people have been arguing cut vs. thrust for more years than we have left to do the same
i am reminded of jim bowie on the sandbar in 1827. stabbed thru the chest with a sword-cane, he killed the swordsman, gutting him with his bowie knife & slashed off another attacker's arm, ending the 1 armed man's attack. bowie was also shot a few times. he somehow survived that day. a thrust is most likely to kill in the long run, usually by infection, but less likely to incapacitate, many men have walked down a rapier/sword thrust thru them to inflict serious damage or death on the thruster. if you've had your arm or leg slashed off, you cannot thrust again effectively.
the romans won half the world by using a short but wide thrusting sword, one roman writer wrote that 3 inches of gladius thrust into the enemy usually killed them, the truth was more complex. the roman shield wall would open a small gap for each man to thrust their swords forward. they would then close the wall and push forward, knocking the just wounded to the ground. then the wall opened and did the same. over and over, a buzz saw. as they advanced the ranks behind would finish off the hobnail boot trampled wounded enemies, or fill in any gap left by fallen comrades, or on command would relieve them to allow them a rest rotation. they were also not above slashing where appropriate or using their shields as offensive weapons.
in any case, in a war, the object is not so much to kill an enemy as to wound them or intimidate, a dead man is beyond help. a wounded man takes 4-5 other men to care for and feed him while he recovers, thus running the enemy out of resources more rapidly. a slashed man generally looks horrific as well, intimidating others who don't want to look like that. a man with a simple thrust wound doesn't look particularly horrible.