In most pop culture, including ancient pop culture it seems, there's lots of stories that prominently feature swords and swordsmen importantly. I wanted to know if that's a realistic view of things, when it comes to wider warfare I see similar tropes but as I understand it the reality is most people used spears pretty much until the advent of guns. But with regards to duels or tournaments was this because the sword was actually the best tool for the job? Is there a reason people didn't engage in some kind of formal martial contest with axes or spears all the time too? Did they do so with spears and axes all the time too? I tried to google it but seems like a lot of the questions get asked as though it all comes down to the weapon, and once people started talking about dual wielding I kinda got skeptical.
Key to your question is to understand what is meant by ‘medieval duels’. The classic idea of ‘two guys with their seconds settling an affair of honour’ is a rather more recent framing - someone could provide a great answer about the role of the sword in the duel of honour post 1600 or so. But that’s not really ‘medieval’ any more in any reasonable sense.
When we’re talking medieval duels, we’re talking two main categories - showing prowess and settling legal disputes. Both of these have a number of subtypes. One of the more common forms is the classic ‘chivalric’ or knightly duel - fought in full armour, with a variety of possible weapons. At least in German sources for these duels, the iconic armament seems to have been spear/lance, sword and dagger^1. This might be fought with sharp or blunted weapons and to a variety of finishing conditions (note that the use of sharp weapons does not guarantee a duel to the death - full armour is sufficiently protective that two combatants could fight for an extended period of time without any serious injuries being sustained).
One famous example of a knightly duel was fought between Galeazzo and Boucicaut, in 1395. This was fought with lances on foot, watched by an assembled crowd of thousands. Both participants survived, and indeed fought another duel a decade later. Near uniquely, we have surviving a few manuscripts produced by Fiore dei Liberi, a fencing master who counted Galeazzo as one of his students^2. This gives us a unique chance to see some of the knowledge which might have been considered important in preparing for the duel. Fiore discusses armoured combat on foot and on horseback, with sword, lance, dagger and pollaxe - it’s clear that a student of his would have been comfortable with any regularly used knightly weapon.
Another famous knight who got into a number of duels was Jacques de Lalaing of Burgundy, in the late 15th century. He was renowned for his prowess in single combat, and is recorded as fighting with a number of weapons - including duels which incorporated the sword^3. The book of his deeds gives us a number of dramatic accounts of one common form of a duel to show prowess: fighting to counted blows. In this form of fight, the two participants agree that they will exchange a certain number of strikes with each weapon - such as three with the spear, five with the axe and ten with the sword. Bouts like this would be fought under the recognition of a lord, who would also judge the winner after the fencing was concluded.
Judicial forms of duelling would also require the oversight of a lord (or other legal authority, such as a city council). The terms of the duel would be set by their discretion, with reference to legal precedents and local conventions. When they occurred, duels like this would often be fought in full armour with the knightly weapons, but they could also be fought with a variety of other unusual combinations. Hans Talhoffer, a 15th century fencing master, shows various judicial duelling combinations in his various treatises: including sword with shield; spiked shields; club with shield; and even club against rock in a sock (nominally for a duel between husband and wife)^4. These show that the sword could certainly take a vital role in a judicial duel.
Weapon rights could be intrinsically tied up with social and gender roles - wearing a sword can be a sign of manliness, and of status as a free man in society. Consequently, even the sword isn’t necessarily the most practical primary weapon on the battlefield, being the kind of person who fought with swords could be a strong social signal^5. This can act to encourage people to duel with swords. We see similar trends in the fechtschule - a form of fencing tournament. Even in the late 16th century, when the two-handed sword had largely passed out of common battlefield use, it was still a very popular weapon for demonstrating prowess in front of an audience in this sort of environment, as shown by fencing books from the period^6.
Finally, I’d like to bring up a fun duel from 1444 in Rothenburg, published online by my friend Jens Kleinau: 1444 Two fencing masters in Rothenburg. Two fencing masters were in a dispute (one was accusing the other of fraud, as usual), and they appealed to the town council to settle it with swords and no armour. Permission was granted (although the council required that the swords were blunted at the point) and the fencers fought in a ring of fully armoured guards. One man injured the other’s hand and both were expelled from the city over the whole affair. It’s certainly a medieval duel with swords - but also very different to what you might have thought of.
So to wrap up:
Bibliography: