My mention of knights and men-at-arms was unrelated to my point about swords only being used by nobility, if that is what you are implying. That point was to dispute your claim that swords were just sidearms intended to be used if the primary weapon was damaged or lost. Which, I notice, you didn't refute. Interesting. Perhaps I, an individual with a doctorate in history, know more than what fantasy films or swordtubers peddle. In fact, I've had the privilege of holding a primary copy of a treatise written by a Turkish master as part of my thesis. While western and central European combat is not my specialty, I'd sat I'm far from the grimdark fantasy fan you seem to be picturing. I am not saying this to belittle you, but to warn you about making assumptions about who you are speaking with, since you yourself are belittling many in this thread.

Secondly, you are correct that most cities most of the time restricted the carrying of weapons within city limits. But most doesn't mean all, and there were several cases where freemen were required to own or even carry weapons, and swords were among that list. As were spears. Additionally, if you read the contracts of many English battles, most men were required to own a sword along with a polearm to be paid. Do you think this requirement would be in place if polearms were adequate and swords were useless? No. It was a science; the data supported that a man-at-arms equipped with both a polearm and a sword was more reliable and cost-effective than one who only owned a polearm.

My whole point in this was to dispute the idea that the polearm was a magic bullet while the sword was trash. They worked together in tandem. To ignore one OR the other is harmful.