Well, the 'Halo energy sword' is essentially a fantastic take on a good, old and a bit oversized punch dagger. We might of course, include also a blade fitted to the forearm, like this weapon-like object.

This immediately brings an association with very real weapons that were used few centuries ago, chiefly on the Indian Subcontinent. The smaller of the two would be katar, used from around 15th century in southern India, and the other would be pata, considered to be katar's larger descendant, most likely introduced somewhere in mid-17th century, chiefly in Maharashtra, but also generally associated with the Marathi Empire. Although majority of the surviving katars were usually made with a relatively short, wide, triangular blades, there were also ones with slightly longer and slender ones, capable of both thrusting and slashing, as seen on this picture (the specimen on the bottom). With the hand guards being progressively more and more elaborate, starting with simple guard over the palm and wrist (as seen on the picture above) and incorporating additional side guards, the weapon ultimately evolved in a form, where the guards created a complete shell or a rigid 'gauntlet' completely protecting the wrist and a forearm, leading to the creation of pata.

Now let's go back to the aforementioned 'weapon-like object'. It seems that it would be pretty much useless, as it does not provide any advantages, while offering some serious hindrances. The part underneath the forearm would have been useless, as the wearer would be able to hit only the objects located closer that arm's reach and thus would be largely a dead weight for a general-purpose weapon. Furthermore, the fixed blade would be constantly protruding, getting in the way during various activities, from riding to climbing to adjusting armour. Any longer blade would also quickly exert the wearer. And coming to attacking, such weapon would offer drastically lower impact force. Any averagely agile person would have been able to rotate the arm only so that the blade would have been pointed upwards - that's the end of the movement range, especially given that the weapon is off-set from the forearm downwards). Regular weapon, such as a sword, saber or axe usually points downward when a swing from the arm is made, and thus, their movement is longer (more or less twice as long) and this contributes to a higher velocity and thus higher momentum and kinetic energy at the impact. In general, due to anatomical constraints, a slashing motion with an object that has its axis set perpendicularly in relation to the axis of the wrist holding it (i.e. like in a push dagger) results in worse energy usage, making it far from optimal.

Now, there is also one important consideration. Any weapon that would have been secured against the forearm would be also limited to its use on foot, as the operation of the weapon on horseback would be dangerous. If the blade was caught or stuck, the user would have not been able to release the hold, what would have resulted in dislocation of the shoulder, damage to the elbow joint and tendons, dismounting or damage to the weapon.

Some of the drawbacks mentioned above would naturally also apply to the katar and pata, although to a lesser extent. It is suggested however, that both these weapons evolved in a milieu, where the relative immobility of the wrist and usage of the wider range of the upper body movement to compensate was a norm rather than exception. Some point to the relatively short hilts of tulwar, another Indian weapon, that are additionally assisted with large discs on both sides (with the upper one often acting as a hand guard), further stiffening a grip and limiting the use of wrist, essential in the Western fencing, especially in the case of Persian, Arabic and European sabres. With such a techniques existing and well-known, usage of punch-daggers and later also gauntlet-swords were quite natural, explaining why such weapons gained a limited popularity in what is the Indian subcontinent, but were almost unknown elsewhere.

There is also an interesting case of a weapon described as the 'Moorish boarding sword' that is displayed in the Madrid Royal Armoury. One might also find it referenced to under the name 'manople', although this is most likely not a original name of this weapon, as it is just a Spanish word for a gauntlet or mitten. It is not clear whether this was a primary weapon or an equivalent to a main-gauche that has been fixed to a bracer to free the palm of the corresponding hand, what makes a lot of sense in the context of the maritime combat. Another curio is a 'lantern shield' adorned with various accouterments, including glove with spikes attached and a retractable blade. Even though such items are mentioned in the fencing treatises, nothing indicates that they have seen any actual use.

A substantial number of the Russian pictures and drawings depicting the events that happened in 17th century portrays a fighter (usually solitary) armed with a bracer with a long blade attached and also equipped with the small, circular shield at the end. Such a contraption can be seen here, in a fragment of 'Defence of Smolensk against the Poles' by 19th century artist, Boris Chorikov or 'Battle at Moscow between Prince Pozharskiy and Hetman Chodkiewicz' by Pyotr Kovyerznyev, also from 19th century (see the warrior in the middle, under the banner). The problem is that despite these depictions, there is not a single specimen surviving to our times and the only extant artifact of this kind that is displayed in the Moscow Kremlin Armoury does not feature a blade and it is possible that both it and the 19th century depictions are purely fantastic items that could have been initially inspired by the Indian sword.

Thus, although the weapons described in the title were by all means known and even used to some extent in various parts of the world, their lack of popularity might be attributed to the fact that in most places people were already accustomed to the usage of the 'traditional' weapons and they did not see a reason to change it, especially given the fact that very little could have been gained by the adoption of these new types of weaponry.