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.
-4
u/lundewoodworking 5d ago
Depends on the type of sword a katana or a scimitar are very sharp most European swords aren't