BTW, a bit about the definitions given of machete; they do not (as I suppose one might expect from lexicographers?...) show a good understanding of the proper use and the physics of machete (or perhaps of cutting), in perhaps typical fashion, getting things wrong when trying to go in depth. First, though I find the relation of the name to "mace" very interesting, especially in light of the traditional use of the flat of the machete as bludgeon by police and bosses, machete is not a heavy knife or sword; there are heavy varieties, but it is by and large marked by being a lightweight sword. The old forged ones had distal taper, for all the same reasons as any other sword. The reason it's not good for (heavy) woody vegitation is certainly not that it lacks a primary bevel (which, rather subtly and best seen at the butt of the tang, many old ones do have, anyway); if machete had a high and easily noticed primary bevel/wedge section at the thickness it's at it would have a very fine edge, rather than the heavy one it does have, and chopping wood would just snap its edge out, like a butcher knife (yes, I've seen it; it's sad). No, the reason machete isn't the best for cutting hard woody vegetation (though it will do it for a good long while before the tang finally breaks; seen that, too) is that it is too thin, especially at the base, but also in the cutting area. The increased width often seen toward the tip is not to add weight, as often said; that's incidental; the mass serves another purpose, which is to absorb some of the vibration that can be such a problem, especially with thin swords.
Why is machete thin?
oh, fun times, explaining that! African influence?(check!) Cheapness (check!) The rise of spring-tempered blades (check!) Origins as a slave tool master didn't want to be too good for fighting (check!) It would really tire you out to use a heavy one all day (check!); lot of use I am there.....
