From "Vikinger i Krig" by two norwegian historians, it seems that spears were preferred over swords in warfare, while swords were more of a backup weapon and for duels between individuals. The "Konungs skuggsjá", an instructional manual for the son of a viking king says the spear is better in line battle, even that a spear is better than two swords.
(And since dual handing swords is pretty useless, I'm assuming he means a spearman is more useful than two swordmen)
This makes sense, as a phalanx-like formation with many spears extruding from the shield wall would be difficult to attack with blade that lacks reach. (Egils sagas chapter 53 also talk about Þórólfr throwing the shield on his back and using spears dual-handed in battle once the shield wall is broken up)
In pretty much ever Total War-game, swords beats spear of equal tier. I can see why this makes sense for unit variation and balance, as spears are definitely better against cavalry, but do we agree that swords were probably not automatically superior than spears in organized battle historically?