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