A historian (not really on this subject), retired now. Those swords were dug from the ground by my wife's European team of independent and EU contracted archaeologist. The reasons they were not particularly sharp, in a slicing sense, in close combat they would lay the swords over their forearms, and use their forearms as a platform to glide the blades back and forth for a stabbing motion (much like you see short swords being glided atop of shields so as to not get cut) and since they were generally "linemen" (lol not like our wizards in a nutshell warriors in BDO) their blades always struck against other heavily armored counters. Think of it in terms of- more the Armour, less need for edge, the less Armour means better agility, smaller swords, and less metal to smack against. I have come across differing opinions in all levels of academia, myself, throughout my career. My rule of thumb is "If there is room for debate, then it is not absolute"- I actually attended a conference in Macedonia in 2010 which had these same discussions. I'd go further in depth because it was quite interesting, and of course, differing views.