I think that daggers often served dual purposes in their day. First and foremost they were weapons, and often fearsome ones in the case of many of the rondels. Secondly, these weapons were often carried by the wealthiest people of the times and people have changed little over the millennia; the rich still want everybody else to know immediately and in no uncertain terms that they are the rich and powerful and woe be unto those who are not. Also, the wealthy tend to be occupied with showing the others of their level that they are wealthier than anybody in the room. So to that point daggers were also worn as talismans of status and grew increasingly more ornate and expensive as men sought to one up each other.

The ballock dagger in particular though has an additional significance in that it not only said to the observer that the wearer was wealthy and important but that they also didn't need any Viagra :lol: ! Medieval society was one of the most macho in Western history and upper crust men of the time made great efforts and spent lots of $$$ to show off their status and virility whether it was with tight fitted hose and cod pieces to ballock daggers or castles it was often all about, "I'm the dominant male monkey here and don't you forget it!" We really haven't changed much as a species.

But I digress, slightly. To me it seems that most of the daggers of the period were meant for fighting and perhaps sometimes as utility tools, but the blade types are predominantly fighting knives. The blades seen on period blades are still emulated by modern knife makers when designing fighting blades. The Fairbairn-Sykes combat dagger of WWII, for example, is a direct descendant of many of the blades shown in the previous posts as are Rex Applegate's and the many fighters made by Randal. Good design endures. If medieval daggers were more intended for utility use, they probably would have evolved to look a lot like the USMC KaBar utility knife. Although both the Bowie and KaBar owe more to the Seax.