I wish I could upvote this answer more. These points apply outside of Krav Maga, too! In many competitive or combative situations, the benefits of teamwork can eclipse individual skill very quickly!

I like the post, but two things to add. The standard officer weapon is their unit, the soldiers under their command. This explains why they historically carried only sidearms or light weapons. The second is that medieval Europe had a culture of openly carrying knives, and a lot of their knives fit your criteria. (Especially basilards or bolluck daggers!)

As a general comment, we should assume you are armed with the best defence: avoiding combat entirely. Don't invite violence, do not provoke people, avoid concerning places, be aware of your surroundings, and try to keep distance from potential threats. This is as much for you as others who come upon this page: the best defence is avoiding a bad situation.

How comfortably you can wear it is very important. It is going to spend most of the time being used as a utility knife or just sitting in its sheath, assuming you ever do find yourself in a situation to use as a weapon.

This answer would be improved by explaining the idea of structure: what it is and why breaking it is bad.

@JohnP I wouldn't be so bold as to say European longswords were more clubbing than cutting. Knights were deployed against many types of foes, from very lightly armored peasants to other knights. I imagine cutting happened more against lightly armored peasants, but very little bashing against armored opponents. Seems like every armored fighting treatise encourages stabbing through the gaps or using the sword as a lever over techniques like mordhau.

Extending this further: biomechanics of humans necessarily limits the number of reasonable stances and strikes which provide stability, speed, and strength, further limited by weapons' weight and size. These weapons are similar enough (compared to, say, bows, muskets, or spears) that the general layout of strikes and stances look very similar.

It's worth noting that the thrown sword technique is not really a reverse hammer grip like shown in the Asian sources. Fiore shows gripping the base of the blade (usually an unsharpened part) and not a full "reverse hammer" grip as the Asian sources. Modern interpretations sometimes have fingers hooked around the hilt, and most people do a sort of sideways throw.

+1, but with a nit-pick: the image of a sword which doesn't allow a "german-style" grip appears to be a fully two handed sword, considered by some to be outside the class of "longsword." Side rings (and nagels) do interfere with this grip, the pictured sword may just be a poor example.

Meanwhile in Europe, duel wielding two equally-sized weapons was considered showboating. I wonder if that was the case for Japan as well. Hm...

Meanwhile in Europe, dual wielding (of equal sized weapons) was practiced as SHOWBOATING! (Sarcasm) The Japanese are obviously too humble and reserved to ever do such a thing. (/sarcasm) This answer could be improved by going into what mechanical issues there are.

I am late to the party here, but IMHO shields are weapons and therefore one dual wields with them. Feel free to disagree, but it's held in the hand and can be active in defense and offense. (Under this view, armor is strictly worn and is more passive.)

I agree with the points you make, but I think this answer needs a little breaking up and formatting. I like the "# Title" method to make sections out of long answers.