Leading senior citizens to the "Dark Side" - Right or wrong?

[Oily Dragon]

OK, Sword nerd time.

劍 means "a unified knife", and "jian" is close to Trans-Himalayan for "sharp". The unifying factor all of jian type weapons in China is the poke. These swords, while double edged, are not meant for slashing, but for thrusting. Much like the rapier, unless I'm wrong.

 

[Xue Sheng]

OK, Sword nerd time.

劍 means "a unified knife", and "jian" is close to Trans-Himalayan for "sharp". The unifying factor all of jian type weapons in China is the poke. These swords, while double edged, are not meant for slashing, but for thrusting. Much like the rapier, unless I'm wrong.

The Dāo 刀 (knife) is for slashing, not the jian. Which is why they said the jain was for scholars and the dao is for a butcher. And for the rest, the dao is also a family of swords to the Chinese

The Dāo 刀, one of them at least, and the one most are familiar with

 

[Flying Crane]

The Dāo 刀 (knife) is for slashing, not the jian. Which is why they said the jain was for scholars and the dao is for a butcher. And for the rest, the dao is also a family of swords to the Chinese

The Dāo 刀, one of them at least, and the one most are familiar with

And a lot of jian material has large cuts as well. The way I see it, the use of jian runs the range as it did in Europe. Methods probably developed and changed, as aspects of society changed and the needs changed. So depending on the era, likely technical use would have been different. In my opinion, jian is a cut-and- thrust sword. Some variants may emphasize cut more, others thrust more. That we be evident in their physical design and in the methods practiced. But impossible to say “jian is THIS and not THAT”.

 

[bill miller]

I sure hope my senior citizens don't show up with bladed weapons! It could get ugly pretty quick

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I sure hope my senior citizens don't show up with bladed weapons! It could get ugly pretty quick

That’s funny!

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

And a lot of jian material has large cuts as well. The way I see it, the use of jian runs the range as it did in Europe. Methods probably developed and changed, as aspects of society changed and the needs changed. So depending on the era, likely technical use would have been different. In my opinion, jian is a cut-and- thrust sword. Some variants may emphasize cut more, others thrust more. That we be evident in their physical design and in the methods practiced. But impossible to say “jian is THIS and not THAT”.

I never trained with weapons in CMA but I am intrigued By this discussion. I am bursting With what are probably silly questions. I will stay quiet and see if some other mole pops his head up to ask them.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I sure hope my senior citizens don't show up with bladed weapons! It could get ugly pretty quick

Start with handing out foam noodles.

 

[Flying Crane]

I never trained with weapons in CMA but I am intrigued By this discussion. I am bursting With what are probably silly questions. I will stay quiet and see if some other mole pops his head up to ask them.

Nah. Ask. It builds the discussion.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Start with handing out foam noodles.

Nah. Ask. It builds the discussion.

Ok here goes. is this discussion of cut vs. thrust from Jian vs. Dao allegorical to European sword evolution or styles? Say side sword vs small sword vs rapier for example. One led to another over a period of time in Europe is my limited understanding, but what caused the change? Dueling? battlefield combat? Styles of dress? I guess what I’m asking is, were there similar reasons for people to change the type of sword they carried? In looking at the various types of swords used on the battlefield, it seems to me that the saber was the last type commonly used. How come? Cut vs. thrust? I’m rambling here because I clearly don’t know what I’m talking about. Apologies.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Nah. Ask. It builds the discussion.

Oh and are the way these weapons are used similar?

 

[bill miller]

Oh and are the way these weapons are used similar?

I would think that a slashing weapon would be easier to use for someone with a limited amount of training, and would probably do more damage. To me, with a thrusting weapon, you would need to be much more accurate on the strike to hit something vital.

 

[dvcochran]

I would think that a slashing weapon would be easier to use for someone with a limited amount of training, and would probably do more damage. To me, with a thrusting weapon, you would need to be much more accurate on the strike to hit something vital.

Agree. Part of what I was taught in Kali was to slash, slash, slash. Then if necessary deal a finishing blow/stab.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I would think that a slashing weapon would be easier to use for someone with a limited amount of training, and would probably do more damage. To me, with a thrusting weapon, you would need to be much more accurate on the strike to hit something vital.

Slashing attacks are messy, but they just are not as dangerous as a thrust. Proof? Ask yourself when dueling was banned. The answer: when thrusting weapons came into wide use. Because people died instead of going home to heal.
Get sliced up today. Odds are good we will be stitching you up and sending you on your way. Get one stab wound to the torso and the odds are good you'll be seeing the OR.
A persons vital bits are just not that easy to hit with a slash.

 

[Flying Crane]

Ok here goes. is this discussion of cut vs. thrust from Jian vs. Dao allegorical to European sword evolution or styles? Say side sword vs small sword vs rapier for example. One led to another over a period of time in Europe is my limited understanding, but what caused the change? Dueling? battlefield combat? Styles of dress? I guess what I’m asking is, were there similar reasons for people to change the type of sword they carried? In looking at the various types of swords used on the battlefield, it seems to me that the saber was the last type commonly used. How come? Cut vs. thrust? I’m rambling here because I clearly don’t know what I’m talking about. Apologies.

Good questions, and honestly I do not have a well researched answer for you. However, I believe it is safe to say that weapons and armor have evolved hand-in-hand, the one to counter the other. I believe this is well documented in Europe, and I have to believe something similar happened in Asia. Weapons were developed, and armor was then developed to protect against those weapons. And the weapons were altered to defeat that armor, and the armor was altered in turn. I suspect this was an on-going process and happened repeatedly over history. Generally, as armor became more effective, cuts became less effective and thrusts more likely to be effective at least in comparison to cuts. So swords gradually evolved to focus more on thrusting meaning they had a narrower profile and a thicker, more robust point. Somewhere along the way swords took on a shape that attempted to effectively be both a cut-and-thrust weapon. These had reasonably wide blades (a wider blade is better for cutting) with a more sharply tapered point. Eventually they became overall more pointed as tough plate armor (in Europe) became more common.

I believe that in China, there was a difference between a weapon that would be carried on the battlefield, vs. one carried by a civilian for self defense. The battlefield weapon would be more robust to withstand the rigor of the battlefield and to be effective against armor, while the civilian weapon would be less likely to need to be so robust given that civilians would be unlikely to be wearing armor, and a civilian self defense encounter would probably be brief and would not need to engage repeatedly against many enemies, some of them using heavy military pole-arms and such. I suspect technique and training methods would also reflect these differences in the weapons, there likely being different methodologies employed by the military vs. those employed by civilians.

In the modern age in the practice of traditional Chinese martial arts, it is unclear to me how well the weapon designs match history, and how well the technique and practice methods match the weapons with which they were historically developed. It is further unclear to me if it matters at all, on any functional level, so long as the practitioner is using a weapon that fits them well (enough).

But at any rate, I suspect that at least on some level the modern makers in China (at least those making them in quantity) are using designs that are easy to reproduce, with some amount of suspected historical accuracy, but may be driven more by profit and sales as long as the design meets at least a superficial historical satisfaction, but without heavy interest in strict historical accuracy. I myself am less interested in my weapons satisfying any historical accuracy, and more that they are simply robust and solidly constructed and functional.

I believe that for a time these weapons were being over-built, resulting in heavy, cumbersome weapons. I think the makers at the time (like the 1960s-1990s) did not understand how tough a properly made, lighter and thinner blade could be. As their understanding improved, the more recently made weapons reflect that understanding. They tend to be lighter and much more maneuverable, at least those made in the European designs. But the opposite end of that of course is the super-light junk made for Modern Wushu. This stuff is utter garbage and is nothing more than a stage-prop in the shape of a sword. I think there is still a lot of over-heavy stuff coming out of China, but some makers are getting better at making quality, well weighted and well balanced swords.

Regarding sabers, a curved blade is better for cutting, it is often less effective at the thrust. However, it can still thrust effectively if the tip lines up in a straight line with the grip. I believe sabers came into high use in the cavalry because on a galloping horse a cut was preferred, taking advantage of the momentum. A thrust into an enemy could result in a lost sword as it would be difficult to withdraw the weapon when galloping at speed.

 

[Flying Crane]

I would think that a slashing weapon would be easier to use for someone with a limited amount of training, and would probably do more damage. To me, with a thrusting weapon, you would need to be much more accurate on the strike to hit something vital.

In Chinese martial arts, the dao is always considered easier to learn, with the jian more difficult. In my opinion, this is true but is often overstated. I feel the jian can be learned with good instruction and dedicated practice, just like anything else. It is not out of reach within a reasonable amount of time.

 

[Flying Crane]

The first photo is two jian made in Lung Chuan, a Chinese village famous for sword making. I rebuilt the hilts, replacing the absolute junk that was put on in China, and putting on a European influenced cross type hilt because I find that I simply prefer it. They have a double edge for the full length of the blades. These were made in probably the 1970s, and are quite heavy, reflecting what I believe was consistent in how they were made during that time (see my post above). I tend to view them as heavy practice pieces, good for the workout, but too heavy to be quite appropriate on the battlefield. I would use them if I had no other options in the zombie apocalypse.

The second photo is of four swords made by Angus Trim in a European style, but I built the hilts. Two are done in steel cross-guard and two are done in cast bronze, with my own creativity in the design. Two are long swords and two I would classify as arming swords. These are more properly weighted and would be my go-to items during the zombie apocalypse.

If you compare the photos, you will see that the profile of these blades is very similar. I would not classify the jian as anything similar to a rapier, in my limited understanding of what a rapier is. The long jian is essentially identical to a long sword, and the short jian is essentially identical to a bastard sword, meaning a blade sized as an arming sword but with an extra long hilt to be used two-handed if desired.

 

[Flying Crane]

The rapier is a family of swords as well, although the variety of the rapier family doesn't exactly map to the variety of the jian family.

This is the sort of jian I was thinking of when I compared it to a rapier:

I agree, this particular jian shares a similar size and shape with a rapier.

 

[Flying Crane]

thing to know about the jian as compared to a rapier. The rapier is a specific sword. the Jian is a family of swords. The Chinese put things into categories that the europeans did not. We tend to see only one Chinese sword, called a jian...

but there are several different versions that fall under that name
these are also fall under the category of Jian

These appear to be fully bronze cast, which would make them very very old, from the Bronze Age, with the exception of the one on the far left of the second photo, that appears to be a rusting steel blade, possibly also very old. Bronze is very different from steel. It is a tough, durable metal and by the end of the Bronze Age, it was being alloyed to a point that was very nearly equivalent to the performance of iron. However it never performed as a sword, in a way to rival a quality steel sword.

Bronze is denser than steel, so a bronze sword will automatically be heavier than an identical steel sword. In order to be durable as a sword, it was made more robust than a later steel sword needed to be. This put limitations on the size of bronze swords, they tended to be shorter than later steel swords could be. As steel came into use, it was found to be much stronger and tougher than bronze, and could be deliberately made much thinner and longer, while retaining superior strength and durability than the bronze precursors. It is my feeling that bronze swords were a different animal from steel swords, and ought to be considered something else. They would perform and handle very differently.

 

[Xue Sheng]

And a lot of jian material has large cuts as well. The way I see it, the use of jian runs the range as it did in Europe. Methods probably developed and changed, as aspects of society changed and the needs changed. So depending on the era, likely technical use would have been different. In my opinion, jian is a cut-and- thrust sword. Some variants may emphasize cut more, others thrust more. That we be evident in their physical design and in the methods practiced. But impossible to say “jian is THIS and not THAT”.

If you go back to the older, wider blade jian, most certainly. the newer thinner blade, based on forms I do, not so much slashing. The newer thinner blade that we have today, as far as I know, was never used in warfare. However the longer two handed jian not so sure of its exact usage

 

[Xue Sheng]

These appear to be fully bronze cast, which would make them very very old, from the Bronze Age, with the exception of the one on the far left of the second photo, that appears to be a rusting steel blade, possibly also very old. Bronze is very different from steel. It is a tough, durable metal and by the end of the Bronze Age, it was being alloyed to a point that was very nearly equivalent to the performance of iron. However it never performed as a sword, in a way to rival a quality steel sword.

Bronze is denser than steel, so a bronze sword will automatically be heavier than an identical steel sword. In order to be durable as a sword, it was made more robust than a later steel sword needed to be. This put limitations on the size of bronze swords, they tended to be shorter than later steel swords could be. As steel came into use, it was found to be much stronger and tougher than bronze, and could be deliberately made much thinner and longer, while retaining superior strength and durability than the bronze precursors. It is my feeling that bronze swords were a different animal from steel swords, and ought to be considered something else. They would perform and handle very differently.

Bronze or steel, they still categorize that type of sword a jian