Strange Oriental sword

Rick · 26th August 2005, 04:18 PM

I see you survived Katrina Andrew .

Andrew · 27th August 2005, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

I see you survived Katrina Andrew .

We're all good, Rick.

Internet access is spotty, though.

fearn · 27th August 2005, 04:41 AM

Good to hear Andrew.

Rick,

You mean that I don't get to read you and Henk arguing for two pages just to settle that bet?

I'm soooooooooo disappointed

F

Ian · 27th August 2005, 06:02 AM

as we delve deeper into the relationship between the Dutch klewang and the M1917 US Cutlass.

It appears that the Dutch klewang debuted in 1898, and that the M1917 US Cutlass copied the blade style exactly. There is even a M1941 US Cutlass that used the same cut out hilt as found on the Dutch version, and is indistinguishable from it.

A helpful, but brief article on these swords, by Rick Wagner can be found here http://www.angelfire.com/wa/swordcollector/cutlass.html and it has some relevance to the present discussion in that it describes the use of Dutch klewang by occupying Japanese forces during WWII.

Who wins the debate? Well I guess Henk does, because the US cutlass is a copy of the Dutch klewang, so all versions are derivative of the original.

BTW, our own Carter Rila wrote an article on the Dutch klewang and its adoption by the US in 1917.

Ian.

Henk · 27th August 2005, 09:04 AM

fearn · 27th August 2005, 01:38 PM

Congrats, Henk!

Thanks, Ian! To me, it's more interesting that the blade was made for the US Military up to 1956, and its last use was in ROTC and ceremonial duty. Personally, I still think that someone in the US cobbled this thing together as a do-it-yourself project. I mean, not even rivetting those bone slabs on? Have you ever seen Japanese work that sloppy?

F

Rick · 27th August 2005, 03:46 PM

You win Henk .

27th August 2005, 06:02 AM	#4
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,361	The plot thickens ... as we delve deeper into the relationship between the Dutch klewang and the M1917 US Cutlass. It appears that the Dutch klewang debuted in 1898, and that the M1917 US Cutlass copied the blade style exactly. There is even a M1941 US Cutlass that used the same cut out hilt as found on the Dutch version, and is indistinguishable from it. A helpful, but brief article on these swords, by Rick Wagner can be found here http://www.angelfire.com/wa/swordcollector/cutlass.html and it has some relevance to the present discussion in that it describes the use of Dutch klewang by occupying Japanese forces during WWII. Who wins the debate? Well I guess Henk does, because the US cutlass is a copy of the Dutch klewang, so all versions are derivative of the original. BTW, our own Carter Rila wrote an article on the Dutch klewang and its adoption by the US in 1917. Ian.

27th August 2005, 03:46 PM	#7
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	You win Henk . Attached Images

26th August 2005, 04:18 PM	#1
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	I see you survived Katrina Andrew .

27th August 2005, 04:41 AM	#3
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Good to hear Andrew. Rick, You mean that I don't get to read you and Henk arguing for two pages just to settle that bet? I'm soooooooooo disappointed F

27th August 2005, 09:04 AM	#5
Henk Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,209

27th August 2005, 01:38 PM	#6
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Congrats, Henk! Thanks, Ian! To me, it's more interesting that the blade was made for the US Military up to 1956, and its last use was in ROTC and ceremonial duty. Personally, I still think that someone in the US cobbled this thing together as a do-it-yourself project. I mean, not even rivetting those bone slabs on? Have you ever seen Japanese work that sloppy? F