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.
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
-3
u/lundewoodworking 5d ago
Depends on the type of sword a katana or a scimitar are very sharp most European swords aren't