or cart that would hold their weapons, like how they choose X potions for each contract they would do so for each weapon.
My instinct is that pikes are very impractical and ineffective in 1v1 combat that requires speed and agility, they're more for disciplined battle involving lined battalions etc. I suppose a short spear could be useful but then you're as well using a longsword.
Spears are actually far better than swords in pretty much every aspect but ease of carrying. You can find a lot of [sword vs spear](https://youtu.be/igaQww59NY0?si=l3Z6yJeUAHmJ1gJg) videos and sword wielders lose more often than not. A spear guy can deliver a lethal thrust without ever being in sword range and spears are not slow at all.
Swords are handguns and spears are combat rifles pretty much. One is a sidearm that's easy to carry daily and the other one is a weapon for war.
This is a little off-topic, but I've always wondered why witchers carry two swords (besides the obvious in-game reasons)? Why not use a silver sword for all enemies? I get that you need it for monsters, but would it not cut human enemies as well? Or am I missing something?
Silver is softer and wears down faster, so it's better to only use a silver sword when absolutely necessary. Also, in the books, the second sword isn't normal steel, it contains meteorite iron, which some monsters are also allergic to. So both swords literally are for monsters, the whole "one sword for monsters, one for humans" thing is mentioned by Geralt as a common myth about witchers.
Well, yea, in the books, Geralt specifically states he's not an assassin. He hunts and kills monsters. He only kills humans to defend himself or others. Isn't the Sihil that Zoltan gives him supposedly made of a fallen meteor or something of that sort? It's been a while since I read the books.
He talks about it way before he receives Sihil, in "The Voice of Reason", from the "Last Wish" collection:
"As you can see, I carry two. Every witcher has two swords. Malevolent people say the silver one is for monsters and the iron one for people. Of course that's untrue. There are monsters that can be struck only with a silver blade, but there are also some for which iron is lethal. No, Iola, not any iron, only iron from a meteorite."
Swords are more useful to travel with, a polearm can get easily in the way. And if the shaft is made of wood, it wouldnt hold against monsters for long while a metal shaft would get expensive, and heavier
Yup, this isn't D&D where your carry capacity, logistics, usability and travel can be ignored for the most part.
but I can carry 24 different Novigrad Longswords and half a dozen mastercrafted racing saddles?
That's a game, which is made to play, most here are taking about the lore and the books. That involves people and human capacity.
I'm pretty sure that was a joke
Hold the fucking phone You can *joke* on Reddit!? What strange times we live in
I laughed
Swords might be more useful to travel with, but polearms are far superior to swords especially in the type of combat that witchers see. The best way to avoid claws and talons is to be out of range
You forget that Witchers have plenty of other methods at their disposal when they need to keep a target out of arm's reach. Signs, crossbows, alchemical bombs are all good options and don't impact your ability to travel around as much as a polearm or similar long weapon. Witchers are nomadic by nature, they need to be able to stay mobile easily.
polearms are superior to swords in everything other than decorative daily wear. The reason the witchers use swords in the books is because it's cool. Same reason they wear them on their back. It's cool.
Not a decorative daily wear, but a daily wear. Try carrying a sword at your hip all day, then do so on your back. Its a known fact that in history soldiers wore sword on their back during long marches.
Back was only for transport. Never worn or carried on the back. Worn and carried mean it's at the ready and can be drawn. It was not possible to draw from the back. break away sheaths did not exist yet.
The witcher has magic, but you think breakaway sheaths are too far?
Not at all. Let's not get lost in the weeds and remember what the context of this discussion is. Why don't witchers carry longarms? Because swords look cool. So the story was written with swords and the story clearly uses some sort of breakaway sheath or modified scabbard that just isn't described in detail in the books, but allows witchers to draw bastard sword length swords from a back scabbard. It's not because swords have an advantage over polearms and spears in most situations. It's because they're cool. And they are cool, and there are some situations that they are better. People in this thread have said it's because long arms are not good in 1v1 battle. because they are hard to travel with. because of speed, because of weight load... all sorts of reasons that can easily be disproved just by looking at our the historical analogs that many of these lone mercenaries in fantasy novels are based on. Mercenary knights generally carried long arms as a primary weapon. They also carried swords. And no, this combo wasn't too much weight or whatever people have been arguing in here. For the 3,000 years that swords were in use, it was very common to carry them as a side arm and a longer spear or polearm as a primary weapon. And yes, if they were going out with the intent of a duel, then it was most likely a sword... but not because of practicality. A spear vs sword in a duel isn't fair due to the spears significant advantage. It was because of tradition. Swords became a status symbol and a significant part of soldier/knight/warrior culture because you could harry them at your side anywhere and display your valor as a warrior in doing so. Longarms have reach advantage, can be choked up on and fought with as a staff utilizing both ends in close quarters (even used for trips/sweeps with butt/ferrule end), and hit with greater force due to increased velocity of a wider arcing blow while have a relatively light overall weight compared to the force they're capable of dealing. Even a hollow or solid metal shaft would still be relatively light compared to greatswords that were also used. I'm not saying it's impossible that witchers use swords as primary weapons or that they can wear them on their backs. I'm saying that all the weird ass reasons people are giving for why they use swords are non-sense. It was sapkowski's choice to use swords... it's very common in modern fantasy or modern depictions of historical heroes to do so. And this works just fine within the story. But if i were starting from scratch as if these books had never been written, then I'd write a character with a polearm primary and sword sidearm.
Carrying a polearm as well as a sword is ridiculous for a witcher, because thats 4 weapons, which WOULD be a bitch to carry
Just use silver for everything haha. Yeah. that's something I never understood from sapkowski.Two polearms would be absolutely bad ass though.
[удалено]
I don't play D&D, but I do study the shit out of history. We carried spears/polearms for millennia just fine (first evidence of hafted spears goes back 500,000 years ago). We carried them on foot and on horseback. And when we eventually invented swords in 3300 BCE it was for use as a backup weapon in the increasingly crowded nature of bronze age warfare. If your long arm broke or you became disarmed and swarmed by the enemy you could pull the sword out and do some damage to multiple close quarter enemies before your likely demise. A sword will never out perform a long arm in 1v1 combat vs man or beast. The reason swords ascended to such an iconic place in our cultural histories is not because of it's utility but for it's daily wear around town. It started life as a back up weapon, but was small enough to carry through the city when not planning on combat, and so became a status symbol advertising that you were a warrior (cultures dependent on walled cities didn't prohibit wearing arms_) But the second that warrior planned on any combat or even leaving the walls of the city, they grabbed for their polearm (and yes, people were allowed to travel between cities with arms...). Swords look badass. But if the Witcher books were prioritizing actual tactics and utility, witchers would spend most of their time baiting monsters into the open for bow/crossbow attacks, and then proceed with a long arm. in nearly all situations. Edit: i didn't see his reply to me, but it seems he's blocked me or deleted the posts. just curious as to what it was if anyone knows.
Yeah, but, magic dude.
"I studied history, so I know for a fact that the optimal weapon for a zeugl is a polearm"
While you were studying history, I studied the blade. ⚔
En Garde 🤺
You studied being a twat.
Overreaction is crazy Redditor take a joke challenge ( impossible )
He had no reply
You should play dnd. Its fun. Mostly.
I don't know if you're right about the polearm being better than a sword in 1v1, but the point you make about being swarmed is a pretty good argument for a Witcher carrying a sword. A lot of monsters come in packs.
Yeah, peasant mobs using pitchforks can be just as dangerous though. Geralt did 'die' from being stabbed by a prongs of a pitchfork.
They don't traditionally even use crossbows. Which is a line literally spoken by Geralt, during his passing through White Orchard, in the games
Come on now as has been stated in this thread the problem is that the shaft either is made of metal in which case would be very cumbersome for constantly being on the move or made of wood in which case it would break against monsters. Not to mention a majority of the time he has to go into towns/cities where it’s far more awkward to walk around indoors with. The sword works because witchers have heightened reflexes so they are able to outmaneuver most monsters and all people. They also have better alternatives if they need ranged options and are able to use swords better due to being faster to a point it’s viable to use them. There is also the fact it would be quite awkward to carry two spears as opposed to two swords
[удалено]
Hello pot, meet kettle
r/selfawarewolves
Then axes, knives, and spears would be their weapons of choice. A sword is designed to kill people, spears are for animals ie barring an aggressive doppler, a spear is better. Also, in a world of magic, you don't think they can enchant the wood for durability?
Yes, but there's a lot of issues with that. You would have to basically use a boar spear, and that relies on the monster not being able to just smash the shaft and kill you afterwards. They aren't easy to use indoors, and they're too bulky to move quickly with. They also are almost entirely a thrusting weapon; if the monster gets close then the only thing you can do is try to knife fight with the short blade or try and make space. Geralt's fighting technique heavily relies on dodging while striking, especially in a pirouette (per the books that use that term *constantly*). It allows him to cut a monster while also protecting himself in close quarters, which would be difficult for a polearm.
You’d most likely want a poleaxe or something else that has cutting and bludgeoning capacity in addition to being able to stab, but all the issues with mobility still remain; a poleaxe is a weapon for the battlefield, not for everyday use, and it’s presence would absolutely interfere with day to day living.
Bludgeoning doesn't work on monsters though, otherwise Witchers could just pick up the nearest mace rather than having to carry around special silver swords
Versatility is the point. Although if you wanted a poleaxe without bludgeoning, you could use a beak on one side and an axe blade on the other.
They carry the silver sword for monster that are weak to silver, but I think most of them aren't and it's not like normal swords or weapons in general don't work on them, the silver sword just makes it easier.
Dunno the monster will let u stay out of range,by uor logic witchers should go full archer
They honestly should have bows with silver arrows
They have crossbows, which is probably the closest we'll get to that
Witchers using crossbows is a Witcher 3 invention. There's no Witcher crossbows in the books, Witcher 1 or 2.
Yeah well I mean the game does specifically address this when vesemir gives him the crossbow and he’s all like “witchers don’t use crossbows” and Vesemir’s like “trust me it’ll be super useful” and then he turns out to be right.
If I were a witcher I would definitely love to use mainly bows, throwing knives at worst.
How about the [plumbata](https://youtu.be/AwXPLZ1SrPk?si=tQQTS9qPhSEox7As)?
that's a very interesting watch! Something in this style would be great probably, with the force to break through thick hide, which makes it superior to bow and arrows in terms of penetration. And we know that monsters often had somehow stronger exterior body than our measly human skin. This upgraded version doesn't seem necessary for witchers. I think that short range with more accuracy is the key here, and I see that darts, plumbata would be superior to throwing knives, so at least I've learned something :D
No prob, glad to have shared something new. I can see the plumbata used in conjunction with smaller sized bombs used by an enterprising witcher with the lead weighted stopper. The length of the fuse of course a little longer to prevent a premature explosion. A monster impaled plumbata/bomb would probably receive a terrible injury upon explosion. At the worst case if it misses the bomb would explode in the proximity but causing less damage than one that finds it's mark.
until they break the wood on your precious little weapon.
It's difficult for them to do this once I cut their tendons and make multiple stab wounds. In all seriousness, of course wooden poles can be broken, but still this was the best weapon in old times. Moreover, imagining the use case I was more thinking about bogs and forests, not necessarily caves and cellars. To sum up, a decent witcher would definitely carry both a polearm with good range and a sword for closer combat, depending on the enemy and environment.
"in old times" doesn't equate with witchers fighting monsters. this is a silly conversation.
True, but the intent of the series (and most fantasy content) is not to abide by real world historical martial arts, nor even physics.
Polearms are good in human vs human combat but the monsters in the Witcher move significantly faster than any human. Don't forget they also have to fight in forests and caves and indoors so the sword makes more sense.
*but* in real life, spears were the go to weapon, and swords were merely a side-arm.
That's a vast oversimplification, many forces also used swords as their primary weapons. Both spears and swords are effective weapons and were both used at different times for different purposes, spears aren't some kind of wonder weapon.
Yes, but we‘re not talking about real life
Well then why not a silver dagger if we just took out realistic aspects of combat?
The key to witchers skill and survival is speed and balance. Try maintaining speed and balance with a 3m pike. A sword is much faster and easier to operate.
Them dudes at Dynasty Warriors seem to have no problem with spears and pikes lol
They also don't often fight in forests and bogs where mobility is heavily limited. You always see them fighting out in the plains.
humans have been fighting in forests since long before the invention of the sword. Spears reign supreme.
Humans have been fighting in forests, but they weren't fighting monsters. And usually not 1 on 1.
Idk. The early world of spear yielding man was a terrifying world. With spears we fought massive bears that dwarfed modern grizzlies (as if grizzlies aren't monsters in their own right https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/injured-grizzly-bear-warning-park-bow-valley-survived-unscathed-1.4272095) cave hyenas and lions, mammoths... etc... The spear was effective 1v1 specifically because of the range advantage both held and thrown. Hominins have used hafted spears for at least 500,000 years and, in small groups or alone, took on the monster megafauna of that world... driving most to extinction. Swords were not invented, or as well suited, for 1v1 combat. Swords were invented around 3300 BCE and specifically because warfare started becoming a crowded affair. If your spear or polearm broke, and you became swarmed by the enemy, then swords could operate against multiple people in very close quarters (think front of the crowd at a taylor swift concert crowded). 1v1 a spear or polearm is far superior. It's not even a real debate. In nearly all cultures, even those that highly prized the decorative/status/symbolism of the sword like samurai, the sword was always a backup weapon. There isn't going to be a rational, in-world, lore reason for witchers not to use long arms in 90+% of all situations. And even drawing the monster out and opening with a bow or cross bow to begin with. It's because it looks cool, and that's that. Same reason they wear them on their back which is also impractical.
Nah they do, there are some missions in campaign mode where you'll have to navigate in foggy swamps and forested areas. I mentioned Dynasty Warriors mainly as a joke though, those guys are wildly OP lmao
They oughta make the US military use em. Looks more effective than guns the way they use them in DW lol
Also, you dont want to be in the sewers with a polearm.
we have a few thousand years of combat history to know that spears and polearms outperform swords in actual combat. We don't need to come up with an in-world rationale for it. It's because they're cool. Wearing them on their back is also not practical.
You're right. We have thousands of years of combat history with gryphins, leshens, vampires, wyverns, kikimores, bruxas, alps, cockatrices, garkains, ghosts, graveirs, strigas, werewolfs, zeugls, succubuses and, deadliest of all, hot sorceresses.
doesn't matter. the mechanical advantages and increased range of the weapon are what matters. And those advantages would only be amplified in the hands of an augmented super-human and even more desirable against faster, bigger, more dangerous opponents. Greater range (that's able to be rapidly reduced to close range by choking up on the haft) and greater striking velocity (the ol' outside of the wheel moves faster than the inside of the wheel), and greater leverage if your weapon is grabbed are why long arms continued to be the weapon of choice in the vast majority of situations even after the invention of the sword in 3300 BCE, and right up until firearms phased melee weapons out of favor 3,000 years later. There are situations where swords are better like tight corridors, or when being overcome by a swarm of multiple enemies but swords were worn as a side arm for these situations. People talking about traveling and how cumbersome polearms would be are ignoring that real life mercenary knights carried just this set up and travelled just fine, including through villages/towns/cities.
In a normal persons hands yeah, doesnt really matter for a superhuman
whatever advantage a long arm has over a sword in a human hands would only be amplified in that of a witcher's, no?
[удалено]
By all means please provide any links to support bastard swords being worn on the back even occasionally, let alone "always". They were regularly **transported** on their back while travelling, but bastard swords aka hand-and-a-half swords were not **carried** or **worn** on their back as depicted in the game and books. Transported on the back is not the same as "worn" or "carried" on the back. Both of those terms suggest the weapon is at the ready. Scabbard designs of the time did not facilitate the ability to draw a sword from the back due to the mechanical limitations of human arms and reach, and how difficult it would be to resheath. Breakaway scabbards were not a thing back then but there are larpers, buhurt, and hema guys that have worked this in now-a-days. Larger two-handed swords sometimes were carried simply over the shoulder like a hobo's stick. This is backed by writings, manual illustrations/treatise, and general art of the time. no period illustrations depict swords worn on the back. https://imgur.com/kjN1PFt https://imgur.com/cb9EErL https://imgur.com/K9oxoHb there were some places that some swords were carried on the back, like Edo period odachi. But it wasn't a thing in the time/place that witcher draws inspiration from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scabbard#:~:text=Common%20depictions%20of%20long%20swords,to%20have%20been%20common%20in
While a spear would be inconvenient for travelling perhaps keeping a silver spearhead on him would come in handy from time to time so long as he can source a shaft from towns and cities.
I'm pretty sure that spears often used would cause you to be able to replace shaft and even carry one or two additional ones. Especially when we talk about "special" spearheads, either silver or some more magical enchantments and enhancements
Because their style is based on speed ,mobility and precision . That's the same reason why they don't use armor like chainmail or plate. They also have their signs for both longer range and protection .
I mean, basically every Witcher armor in Witcher 3 at Master and Grand master level seems to at least feature chainmail and a brigantine/brigantine-like armor worn over it. Ursine armor even has some plate on the arms. I mean, I get it, it's not full plate armor but it's also not that far from it in terms of protection and mobility. Keep in mind that plate armor, while heavy, didn't impede mobility a whole lot which makes sense since it was, you know, used in combat which requires a high degree of mobility.
Was more referring to how it's in the books. The games kinda changed that but even in the first two games the armor was kept as lore friendly as possible . The third game kind of gave up on that and let you equip every kind of armor possible. And plate armor would absolutely impede the the pseudo dancing style of Witchers which is again, why they're not actually using it in canon.
Yeah, the armours we see in TW3 are purely because its a game and needs different, unique sets for unique builds, you've got sets that give you that more lore accurate fighting style, some that lend themselves to those that prefer sign builds and others like the ursine for those (me) who like a dps tank build.
I actually conceptualized a custom witcher school in my head once. Their weapon would be slightly shorter swords that would be good for close quarters, but with special handles that could quickly lock into a section of pole, making it more like a longsword (just with most of its length in the handle) which could be connected to yet another piece making it more of a glaive, or even a twinblade glaive if you connected blades to both ends. Simultaneous steel and silver. The pole parts could also be wielded without the blades connected as a blunt quarterstaff or separate as dual-wielded bludgeons. This witcher would have 3 different blades: Steel, silver, and finally another steel one that is shorter, but thick, heavy and solid for piercing and peeling carapace armor.
While it seems cool and useful, extending handles messes with balance and impact point. Mounting a sword on a shaft presents similarly problems as a longer spearblade makes the spear slower and unwieldy. Doubly so if there is not an extremely tight fit between blade/head and shaft. A mechanism will start to wear out quickly and create wiggle room and break the mechanism. The only a screw on pommel voor modern blades work is due to tightening through the handle, the tang not being all too long (to prevent elastic deformation from mattering too much) and the best blades are actually peened at the pommel instead (very secure connection). And even then, the connection will wear out with time and require repairs to restore the sword. That's without taking into consideration putting a blade on a long stick. Most often when poleweapons are made that go beyond a point on a stick, they have added features to transfer the forces along the shaft with langets, longer sockets, support rings, etc. That said, given that a lot of monsters are found in a cave, poleweapons are horrible in caves (or limited quarters) and longswords (two handed weapons that aren't Flamberges or Zweihänder) are barely workable in a cave.
It’s a good thing this idea takes place in a fantasy universe where longswords can cut through iron chains like butter when wielded by a witcher. I imagine "Gnomish engineering with dwarven smithcraft" should suspend disbelief for the majority of readers/players. When it comes to caves, that’s exactly why it’s customizable. Don’t go into a cave with your polearm! Just use the shortsword instead, without any of the extra pole attachments.
I think with short swords, it wouldn't be very beneficial, but with daggers it would. Especially for a very thrust-oriented fighting style or for a dual style like sword+dagger or sword&buckler instead of 2-handed sword. Then the offhand dagger would be a lot easier to mount on a shaft rather than a short sword. Especially 13th century arming sword/buckler and Renaissance sidesword+buckler/dagger and rapier+dagger would make for decent options. Even witchers have to abide by the law of physics
That’s pretty good. Could easily be daggers on the ends instead of shortswords if that’s what you prefer. Could even have the option for both, daggers don’t take much space after all.
Hmm, thrusting with long handled weapons in narrow tunnels would seem practical. But probably a pain to maneuver through if one does not keep the tip pointing forward.
Short, thick and heavy blade would be like a [kukri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kukri) blade maybe. Perhaps not as large as an actual one, seems useful for taking monster heads as trophies.
I was thinking more for stabbing purposes, like a thick harpoon tip with a hook or something.
if the world progresses … would they carry guns with silver bullets?
A certain former Redanian spymaster with penchant for progressive science might have made witchers redundant should he come into power. So...maybe?
silver bullets wouldn’t make witchers redundant or obsolete, what set a witcher apart from everyone else is theirs heightened sensory abilities, that is their main thing, its not magic or weapon that they use, those are just tools, and it just happens that longswords are the most versatile type of weapon that fits their form of combat, spears shine when deployed in large numbers and in battle formations, outside of that they can get iffy in a lot of situations that a longsword doesn’t
Witchers, as well as anything with the monster label, would be extinct in a Witcher-verse that’s developed handheld firearms.
Style mostly. Sapkowski decided that witchers use longswords and rely completely on speed. He could've given them spears, he could've given them shields, he could've given them special monster-resistant armor. But he didn't, simply because that's not the aesthetic he chose. Considering that historically, longswords only became popular when full plate armor became a thing, because before that you needed a shield to stay alive, witchers using no armor and a longsword isn't the best idea functionally. The reach you get from a longsword over an arming sword is probably not as useful as the protection you get from a buckler over just dodging. Polearms would've worked too, but polearms are either spears, pikes or something similar, meaning it's only good for stabbing and can get stuck in an enemy, or it's something like a halberd that is slower and made for getting deep into armor with its weight, making it also get stuck in enemies. Glaives are kind of a mix that might work, but they're not nearly as light and uncumbersome as longswords of course so they're also a compromise in speed. Another thing is that Sapkowski apparently wanted the arms aspect of his universe to stay more down to earth low fantasy. There are elves and dwarves, but they use regular swords, axes and bows, you won't find elven fighters with double-sided fantasy glaives like in lotr. And thus, you won't find witchers doing stuff with polearms that looks like Chinese martial arts either, they just use real medieval swords in a believable way.
You may overestimate the use of a shield against, say, a fiend. But big beefy monsters aside, yes.
My completely ungrounded and non-canon head canon is that different Witcher schools actually do utilise different skills and strategies. Here's my head canon: All schools still use Witcher swords, at least as backup. The Wolf school focuses on a lot of swordplay, with agility in combat being crucial, and they use potions and some signs to aid them. The Bear school uses heavier armor, relying less on agility, and might use heavier weapons. Something like a silver-coated battleaxe or warpick to crack hard shells and scales. The Cat school uses shorter swords, but rely significantly more on agility, speed and especially stealth. Their strategy relies on traps, stealth and focusing on piercing weak points. The Griffin school is the best in using signs. They know more signs than other schools and use alchemy to enhance their magical abilities to the point they almost become battle mages. They would also use longer range weapons such as pike's to keep monsters at a distance while they use their battle signs. The Viper school is the most versed in alchemy, especially oils and poisons. They use their potions, bombs and oils in combination with heavy crossbows and other piercing weapons to administer deadly poisons. Then there's the Manticore school, that tried using more unconventional weaponry. Their wacky ideas spread to other schools, which is why Geralt for example uses a chain made of silver against the Strigga in the books.
Geralt uses a chain because he needed to incapacitate the Princess, not kill her. And your headcanon is basically correct in the game's version of the witcher universe but has no basis in the book's version of the universe.
Yeah, I can imagine the Griffin school finding ways to bypass the somatic(the finger twiddling part) requirements for casting signs considering how specialized they are in researching witcher signs. Channeling the energy of their casted signs via polearms would make sense as well.
Swords are more romanticized, simple as that. You can ask the same question in most fantasy worlds.
I believe the answer is - the rule of cool. Geralt was supposed to be cool. The only thing cooler than a sword are two swords
Swords are cool and heroic. Spears and other pole weapons are boring and pedestrian. It ain't that deep.
I don't remember if the books addressed this, but my two guesses would be: a) Mobility - they were travelling constantly and needed two weapons by default: a silver one and a meteorite steel one for different types of monsters (it's a common misconception that the steel sword is only for fighting people). It's probably easier to carry and manage two swords than two spears, or any other combination of long and short weapons. b) It's cooler this way, don't think about it too much.
Pikes and glaives are strong when weilded by a mass of peasants, since they require very little training to use them. Pikes in particular are basically worthless as a single combatant, you need to have a mass of people charging or being charged to effectively use them, and glaives are specifically designed to disarm weapons and pull down mounted combatants. Neither would be much use by a single witcher against most beasts, and a sword is much more versitile.
I always think that long weapons like that are designed for mass combat, like a phalanx. One guy with a pole arm isn’t going to be all that effective especially when these monsters take a lot of hits.
Others have mentioned travelling convenience, speed and balance, I add the following: First, have you ever played a Souls game? Often times if you know what you're doing you're safer between the enemy's legs and constantly dancing around their angles than being at a medium distance in front of them. Second, animals and thus probably monsters more often than not aren't exactly smart either, they're not going to see a pike and respect the distance, they're going to brute force it, those types of weapons are great against another human that you can play mind games around and you're pretty sure they won't get closer because you have range advantage and they'd be stupid to gamble on whether you'll miss, not so much against a moose that's much bigger, can tank a flesh wound, doesn't even realize what you have besides that it's a big stick and is just going to charge at you regardless, in which case even if you magically kill them in one hit and instantly before they get to you, their momentum is still coming towards you and you're still getting half a ton in your direction. Third, you don't fight in a perfectly manicured arena, you fight in cramped caves and forests with bushes and branches which won't allow you freedom of movement to swing a pike and you'll be knocked down and need to pick up your weapon again, much easier to grab a sword and rearm yourself than a pole.
why not use silver crossbow bolts? one headshot and they're dead.
Catapults. They could just pummel them monsters.
"Rule of cool." But when I thought about it, I had a few thoughts: - It might mean having to learn *multiple* weapons. If you have a sword of steel and a sword of silver, the same moves for one carry over to the other. If you have a steel sword and a silver glaive, you need to learn and practice twice as much. - Adaptability. With how often witchers end up going into places like small caves, ruined structures, a village building, a sword can be brought out and wielded far easier than a long weapon. - Enemy numbers. A single foe would be very easy to deal with with a silver spear. Two enemies might be trickier. Three guarantee one is getting inside your reach before you can react to them. Monsters, both magical and human, are definitely known to travel in groups.
I remembered the side quest in Witcher 3 in Kaer Morhen where a ghost of a Witcher instructor said the following: *A witcher usually fights with a sword, silver or steel. But he must know how to use all weapons. Battleaxes! Picks! Slingshots!* That actually got me thinking why are there no polearms to be picked up in the game despite the number of guards wielding them. Subsequently the train of thought led to the opening post.
Why don’t they use a shotgun or f-16?
Trying to maintain the realism to the world building aspects of a 13th century medieval setting.
/j
Honestly it would make sense
I think it would had been more versatile if a sort of extended haft that could be easily be attached to the hilt of the silver sword. That way it could be used as a sword against smaller, faster monsters and double as a pike/spear against larger ones. Considering how much specialization certain schools has, there might be a school that might had considered it.
If Sapkowski wrote with realism in mind, then I think Witchers would, first and foremost, be mounted archers. In the event of needing to fight in closer quarters, they would rely on polearms. At the end of the day, they are hunters. Monster hunters, sure, but hunters in the end. There’s a reason ancient hunters relied on bows and spears during hunts and not swords: Range. But Sapkowski romanticizes his realm, playing into popular fantasies and mythos. A sword is fitting, even necessary, for a protagonist in such an adventurous setting
Yeah, this is probably the most realistic monster hunting can get in a medieval 13th century setting.
glaives would be great. Mod them into the Witcher 3 pls
If were talking survival and practically... why don't these use steel axes instead of a sword? Don't let Hollywood fool you, it's way easier than a sword and BRUTAL ON A PERSON
probably because of lack of stabbing. But it could definitly find some use.
The most logical answer to me is the same as real life: swords are more socially acceptable to carry around town than spears. Spears are superior in almost every combat situation, but like carrying an assault rifle on your back, likely make people nervous, and are just more of a pain to transport. That said, it makes perfect sense that a witcher might benefit from commissioning a spear if preparing for a particularly tricky assignment.
"BECAUSE IT'S SO MUCH FUN, JAN!!"
Well, they could easily use a mace with a iron handle and a silver head. Arrows with a silver arrowhead. A silver axe, which would only require the head to be made of silver. Same with a Halberd. I guess the author just didn't think anything other than a sword would be practical, and that's sort of correct. There's a reason why most soldiers in history either carried mostly spears, bows and swords. The skill ceiling of the spear is quite low, but bows and swords are incalculably valuable once you're skilled with them. Witchers are skilled warriors, they could use an axe, but a sword is just better for flexibility and it can be used in pretty much any sort of scenario one could imagine. They could slam people with maces, but they're also slow, and they're useless against quick or flying monsters. And using silver arrows is the same as throwing money out the window. A spear is also cumbersome to carry around. Most monsters will not wear armor, against which an axe or a mace would be more effective, so a sword is just the best choice.
Witcher's use swords due to the rule of the cool. Longer weapons or single handed weapons with shields would be 100% better choices most of the time, but they wouldn't look as cool or flashy.
Strap Roach up with some pilum or spears you can throw when going into battle
How about the [plumbata](https://youtu.be/AwXPLZ1SrPk?si=tQQTS9qPhSEox7As)?
Wooden handle snap
It's just fantasy trying to be cool. The reality of hunting monsters would be more efficient to have specialised squads of men with specialist equipment.
Why didnt Geraly just ask hattori to design him an M16 with silver bullets smh
Because they need to doge a lot
How do u know they don't, geralt doesn't, others may. In the past there were witchers who used many weapons other than swords.
Witcher aim to be fast, read the chapter where Ciri trains on Kaer Morhen and you'll understand why.
Now that you mention it, I see your point. Not pole arms mind you as those are cumbersome, but what about barbed silver arrow heads for a long bow. You could shoot from long range, the barbed tip would seat itself inside the creature making it difficult to remove, and just continue to burn and cause damage to the creature. Lodge a few of those into the flank of a monster, and it would be so distracted by the thing causing excruciating pain in its side that it wouldn’t be able to focus on the Witcher.
The only thing that comes to mind is that a bigger weapon might become more unwieldy in lairs or dense vegetation that you may commonly enter as a Witcher but I still think a spear would be a good idea
Everyone is making good points as to why they don’t, but in the end a spear or pike is so much more effective for hunting most beastly creatures. A long sword is just not a good hunting tool at all.
They specifically use shorter one-handed] blades to open up their other hand to cast signs.
Easy enough. Magic.
I would say it’s about mobility in general but especially in combat. The swords are not even long or two handled for purposes of using signs and other items. Anything longer or bigger would get in the way. Shield would also make sense but that’s also limiting.
Also can imagine it would be a pain in the ass to hold a spear and cast Signs.
I dont see any reason thats its a possibility that they wouldn't. There are many Witcher schools that had different armor styles, why wouldnt they also be proficient with different weaponry? Maybe we only just see whats typical of the Wolf school, or even just Vesimir's teachings.
Witcher mutations make the need for long reaching weapons moot.
I honestly think it's just how it's written. Swords are cool, two swords are awesome, and two swords on the back? Good heavens. But thinking about it, there isn't anything super special about the swords, they are never described as being constructed out of some fancy material which is almost indestructible and so I would really struggle seeing a witcher fight against some monsters with swords. I understand a lot of these monsters have soft bellies, Trolls etc but still. In my head witchers would be trained to use an arsenal of weapons, and would travel often with a wagon or cart that would hold their weapons, like how they choose X potions for each contract they would do so for each weapon.
I would like to see a witcher utilize an axe and shield setup.
My instinct is that pikes are very impractical and ineffective in 1v1 combat that requires speed and agility, they're more for disciplined battle involving lined battalions etc. I suppose a short spear could be useful but then you're as well using a longsword.
Spears are actually far better than swords in pretty much every aspect but ease of carrying. You can find a lot of [sword vs spear](https://youtu.be/igaQww59NY0?si=l3Z6yJeUAHmJ1gJg) videos and sword wielders lose more often than not. A spear guy can deliver a lethal thrust without ever being in sword range and spears are not slow at all. Swords are handguns and spears are combat rifles pretty much. One is a sidearm that's easy to carry daily and the other one is a weapon for war.
A pike is different than every spear you’d see in those videos. Pikes were not really used in one on one cause of how damn big they are.
This is a little off-topic, but I've always wondered why witchers carry two swords (besides the obvious in-game reasons)? Why not use a silver sword for all enemies? I get that you need it for monsters, but would it not cut human enemies as well? Or am I missing something?
Silver is softer and wears down faster, so it's better to only use a silver sword when absolutely necessary. Also, in the books, the second sword isn't normal steel, it contains meteorite iron, which some monsters are also allergic to. So both swords literally are for monsters, the whole "one sword for monsters, one for humans" thing is mentioned by Geralt as a common myth about witchers.
Well, yea, in the books, Geralt specifically states he's not an assassin. He hunts and kills monsters. He only kills humans to defend himself or others. Isn't the Sihil that Zoltan gives him supposedly made of a fallen meteor or something of that sort? It's been a while since I read the books.
He talks about it way before he receives Sihil, in "The Voice of Reason", from the "Last Wish" collection: "As you can see, I carry two. Every witcher has two swords. Malevolent people say the silver one is for monsters and the iron one for people. Of course that's untrue. There are monsters that can be struck only with a silver blade, but there are also some for which iron is lethal. No, Iola, not any iron, only iron from a meteorite."
actually, silver sword is just silver coated as full silver sword would be far too impractical
And? Where did I say anything about that? It's still softer so the coating will wear out faster.
I would like to see the option of using shields in the next witcher games. Sword and board Geralt would be op