I hope this isn't too general, but I am talking about any warfare before the invention of firearms. In a one vs one duel between sword and pole arm, it seems like the pole arm has significant advantages; a pole arm can reach the sword wielder, while the sword wielder. Sure if the sword wielder gets close he can do a lot of damage, but getting close is extremely risky and tricky. A few advantages of the sword that I could think of is being able to use a shield and being more mobile, but do these advantages really outweigh the advantages of the pole arm? I believe sword users are also much more vulnerable to cavalry than pole arms.