I admit, I am crusty where the subject of weapons is concerned. I don't mean to be. It's a combination of bickering for the sake of accuracy and frustration that, where weapons is concerned, there is no accuracy.
I grew up in a bickering household. If anyone made the mistake of saying that an event had taken place on the 18th of June, my mother was sure to remark that it was the 19th. If a color was described as blue, my father was sure to stipulate that it was more correctly described as azure. Wrenches were crescent wrenches, cups were mugs, saucepans were skillets and carpets were throw rugs. This steady habit of correction hammered away at every misconception and slight error, tempering every dinner conversation and every family outing. It's in my blood.
If this blog seems to consistently fail to put an apostrophe in "its" when presenting the contraction or puts the apostrophe there when describing the genitive case, it isn't that I don't know the difference. I'm well aware that "your" is genitive and that "you're" is second-person contraction form of the verb "to be" . . . but I make the mistake on the blog all the time because I just don't care when I'm writing a first draft. It's a question of self-defense. It would have been so easy for me to slide into the obsessive-compulsive trap, given my upbringing. In blocking an obsession to get every word exactly right, I write more words per minute. The error can always be fixed later. It's only a blog.
What is funny about my upbringing is how often it turned out that my parents were wrong. I learned this when I got older. No one really knows what the difference is between a cup and a mug; and very few people care. It seemed to really matter to my parents. Only the cosmos knows why.
I began reading about weapons the moment I began playing D&D, very nearly 37 years ago. I started with the high school library and, when that failed to provide enough, I threw myself wildly into the city public library. After that, it was the university, where I found shelves of detailed books, many of them copies of medieval and Renaissance texts. Then there was a long dearth of new knowledge . . . until the internet came along.
It turns out, according to the internet, that every book I ever read about the subject was wrong. Swords aren't as heavy as scholars think, or they're heavier, or they're longer, or they're made of materials that we didn't know about, etcetera. Spears are better than swords according to this source, though this source says they aren't, although this other source claims that this is only true when talking about this kind of sword or this kind of spear. The Katana is the greatest sword ever made, except for the sources that say is wasn't, that the greatest sword was the one made in Scotland or Italy or Spain or . . . well, you can find a source that will say anything you want. The same is true for every other weapon, as no one agrees on how the weapon was made or how it was used. People quote contemporary sources and other people point out that the contemporary was known to have lived a soft life and probably never used the weapon in combat.
No one is right. I don't know how long it's going to take for people to realize this. The legion of details, vlogs, arguments, websites dedicated to the argument, makers of modern weapons, the SCA, the museums, the archeologists and any other source we can name, have descended to nothing more useful than bickering. No one knows and no one is right.
Most of the time, when someone tries to clarify a point about weapons, they name one of these sources - but all of these sources are quite clearly biased. The subject of weapons (and armor, for that matter) has so many amateurs and self-promoting ivory tower seat-warmers muddying up the waters that the discussion is actually dead.
Make the weapon do whatever you want it to do. I promise, look around the net, you'll find an "expert" that supports your invention.
This is the case because we don't use these weapons. If we used them as armies hacking away at each other, the answers would be sorted pretty quickly. We'd have legitimate army training manuals - the sort that are written in this modern century, not the clumsy opinionated nonsense that calls itself scholarship in the 15th century - defining exactly what weapon should be used, by what combatants and in what theaters. Unfortunately, no one has employed these weapons seriously since before the rise of the gas-propelled projectile. And no culture familiar with the comprehension of science, observation and conclusion, has ever used these weapons.
So give it up. Quit arguing. Quit proposing that such-and-such said this, so this must be true, because it isn't. It can't be. We have no evidence that anything that has ever been written on the subject is true, nor do we have any evidence that any of the writers were in a position to know.
Stop bickering. Please.