I'm guessing that they simply didn't have the horsepower
I think a significant take away studying these swords and others on the auction sites is that our assumptions about the size of the steel for needed for tangs might be a bit off.
Seems to work.
And that's not even a modern idea. I know it was used in the 1800s in mass produced "bowies" along with various other techniques to make them cheaper to produce. The problem with the CS product is they left out the old technique of a butt cap to make it hold together more solidly.
Spent some time in South America. The natives were typically very small by U.S. standards but it would be a mistake to assume that they were not strong. A life spent eating only what they had planted/tended/harvested or hunted or fished for and possessing, for the most part, only what they could make for themselves, made them very strong in spite of their size. They were, in fact, amazingly strong, and not just for their size. They could easily outperform someone who was a foot taller but who hadn't lived their subsistence lifestyle.... From what I remember seeing and hearing back in the days of these old weapons - the guy swinging it was a lot smaller than our average heights today... I'm guessing that they simply didn't have the horsepower to break a hilt - a tip or a blade certainly - but not the handle area.....
I know we didn't grow them as big back then, but I have heard of archers drawing 200lb bows for distance engagement.
don't forget that very few people now can fire a heavy English warbow--it take a bit of muscle to draw a bow with a draw weight pushing 180 to 200 pounds and be accurateThe little guy=not strong wouldn't make sense for a 10C warrior that trained from the age of 7 much of the time and ate regularly and relatively well. They were weapons themselves and as such were probably nearly as strong as a modern HS wrestler with the stamina of a competitive tennis player. They didn't have to be tall by our standards to be fiercely strong.
I think a significant take away studying these swords and others on the auction sites is that our assumptions about the size of the steel for needed for tangs might be a bit off.
Medieval people were not significantly shorter than modern people, about 5'7" for the average man. I would guess that sword tangs were made strong enough for their intended purpose, which is to be a backup sidearm. A knight is generally not bashing a sword into helmets or armor the way modern reenactors do; that's what your poleaxe, lance or mace is for. The sword is for cutting and stabbing unarmored parts of the opponent in the melee when you've lost or dropped your primary weapon, or defending yourself in an unarmored civilian context when it's the weapon you happen to have on you. A thinner tang is probably sufficient for a cloth- and flesh- cutting weapon.