The best, and most common, metal used to produce swords is steel. Since it is lightweight and durable steel can be wielded easily for both thrusting and slashing.
A short, broad sword, like the one used by the Romans, that is good for jabbing at and enemy. It was not used for slashing as much. Improvement: A broad sword is mainly for chopping and stabbing, not exactly thrusting. A thrust is an inward moving slash. A good example of a thrusting weapon would be the french Rapier.
Cavalry sword is also known as sabre or saber. This had three versions : - troopers, officers, household cavalry sword. This sword was carried by british officers as a part of their uniform.
Gladius. Although usually described as a short thrusting sword, it also worked well as a slashing sword. It should be noted that the full name for a gladius is Gladius Hispaniensisor hispanic sword.The Gladius was adopted by Rome during the third century BC. Made of Bronze or Iron, it is about 2 feet long and weighs 2.5 to 3.5 pounds. It was standard issue to every Roman Legion.
This is a complicated question to answer as there were many types of swords and each one was used differently. Most people think swords were used for slashing, like swinging a baseball bat. That is one way to use it. The Romans specialized in the use of a short sword that was used for thrusting and NOT slashing. Swords used in duels in the 17th century were long and thin and sword fights became an art form---similiar to the style seen in the Olympic Games. The Knights had large swords that were handled with two hands. Some could be gripped on the blade near the handle. They fought with them much like you would use a staff. Cavalry sabers were sometimes used for slashing in a charge. But many were held with the blade facing UP while in a horse charge so that they cold stab their target and left it fall below them as the swung it back up into position for next victim.
The sword is a cutting weapon. Some are designed for stabbing; some for slashing.
There is no best sword in the world, only best sword for a specific person or purpose in mind. You would probably not use the same sword in rank-and-file formation as you would in a duel. It would also be unwise to fight a spearman with the same sword as you would another swordsman. It has always come down to the age-old question - cut or thrust? Most swords are a compromise of the two. There is no sword ever made that can do both effectively. If you go back to Roman times, the legionary used a short thrusting sword called a "gladius". It was about 2' long, straight and had a point. It was very effective in their style of combat - packed together and up close, no room to swing a long, cutting sword. The British cavalry had a history of changing its mind when it came to swords and adopted both types of swords, cutting and thrusting, at different times. Look at the sword "Sharpe" used on TV, a heavy cavalry sabre, very straight and very long. Existing at the same time was the 1796 Pattern Light Cavalry Sabre, a very curved weapon, modelled on the Indian sword called a "tulwar". This sabre was hailed at the time to be the finest cavalry sword ever made and was even adopted by the Germans for about 150 years. Yet this sword was replaced by the 1908 Pattern Cavalry Trooper's Sabre, a totally different design, long and straight with an angled hilt so as to make the weapon and arm as one long line. This too was hailed as the finest cavalry sword made. So there you have it, one sword for cutting and another sword for thrusting, both equally efficient for the task they're intended for but totally different. Take your pick!
(In the Battle of Tours) Because of the Arab's sword shape, they would only try to slash at their enemies. The Arab sword was curved while the Frank's swords were straight and heavy. The Arab sword was easier to wield but the Frank sword would be able to pierce and you could hit people with it and it would break bones. So to answer your question directly, the slashing tactic was to just run in and slash their enemy's in battle, pretty much just swinging your sword around.
Medieval swords were much longer and used for slashing. The Roman infantry swords were shorter, and although Roman cavalry used a longer sword, they were still shorter than Medieval swords. The Roman sword was intended primarily for stabbing. It may be impossible to say which was better. In Medieval times armies were smaller than in Roman times because no one could afford to maintain the huge standing armies which once made the Roman sword so effective in battle. I think that each was the right sword for its time.
The xiphos was made as a type of ancient Greek sword, designed for close combat and used primarily by infantry soldiers. It was crafted for slashing and thrusting motions, making it an effective weapon in hand-to-hand combat situations during that time period.
an 18th century small sword with a narrow blade used for thrusting
A rapier is a slender, sharply pointed sword, ideally for thrusting attacks, used mainly in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries.