Again, the time period is significant in answering that question: see how the authors are writing in the year 539.
Properly quenched, hardened, and tempered steel wouldn't show up for about four hundred years after that date, in the tenth century. Around this same time, quillons were first added and the sword hit its essentially stable form throughout the Middle Ages. These were much more advanced, much more expensive, and much more sought-after weapons.
The Franks, by contrast, used spatha -- slightly longer versions of the old Roman gladius; indeed the Franks had more or less inherited the Roman way of making weapons. And it's noted that Frankish swords were of pretty high quality for the period. Even so: spatha-style blades were much weaker. Consequently they were much easier to make en masse, but they weren't terribly strong -- and probably wouldn't have been much of a match for later medieval swords or much stronger chain and plate armour. During the Frankish period armour was pretty rare (note its distinct absence in the two sources you've quoted) which made spatha-type weapons -- typically for stabbing and thrusting less than slicing -- viable. After armour became common, much less so.
(And one might note even then that swords were not that common. Among the Vikings, a wealthy Viking would likely have a complete ensemble of a spear, one or two javelins, a wooden shield, and either a battle axe or a sword. The very richest might have a helmet, other armour is thought to have been limited to the nobility and their professional warriors. The average farmer was likely limited to a spear, shield, and perhaps a common axe or a large knife.
As sword technology got better, it also got more expensive. By the medieval period you had to have a lot of good swords in order to win a battle, which meant that only the rich could afford them or supply their men with them.
Properly quenched, hardened, and tempered steel wouldn't show up for about four hundred years after that date, in the tenth century. Around this same time, quillons were first added and the sword hit its essentially stable form throughout the Middle Ages. These were much more advanced, much more expensive, and much more sought-after weapons.
The Franks, by contrast, used spatha -- slightly longer versions of the old Roman gladius; indeed the Franks had more or less inherited the Roman way of making weapons. And it's noted that Frankish swords were of pretty high quality for the period. Even so: spatha-style blades were much weaker. Consequently they were much easier to make en masse, but they weren't terribly strong -- and probably wouldn't have been much of a match for later medieval swords or much stronger chain and plate armour. During the Frankish period armour was pretty rare (note its distinct absence in the two sources you've quoted) which made spatha-type weapons -- typically for stabbing and thrusting less than slicing -- viable. After armour became common, much less so.
(And one might note even then that swords were not that common. Among the Vikings, a wealthy Viking would likely have a complete ensemble of a spear, one or two javelins, a wooden shield, and either a battle axe or a sword. The very richest might have a helmet, other armour is thought to have been limited to the nobility and their professional warriors. The average farmer was likely limited to a spear, shield, and perhaps a common axe or a large knife.
As sword technology got better, it also got more expensive. By the medieval period you had to have a lot of good swords in order to win a battle, which meant that only the rich could afford them or supply their men with them.
Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm