Something to also consider (besides the technology which has already been thoroughly discussed by others here) is the human factor. I remember reading that ARMA is also committed to the militaristic study of this period's combat, so I present that here.
The battlefield is loud; and you are surrounded by mayhem, fear, random acts of courage, dust being kicked up by other warriors (or mud in the case of a battle at a wet location). Your hot from wearing your armor, and if you are not wearing armor your body heat is still rising from the stresses experienced from the battle.
Your main point of concentration is survival, and skills aside, your goal is to achieve survival by the quickest means. Someone is charging at you, and (in line with what John stated earlier) you may not care about trying to cut through that guy's armor, you just want to disable him. So you swing your sword (doesn't matter what size) at his head to try and knock him out, or swing your blade at his sternum in the hopes of knocking the wind out of him. One hit may stun him, so it might take a few other strikes to knock him back. If he hits the ground, great. You could continue on and gun for the next opponent, or pull out a dagger and jab at a weak spot in his armor or at a place where no armor exists.
My long winded point is: I don't believe that the main goal was to cut through someone's armor. That would just be a plus if it did occur. Otherwise one would just use the blade to bludgeon the opponent (using either blade or pommel) to prevent them from trying to harm you further. If you are on a battlefield surrounded by enemies, are you going to spend all of your energy trying to cut through one opponent's armor, or are you going to just do your best to disable as many as you can and carry on?
 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||