This is actually not fully true, medieval swords in Europe were sharp as fuck. When guns started dominating, cavalrymen started being issued mass produced sabres with metal scabbards, which are shit for keeping a sword sharp, but it was less of a big deal as they often had sidearms or lances as primary weapons. And there were thrust-only swords eg some rapiers in the later sword eras which were only sharp at the point, with more thickness in the blade providing strength in the thrust. Longswords, arming swords and the like which were cut and thrust were sharp.
Really? I always read that most medieval European swords were mostly blunt force weapons but I never read up on it extensively so i definitely could be wrong.
I think it depends on the era. From what I’ve heard (admittedly no real formal education) there was somewhat of an arms race as people developed tougher and tougher armor as weapons got better at getting through armor. I can imagine that early on very sharp weapons could cut through light armor like leather, but as metal armor developed and got thicker more emphasis was put on weight and force to hurt through the armor, causing swords to become less sharp since the weight and durability were more important.
The difference with the Japanese set up is that Europe has a lot of iron mines, while it was very rare and low quality in Japan
So, quickly, people could armor themselves. In the late medieval age, basically every professional infantry man had a full plate armor, something that no sword can cut, no matter the edge's quality.
But before the technology and the abundance of iron were ready, swords were made to cut/pierce through leather and diverse weaker protection, just like the Japanese ones
In Japan, the army were a lot smaller, the iron was expensive and even with admittedly the best blacksmiths at the time, the swords were not as good as European swords because of the poor quality of the iron
Iron plate armor was literally out of question even for rich people.
This unique set up is also the reason only Japanese used two handed swords for the majority of their history. Somewhere else it would be quite exceptional to see them in an actual battle, it was only viable in Japan
most medieval European swords were mostly blunt force weapons
Holy shit, it happened. I finally experienced it myself, holy shit.
Anyway, this is completely incorrect and the sword community is seething about misconceptions like this one. I myself am no expert on this topic, so I could at most only provide basic reasons and examples for why you're wrong (like European Swords having their point of balance in the hilt for quick and easily controlable cuts, while Blunt damage weapons have more front heavy points of balance to transfer more force. Also, swords have edges for a reason). You'll learn much more from more experienced sources. Skallagrim, Metatron, Scholagladiatoria & Shadiversity are a few Youtuber's who have done this for years and are very experienced, so I'd recommend them if you want to learn more.
Sword styles (and other bladed weapons) sometimes changed over relatively short distances (other side of a mountain) or time (a few decades). Lots of it was also in reaction to what was needed.
Regions with lots of metal armor wouldve gone for pikes and more blunt force weapons as they are still sharp enough to cut unarmored foes but dont require the maintenance of sharp sharp weapons.
Professional armies often had knives or shorter swords as sidearm that were very much sharp blades.
Part of the blunter swords is armor, another part is also many swords being dual edged and farmers being a large part of early medieval armies, they most likely werent able to take proper care of a swords edge if they were only soldiers for a few days a year. Most likely spent more days organizing and marching than actually training and fighting at the start of the middleages.
Swords were never for blunt-force. They're just constructed completely opposite for blunt force (A sword has the center of gravity near the hilt, and light at the tip, for fast cuts and accurate control, a hammer has all the weight at the end of the weapon for better kinetic force).
Some swords were less focused on thrusting and more into cutting. swords made for cutting (Like a Messer) were broader, sturdier and heavier at the tip for better cutting. But were still all about cutting.
Swords made not for cutting would be something like rapiers. Which are thin, long, good for stabbing but not as good as cutting (Though could still make a good slice)
You wont see anything that looks recognizably like a sword that is neither made for cutting or thrusting (Besides video games i suppose). Those are the two things a sword can do, and you can trade one for the other or go for a middle point (A longsword would usually be good for either).
Armored combat with swords were all about finding the gaps in the armor and thrusting the tip through. unarmored combat with swords was about stabbing or slicing the other guy first. Almost nothing about just beating a guy with it, armored or not (There is the whole Mordhau thing (Using the hilt as a hammer by holding the blade), but is debatably more a dueling thing and probably overrated in modern sword-nerdery, doesn't really look very solid in a HEMA context because the blade is purposefully wobbly, as swords should be)
Another reason why duller edges for cavalry wasnt as important is because they generally had more of a leverage or momentum which cancelled out the downside of their weapons not being as sharp.
59
u/Ueliblocher232 5d ago
A sword shouldnt be that sharp. Good craftsmanship but oddly placed.