Are swords worth it?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Also, for what it's worth, a friend who does a lot of trekking in various styles of historical kit finds that large swords are a pain in the butt and the scabbards get eaten up hiking through rough terrain for a week. A long rapier is also a pain in the butt in a crowd, and has to be left with your cloak when you visit a tavern (Guy Fawkes lost both that way). So the weapon which is convenient for a city adventure may not be the best choice for a wilderness adventure.

Having done all of these things too, I can say that an infantry hanger rarely gets in the way when worn well, other baldric carry swords are still usually less awkward than two-handed weapons.

I don't know any low-tech society which restricted ownership of swords more or less than other weapons. It was more common for there to be laws enforcing ownership of weapons so the king or the mayor does not have to provide them when he conscripts a new army. I have heard stories about Tokugawa Japan, but that is really late and really unusual.

Well sword and knife lengths were often specified by law. More importantly though fashion and public opinion did regulate these things and the letter of the law was much less important for enforcement in many societies than we might be used to today. A constable is less likely to care about a prosperous-looking person carrying a typical class-appropriate civilian weapon than some scruffy drifter carrying something that normally belongs in a milita armory.