Could is very different from were or want. You could sharpen it that thin, but it wouldn’t be practical for combat. It won’t survive first contact with anything and would make the blade prone to failure. Physics is merciless, thinner blade also means less material and a weaker structure. A sword is a compromise between sharpness, strength and durability.
Just more misconception. Swords were made with shaving sharp edges if the blacksmith was anywhere near worth his weight in salt.
The idea that swords weren’t sharp is a total misconception and anyone who actually practices swordfighting techniques or bladesmithing will tell you the same.
Swords weren’t generally meant for armor. Swords were backup weapons when you lost your spear/hammer/pole arm.
If you were pulling your sword it was a last resort in most cases.
The swords that were designed for armor in mind (longswords) were still as sharp as they could be but more oriented towards thrusting as that’s how you beat armor, by piercing through the gaps with a strong thrust.
Swords were sharp. Sharp enough to remove limbs. If your sword is doing more blunt damage than cutting you’re doing it wrong and just need to use a club instead.
You really are really weird. I never said “swords aren’t sharp”. There are many technical factors to sharpness. The edge required to shave hair is usually much too thin. So much that just putting it into a scabbard would dull it. While a sharp sword will hold it’s edge even if hitting bone, but it won’t shave hair. They were and are sharp. Extremely sharp, they will chop off heads and hands and fingers alright. But they aren’t thin razor blade sharp. You don’t butcher a cow with a razor. You’d have to stop every minute to resharpen it.
Could is very different from were or want. You could sharpen it that thin, but it wouldn’t be practical for combat. It won’t survive first contact with anything and would make the blade prone to failure. Physics is merciless, thinner blade also means less material and a weaker structure. A sword is a compromise between sharpness, strength and durability.
Just more misconception. Swords were made with shaving sharp edges if the blacksmith was anywhere near worth his weight in salt.
The idea that swords weren’t sharp is a total misconception and anyone who actually practices swordfighting techniques or bladesmithing will tell you the same.
Swords weren’t generally meant for armor. Swords were backup weapons when you lost your spear/hammer/pole arm.
If you were pulling your sword it was a last resort in most cases.
The swords that were designed for armor in mind (longswords) were still as sharp as they could be but more oriented towards thrusting as that’s how you beat armor, by piercing through the gaps with a strong thrust.
Swords were sharp. Sharp enough to remove limbs. If your sword is doing more blunt damage than cutting you’re doing it wrong and just need to use a club instead.
You really are really weird. I never said “swords aren’t sharp”. There are many technical factors to sharpness. The edge required to shave hair is usually much too thin. So much that just putting it into a scabbard would dull it. While a sharp sword will hold it’s edge even if hitting bone, but it won’t shave hair. They were and are sharp. Extremely sharp, they will chop off heads and hands and fingers alright. But they aren’t thin razor blade sharp. You don’t butcher a cow with a razor. You’d have to stop every minute to resharpen it.