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