LogFAQs > #961838884

I greatly disagree with this logic. If anything, thrust makes more sense on a battlefield due to the close quarters nature of combat. It is hard to do much more than an overhand chop in a formation and even then that is kind of dangerous unless you are using some type of polearm like a halberd or something. That is why most infantry weapons were spears or thrusting swords such as gladius. It allows for a really tight formation that is hard to defeat, well at least until guns entered the picture. Plus it makes the combat much more linear so it is easier to land your thrusts. A circling opponent will be harder to land up line up a good thrust with.

Rapiers were popular on the battlefield until the bayonet came into existence. Napoleons musketeers where equipped with rapiers for instance and the swiss guard still carry rapiers today. It wasn't exactly uncommon on the battlefield

Some of it is cultural though. Mainland Europe had a disposition towards rapiers, whereas the English despised them and preferred cutting swords, so you will have authors such as George Silver that loathed the thing and will rant and rave about its weaknesses.