YES they did exist in Europe!

[Eddie Smith]

Ok so the katana should be very well known to everyone, but the pics are of a 'kaninholmsabeln'. I figured with all the sword variations in Europe it was likely such a design was used in peroid. I'm was guessing if such a sword would exist it would be mid to late 1500's. But before Japanese influence IIRC. So to Japanaphiles who claim Europeans had inferior sword designs I present this evidence. As to why this design didn't sweep Europe as the 'ulitmate sword'? My guess is the greater versatility of the longsword as well as need for a range of sword designs do deal with differing situations on the European battlefeild.

here are the links...
http://histvarld.historiska.se/draekter ... G_2948.jpg

http://histvarld.historiska.se/draekter ... balte.html[/img][/quote]

[Eddie Smith]

oh yes the page is in Swedish.

[Eddie Smith]

Kaninholmsabeln = kanin holm sablen in Sweedish = rabbit holm sabre. a 'holm' is "a place-name for islands in areas with Scandinavian influence" via wikipedia. Therefore kaninholmsabeln = rabbit island saber? ok.

site says of saber: "This so-called Grossmessern is a replica of a bargain from Vasteras from about 1520-30, known as "Kaninholmsabeln". It is a bastardtyp, where the blade corresponds to a Gross Messer of the type that was common among the wider sections of the population in contemporary Central and Northern Europe, while the pretzel in the bracket is of Katzbalgertyp. Although the short broad-bladed katzbalgern was the most common side weapon for mercenaries at this time, there are many images that also documents the use of these grossmessers. This cross between katzbalger and wholesale messer seems to be very rare. "Kaninholmsabeln" is almost certainly not Swedish-made, but probably comes from Germany. Kringlan the hilt is typical of the enlisted soldier's land forces and at that time there were no domestically in Sweden. The handle is not preserved on the original, so that the handle is a guess based on similar grossmessers from the Wallace Collection, London. The handle is made of ash."

[Roger Norling]

Fairly good translation but "fynd" is "finding" and not a "bargain". And the S-shape cross might remind us of a pretzel but really is not, even if the original author uses that Swedish word, "kringla".

And yes, there are similarities between a katana and the VERY common messer, but also important differences, not least the "cross". The messer is also very commonly described in the fencing manuals. The Falchion is a similar weapon and is certainly used in the 1100s, surely even earlier.

The sabre goes back to about the early 1500s and were called dussack, which is what see in the manuals of that period. These were proto-sabres with more or less complex hilts and can be seen as a natural development of the messer.

The idea that Japanese swords were better is clearly wrong and probably stems from the hard work the swordsmiths had using unpure iron ore for their steel, which forced them to fold the steel up to 16 times to even out the impurities, just as the Vikings did. In time this lead to very complex swordsmithing with differential hardening and tempering which simply was not needed in Europe. It was not uncommon for katanas to bend.

[Jonathan Hill]

I assume you are meaning curved cutting swords existed in Europe? Of course they did, cutting weapons have always existed, from the Kopis to Falchion, Dussak, later the Sabre. The first thing to understand is the Katana is merely a two handed curved cutting sword. It was a descendant of the Tachi which was a curved cavalry sword, and Europe definitely used curved cavalry sabres. The sabre was actually the predominate cavalry sword once people started dropping heavy armor, and the cut could be used more effectively.

As to why didn’t it sweep Europe as the ‘Ultimate sword,’ look at the armor. Chain armor was used back to the Viking age, and do you know what happens when you try to cut chain maile –nothing, you are better off using a club. You can’t cut chain armor much less plate, thus cutting weapons were ineffective, and Europe developed weapons that worked against the armor used in Europe. If you do take that Samurai vs Knight fight and put them both in full armor and equip them with only swords (not a real situation I know.) If the Samurai came in with a cut, the knight would step into it, take it full on the armor and impale the Samurai. Why, because he can, the armor protects him, while the Samurai armor would not protect him from the knights sword.

To me a more interesting thing to ponder is Europe vs Japan’s dueling weapon. The Katana was the height of Japanese dueling weapons, while Europe the height was considered by some to be the small sword. So take a small sword vs a Katana, now that would be entertaining to watch. To make it a very uneven match take Rapier vs Katana. I may actually get a chance to try this soon!

[Eddie Smith]

really this post was meant to be partly sarcastic in nature. So I agree with you guys on what has been said, and was aware of the info already, but thanks for putting it up for balance, and incase some stumbles on this thread who doesn't. But yes I plan to re post this also on some other more varried forums; probably re worded to make clear the point of it. This was a direct example of me talking with a "Japanese sword expert". He didn't believe me that some of the Korean and other Asian swords were virtually indistinguishable from Katanas. And would not relenquish the the idea that European swords were inferior simply because they "never developed the ideal form of the Katana". I should have left it at that, but a small crowd was gathering to listen, and i figured someone might get educated. had my laptop and many sword pics with, but didn't have this saber pic yet. he dismissed everything I showed that was European for one reason or another. even some two handed sabers from the 1500's becuse although the blades were similar, the hilts, esp the guards, were "not as effective as a tsuba would be." lol like I said if it was just us two I would have laughed and walked.....oh well at least 4 others got it, and asked me for more info! Told them to come here also, so we will see.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

The first thing to understand is the Katana is merely a two handed curved cutting sword.

Um...it's really a one-handed, slightly curved (in fact, most examples are barely curved) cutting sword. It can be used in two hands, of course, and often was, but the basic design was that of a one-handed sword--and illustrations showing its use in war (as opposed to civilian urban brawling/duelling) generally depict it being wielded in one hand.

[Jonathan Hill]

A single handed sword only has room for one hand, the fact that it has an extended grip means you have the option for two hands. I can use most longswords in one hand does that mean it’s a single handed sword? Perhaps you would prefer to call it a hand and a half? Most designs of sabres are single handers because there is no room for a second hand. If you are looking at a picture from a war it was probably a Tachi (although I don’t know what pics you are meaning,) the Katana was less of a battlefield weapon and more of a dueling weapon. Even the intended way to wear the blade shows that it was a footman’s blade rather than a horseman’s blade, it is very hard to push draw a blade to get it out to strike when there is a horse’s head in the way, and in a battlefield you should have your weapon out before your enemy is within striking range.

There is no minimum curvature to call it a curved blade. For generalities cavalry benefit from a deeper curve and footmen prefer a shallower curve or straighter blade. Considering the Tachi was commonly more curved and that is appropriate as a horseman’s blade. This is also apparent in the sabre designs when you look at the 1796 LC sabre with a deep curve vs the later period officer sabres which have a much shallower curve.

None of that deters from the fact that Japan favored the cut especially during the time the Katana was in fashion, while it could be argued that Europe favored the thrust, especially during times when the longsword was prevalent. This definitely has to do with the armor that the weapon was expected to be used against, just like in Europe, a sabre wasn’t fielded against plate or chain armor it’s ineffective.

Eddie you were dealing with a Katana fan boy, there is no convincing such a person.

[Stacy Clifford]

A single handed sword only has room for one hand, the fact that it has an extended grip means you have the option for two hands.

You're forgetting an important engineering difference between Japanese and European swords. Europeans added the pommel partly to offset the weight of the blade to attain proper balance (as well as make a nice backstop for the hand), which allowed them to build shorter grips. Since Japanese swords don't have pommels, they have to have longer grips to achieve the same weight balance, so a sword with a long grip could still have been mainly intended for use in one hand under those circumstances. Any sword can be used with two hands in a pinch; even the Viking sagas have instances of men using their very short-gripped swords in both hands.

[Eddie Smith]

Eddie you were dealing with a Katana fan boy, there is no convincing such a person.

I was, and like I said was less about convincing him as it was educating those that gathered and were open to learning. But to see him get irritated and become unable to answer questions asked by myself and some that had gathered was worth the nonesence! lol ok so as a professor of mine in college put it I'm a "philosophic bully"!

and in response to the statement about the translation of the text in my original post; it was done entirely by google translate, so it is no real shock that 'pretzel' and such were used. but thanks for the corrections to that (forgot to look who posted that)