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

[Flying Crane]

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

The Yang taiji and Chen taiji sword work in particular that I have done, has a lot of wide, sweeping cuts.

I will also add that as much as I have no interest in Modern Wushu, it was based on older fighting methods. Jian forms in Modern Wushu have a lot of sweeping cuts, so I believe it is reasonable to believe that the historical base material did as well. I have not trained that material, so cannot speak from direct experience.

 

[Flying Crane]

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

Sure, no argument. But I think historically they were probably handled quite differently than in later eras. This is old enough that I am very doubtful that any trustworthy records exist for how they were actually handled and trained. But the different performance of the material, likely cause it a very different approach to handling, I think just really puts it in a category of its own. Still a jian, sure. But a very different kind.

 

[Xue Sheng]

The Yang taiji and Chen taiji sword work in particular that I have done, has a lot of wide, sweeping cuts.

I will also add that as much as I have no interest in Modern Wushu, it was based on older fighting methods. Jian forms in Modern Wushu have a lot of sweeping cuts, so I believe it is reasonable to believe that the historical base material did as well. I have not trained that material, so cannot speak from direct experience.

I've did a Chen jian form years ago, but actually do not remember much of it. But I do remember the Yang Jian form and it is not Modern Wushu, it is traditional. Wide sweeping cuts, are not, at least to me, slashing. There are blocks, cuts to the neck and a whole lot of jabs. The Dao is much more aggressive. Ergo the saying the jian is for the scholar the dao is for the butcher..... and since i prefer the Dao, I guess I'm a butcher. But the jian of old, compared to the jian we see today, is not exactly the same sword either.

Did the Qin slash with their Bronze Jian, in a major battle...probably. Did the Han slash with their jian...very likely. But those are heavier Dao then what we tend to use today or the last 100 years for that matter. The Chinese military in WW 2 carried a sword, carried a few actually but it was mainly the Dadao

 

[Xue Sheng]

Sure, no argument. But I think historically they were probably handled quite differently than in later eras. This is old enough that I am very doubtful that any trustworthy records exist for how they were actually handled and trained. But the different performance of the material, likely cause it a very different approach to handling, I think just really puts it in a category of its own. Still a jian, sure. But a very different kind.

Actually it was the Qin Dynasty Bronze weapons that had a lot to do with them taking over China.

 

[Flying Crane]

I've did a Chen jian form years ago, but actually do not remember much of it. But I do remember the Yang Jian form and it is not Modern Wushu, it is traditional. Wide sweeping cuts, are not, at least to me, slashing. There are blocks, cuts to the neck and a whole lot of jabs. The Dao is much more aggressive. Ergo the saying the jian is for the scholar the dao is for the butcher..... and since i prefer the Dao, I guess I'm a butcher. But the jian of old, compared to the jian we see today, is not exactly the same sword either.

Did the Qin slash with their Bronze Jian, in a major battle...probably. Did the Han slash with their jian...very likely. But those are heavier Dao then what we tend to use today or the last 100 years for that matter. The Chinese military in WW 2 carried a sword, carried a few actually but it was mainly the Dadao

I guess I’m not sure how you define slashing. I’ve been using the term wide sweeping cuts, to distinguish from thrusting. In my experience there is plenty of both in jian.

 

[Flying Crane]

Actually it was the Qin Dynasty Bronze weapons that had a lot to do with them taking over China.

I’m not saying they were poor weapons. In fact, bronze was cutting edge technology for a long time.

 

[Oily Dragon]

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”.

The entirety of my experience with rapiers comes from watching The Princess Bride, but I do know a thing or two about Chinese swords.

The rapier also has cuts for the same reason. You have to cut through air first, to kill a man with a sword from a distance. I think that's why jian forms are so graceful. These are lethal killing instruments, in dance form.

The dao is not nearly as agile. Sure I can cut a watermelon in half with it, but signing a legible Z would be tough.

Still...the Single Moon Flowing Saber (Hang Yuet Dahn Do) is pretty rad. Now that I think about it, this form already contains the right techniques to make a decent Z.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

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.

makes sense

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

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.

All that makes sense

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

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.

Thanks!

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

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.

Thank you for that!

 

[Xue Sheng]

I guess I’m not sure how you define slashing. I’ve been using the term wide sweeping cuts, to distinguish from thrusting. In my experience there is plenty of both in jian.

Look at traditional Dao forms you will see a difference. But then, maybe I am being to circumscript in my definition of a slash too.

I guess all I can then say for sure is the Dao tends to be less brittle and more sturdy than a Jian

 

[Flying Crane]

Look at traditional Dao forms you will see a difference. But then, maybe I am being to circumscript in my definition of a slash too.

I guess all I can then say for sure is the Dao tends to be less brittle and more sturdy than a Jian

I have a traditional dao set as part of my practice, so am definitely familiar. Honestly, I can see a difference between dao slashes and jian sweeping cuts, but part of me wonders if they aren’t just different flavors of the same thing. Outside of the forms, when I work through my basics for each of these weapons, there is a lot that is the same.

I believe that in general, dao are more robust than jian, but specific examples can vary. I have handled very heavy and robust examples of both, as well as very light examples of both.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I have a traditional dao set as part of my practice, so am definitely familiar. Honestly, I can see a difference between dao slashes and jian sweeping cuts, but part of me wonders if they aren’t just different flavors of the same thing. Outside of the forms, when I work through my basics for each of these weapons, there is a lot that is the same.

I believe that in general, dao are more robust than jian, but specific examples can vary. I have handled very heavy and robust examples of both, as well as very light examples of both.

My comparison is between the historic Jian and Dao, not the modern versions. I too have handed flimsy versions of both. I am currently considering a more substantial jian, if my knee ever recovers. I despise the lighter versions of either of them. My Dao is heavy, can be sharpened and used as a weapon, I accidentally cut a brass bracket in the basement of my previous house with my Dao, just missed the water pipe, thankfully. it did not damage the blade and it was not (and is not) sharpened. My jian is heavier than most, but still would never be able to hold an edge....or cut a bracket

 

[Steve]

The entirety of my experience with rapiers comes from watching The Princess Bride, but I do know a thing or two about Chinese swords.

The rapier also has cuts for the same reason. You have to cut through air first, to kill a man with a sword from a distance. I think that's why jian forms are so graceful. These are lethal killing instruments, in dance form.

The dao is not nearly as agile. Sure I can cut a watermelon in half with it, but signing a legible Z would be tough.

Still...the Single Moon Flowing Saber (Hang Yuet Dahn Do) is pretty rad. Now that I think about it, this form already contains the right techniques to make a decent Z.

"I see you are using Bonetti's defense against me."

I love the Princess Bride. Holds up really well, too. Watched it with my youngest a few years back, and she loved it too.

 

[Dirty Dog]

"I see you are using Bonetti's defense against me."

I love the Princess Bride. Holds up really well, too. Watched it with my youngest a few years back, and she loved it too.

Everyone should be required to watch The Princess Bride and Goonies.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Everyone should be required to watch The Princess Bride and Goonies.

And Christmas story!

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

You’ll shoot your eye out!

 

[Flying Crane]

My comparison is between the historic Jian and Dao, not the modern versions. I too have handed flimsy versions of both. I am currently considering a more substantial jian, if my knee ever recovers. I despise the lighter versions of either of them. My Dao is heavy, can be sharpened and used as a weapon, I accidentally cut a brass bracket in the basement of my previous house with my Dao, just missed the water pipe, thankfully. it did not damage the blade and it was not (and is not) sharpened. My jian is heavier than most, but still would never be able to hold an edge....or cut a bracket

I am curious what kind of jian you have, and why you feel it would never be able to hold an edge? If it was properly heat treated then it should hold an edge. If it has a blunt edge, then a sharp edge can be put on it.

 

[bill miller]

"I see you are using Bonetti's defense against me."

So you are the dread pirate Roberts!!??