A more rounded tip would seem more robust at least for a sword meant mostly for cutting/slashing/chopping. From what I've understood, a sword also needs a bit of width to have room for a proper "cutting cross-section".
On a sword like an Oakeshott type XV that would mean the outermost part isn't very good at cutting. The more rounded tips enables the sword to stay reasonably wide basically all the way up to the tip begins, extending the part of the blade where the sword will cut very well, so it isn't so critical what part of the blade is used to cut.
For loads applied in the edge-to-back direction, the rounded tips should also be sturdier than a more needle-like one I assume. In addition, if the sword is made with the balance and geometry heavily favouring cutting, then adding a tip optimised for cutting would seem to be somewhat pointless, if not outright counter-productive. (Now this of course begs the question of just how these 17th century swords were optimised between cut and thrust.)
That a more spatulate tip is indeed a good thing if intend to be more or less heavily optimised for cutting would seem to be supported (in aprt at least) by the existence of cutting oriented swords with such tips in other places and times. Many viking swords, the Oakeshott type XIII (and subtypes), some swords from the Himalayas, etc.
On the other hand, I guess one might risk a bit of an self fulfilling prophecy here if one (like me) places heavy emphasis on the tip and tapering up to it when trying to determine how much of a cutter or thruster a sword is (this a as result form only knowing about many a sword from pictures and such, no form personally handling them, or data on balance points and such).
|