freehand,
Can’t help to think wonder how the loser of the “ungentlemanly” duel is in a position to make the rules. Against a long rapier, you can pull out a short pistol, ungentlemanly but effective.
EE
Ego: The man who pulled a piston would be attacked by the second of the man he shot. You didn’t bring a gun to a sword fight. (Especially since when Sword dueling was popular, most guns were one-shot.)
Doug,
Why do you think the myth of the 3 inch sharpness was created? It couldn’t be possibly that some people didn’t have time to fully sharpen the swords when they had time to forge one.
Simon M,
Good point. I wonder if the westerners carried some sort of chain whip like the chinese to snare someone’s sword - or have it as a secondary weapon should they be caught at the short end of the sword so to speak (pun not intended)
Some pistols were not single shot, but had 2 barrels like a shot gun.
EE
Eggo,
Why do you insist in interjecting your comments into a subject about which you know nothing? These gentlemen obviously have some familiarity with it even thought they may not agree. You just like to read your own words. Please be quiet when adults are talking.
Originally posted by Ego_Extrodinaire
[B]Doug,
Why do you think the myth of the 3 inch sharpness was created? It couldn’t be possibly that some people didn’t have time to fully sharpen the swords when they had time to forge one.[/B]
I did address this earlier, but here goes…
Why was it created? Think about a couple of things:
-
Who propagated the myth? What are its origins and why? Why has this “myth” (really a stereotype, NOT a myth) been passed down?
-
How does this stereotype of jian and dao–yes, I have heard similar descriptions of what “real” dao were like in terms of sharpness–contrast with what the artifacts of history–the antiques–tell us? How do these stereotypes actually affect the forms learned and the techniques therein? How, if at all, do these stereotypes make sense? What purpose do they serve?
I would consider these points before taking the three-inch assumption as true.
I would also take care with regard to assuming “it couldn’t be possibly that some people didn’t have time to fully sharpen the swords when they had time to forge one.” This fallacy assumes that all weapons were made equally. China’s historical records proves this assumption incorrect, such as when wako pirates, consisting of Chinese and Japanese, invaded China’s coast. Records of the “pirates” cutting through the weapons and the men quite easily give an idea to the changing levels of quality control during China’s weapon-making eras.
By assuming the same quality control, another question is to what standard was the weapon-making process confined. Were weapons made for royalty the same as those made for “simple” wealthy families or peasants (who would have been lucky enough to have some metal weapon on hand)?
The answer would seem to be obvious because weapon makers were varied by large socioeconomic factors. Access to certain resources, such as those used to make steel and human labor, would separate them. Then, there is the skill level involved. Not every weapon maker would have been the same–it is impossible to create assembly line weapon makers who would make the same things at the same time all the time. So there were plenty of variations within the weapon-making craft in China as well as elsewhere throughout the world.
Yet if one were to theorize why a jian or dao lived up to the three-inch stereotype, one could surmise that time was a factor. Examine times of war in any culture, and one of the finding will be that weapon quality decreased as demand went up. Japan, Europe, China–they all were (and are) suspect to this proven formula. If one were required (remember that a weapon maker could easily be forced into this) to make weapons for a large contingency in a limited time frame, the amount of effort that would be put into each weapon would decrease. Therefore, quality of the steel, for instance, could easily decrease to meet the demand of the dominant force (the people under a general who needed them). Sharpening a dao, then, could be restricted to half the blade’s edge in order to speed things up. Therefore, having the time to make a short-handled knife (a dao) directly coincides with partially sharpening it if the quality control decreases.
And if a small contingency were subject to the same pressures of time and materials, the same thing could also result.
Taking all of these parts into consideration, you will find that what you state as not being possible could very well have been the case, which, in some instances, was the reason behind a lot of stereotypes.
Check out www.swordforum.com, go to the Chinese sword forum, and look up Thomas Chen’s profile. Go to his web site, which contains a lot of useful information about Chinese weapons throughout its history. It is a great resource.
Doug M
Doug,
I hear what you say and it does makes sense. Looking at the Jian though, I don’t think that it is really a hacking weapon. Too light built compared to the western medieval straight swords - which have a much wider blade. Basically, even if it can’t sut through the armor the force of the blow may knock the opponent’s balance off opening up for a stab.
If it were a single handed hacking weapon, you would expect the cutting edge to be curved, much like the middle eastern sabres, or the US military sabres.
As for the sharpness along its length, I would contest the usefullness of having it sharp to the hilt. Looking at sword forms, you would find that the cuts are esecuted with wrist action, why, because it gives you the greatest leverage at the end of the weapon. So it stands to reason that at least 1/3 of it should be sharp.
If we were to sacrifice the 2/3 of trhe sword for being sharp, we gain by having a studier blade. I agree, the quality of chinese steel at that time is not the best. Hence greater survivability.
I would also contest that swords are usually clashed on the flat side of the blade. The player would usually “spiral” the sword such that you clash the hilt at right angles at best, which would mean that the upper edges of both swords would collide at some point.
Taking these factors into consideration, I believe that the swords with about 1/3 of the edge sharp were considered the most appropriate for the Jian.
Originally posted by Ego_Extrodinaire
Looking at the Jian though, I don’t think that it is really a hacking weapon. Too light built compared to the western medieval straight swords - which have a much wider blade. Basically, even if it can’t sut through the armor the force of the blow may knock the opponent’s balance off opening up for a stab.
Hacking weapon? When did I ever say that? Where did you get “hacking” from “cutting”?
If it were a single handed hacking weapon, you would expect the cutting edge to be curved, much like the middle eastern sabres, or the US military sabres.
That connection is not really accurate. You describe the characteristics of a cutting weapon. A hacking weapon could or could not have a curve, but it would 1) have a wider blade and 2) possibly have a curve, slight curve, or almost straight blade edge. I would not ever consider Middle Eastern or European/U.S. calvary sabers as “hacking” weapons (although one could “hack” with them–however, having the ability to do so does not make it a “hacking” weapon).
As for the sharpness along its length, I would contest the usefullness of having it sharp to the hilt. Looking at sword forms, you would find that the cuts are esecuted with wrist action, why, because it gives you the greatest leverage at the end of the weapon. So it stands to reason that at least 1/3 of it should be sharp.
At least 1/3 would be sharp, yes, but the whole blade would be sharp too. There are plenty of movements in forms that use the whole blade or portions below the 1/3 point from the tip to ward off opposites. There is no threat of a cut if these portions are dull.
If we were to sacrifice the 2/3 of trhe sword for being sharp, we gain by having a studier blade.
Not so. You may gain by being able to grab the blade without worry of being cut (which happens in what jian forms?), but you would be limited to the 1/3 point. THe jian would be sharp all the way through because its versatility relies on its ability to cut and thrust.
I agree, the quality of chinese steel at that time is not the best. Hence greater survivability.
What time are you talking about? The era I was referring to or over all of CHinese history or…? Regardless, sharpness would have less to do with survivability than with the greater restrictions of time. When thousands of swords and polearms need sharpening, something would be neglected, especially since sharpening a blade well takes a long time.
I would also contest that swords are usually clashed on the flat side of the blade. The player would usually “spiral” the sword such that you clash the hilt at right angles at best, which would mean that the upper edges of both swords would collide at some point.
Do not confuse “clashing” with “binding.” More importantly, though, you are wrong about not using the flat of the blade to deflect, bind, or even block an incoming weapon. The edge would be used to save one’s life, which would happen if using the edge was the only alternative at the time or if nothing else registered. But the flat was preferred, not the edge. Think about it: where is the strongest or best point to deflect or meet an incoming weapon–the hard, brittle edge or the softer, resistant flat?
Taking these factors into consideration, I believe that the swords with about 1/3 of the edge sharp were considered the most appropriate for the Jian.
No offense, but your belief about the jian conflicts with historical records of the living artifacts (the actual swords and knives) that remain. A little more research into this area will likely convince you. As I say, no offense.
Doug M
Why you will not grab a jin
Doug,
No offence taken. If you know me, I never treat a difference in opinion as an offence. Got me thinking though about grabbing the blade of a sword that’s partially blunt. I can put down afew tactical reasons why it would not be done.
-
Right hand to right hand. Tactically its best to use the sword with the right hand unless you’re left handed and your heart is located on the right side of your body. Hence when you clash swords and slip to hilt to hilt, you would have to reach over yourself with the left hand to grab the sword. You would instead try to control your opponent through his elbow or sholder when your in that close.
-
Stationary sword. No threat no need to grab plus you will be out of range, would be better off trying to poke or slash with the 1/3 sharp blade.
-
Stationary sword in close. No grabbing why, because your opponent can easily slip back, doesn’t take much to move 2 to 3 feet with good northern footworf. If you miss the grab, your inside of your arm (ie. tendons and arteries) will be at risk of being slashed.
-
Even if you do grab a sword, it doesn’t mean you are in a tactically advantages position, because you will be locking youself in that position as much as you are locking yoir opponent. Better off using the stickiness found in eg. tai Chi, mantis type styles and apply that stickness to sword work for control.
Therefore, speaking from a practitioner’s view point, I don’t think having the blade sharp throughout the length is advantages compared to it having 1/3 sharp. You’re better off having a studier blade by having it more blunt closer to the hilt.
Re: Why you will not grab a jin
Originally posted by Ego_Extrodinaire
Therefore, speaking from a practitioner’s view point, I don’t think having the blade sharp throughout the length is advantages compared to it having 1/3 sharp. You’re better off having a studier blade by having it more blunt closer to the hilt.
Well, that is up to you if you want to believe that swords that are from the Ming and Qing that are actually sharp the whole length of the blade are really sharp for the first third. If the 1/3 idea were true, lobbing off limbs, torsos, and heads would not be possible–which is a part of jian swordsmanship. As a practitioner as well, I would rather have access to a cut for the whole length of both sides of the blade. From what I know of the Chen Tai Chi sword form, sharpness for the whole blade is appreciated.
Doug M
The most recent material I have worked on at the Kwoon is a Jian form and I have to say: Doug is right. It would make no sense to blunt the lower 2/3 of the blade. Also it would do little to improve structural integrity of the blade. Ego you are grasping at straws here.
Simon M,
I think you’re confusing a real Jin to the foil swords people use in Wu Shu. By having the top 2/3 thick and blunt, you ahve a much stronger blade.
As I mentioned before, there is little risk of your blade being grabbed in any case. Unliek a rapier which is essentially blunt all the way through except the tip, you can grab it without serious risk of getting cut.
As for the Jin, you’ll be exposing the inside of your arms to being slashed.
Originally posted by Ego_Extrodinaire
[B]Simon M,
I think you’re confusing a real Jin to the foil swords people use in Wu Shu. By having the top 2/3 thick and blunt, you ahve a much stronger blade.
As I mentioned before, there is little risk of your blade being grabbed in any case. Unliek a rapier which is essentially blunt all the way through except the tip, you can grab it without serious risk of getting cut.
As for the Jin, you’ll be exposing the inside of your arms to being slashed. [/B]
Ego: I have used wood, wushu steel and combat steel Jian. The only ones that were sharp at all were the combat steel blades and they were sharp for the entire length!
Rapiers were not blunt, you’d lose fingers if you tried to grab the real deal; the same with Jian. The structural integrity of a blade is not greater if it is a little bit dull - or do you think that most Jian were half-finished blanks?
Originally posted by SimonM
Rapiers were not blunt, you’d lose fingers if you tried to grab the real deal; the same with Jian. The structural integrity of a blade is not greater if it is a little bit dull - or do you think that most Jian were half-finished blanks?
I agree except for this part. If you are referring to early rapiers, your case is much better. But later designs were made solely for the thrust. Rapier blades of later periods were not made for cutting. If they were cutters, they would not be very good ones. However, they were needle-point sharp for poking someone to death.
Doug M
My guess is, when it comes to duelling swords, they can be quite “personalized” in their configuration. Meaning that some rapiers may be slightly sharper than others, longer / shorter etc. So too with chinese swords. Battlefield weapons that are mass produced would be more standardized.
I do wish I have a large collection of antique swords where I can play around and work out the strategy behind what the user of that particular weapon would do.
Originally posted by Ego_Extrodinaire
[B]My guess is, when it comes to duelling swords, they can be quite “personalized” in their configuration. Meaning that some rapiers may be slightly sharper than others, longer / shorter etc. So too with chinese swords. Battlefield weapons that are mass produced would be more standardized.
I do wish I have a large collection of antique swords where I can play around and work out the strategy behind what the user of that particular weapon would do. [/B]
kinda like you do with your catalog bought star wars lightsabers eh kelvin…god you’re such a dhork!
Has anyone considered the metal making technology that has gone into the sword making process. If you make swords with the processes we have today, tungsten / neobidinum alloys and stuff the swords can do much more damage that the ones made in the 17 C. Accordingly I would imagine the way we use these mordern swords would vary.
On the point of light sabres. Unless you can polarize light, it would spread out too far. Keeping it in a beam you would some how need to suspend a fully reflective mirror at one end. In that way, you won’t be thrusting with that sword.
As for sword play, you want to be very accurate indeed. You would need to know the precise wave length of your light as well as your opponent’s. This is because it is ony at precise intervals that you can cause the 2 beams of light to undergo destructive interference otherwise you’ll end up cutting each other up.
But past that point the light will travel unhindered. On a side note, that’s why optical computing chips are so attractive because you can get the paths to cross in a 3D environment instead of etching electronic circuits in 2D.
But we’re talking about light sabres aren’t we Diego, or have I brought you fantasy back to reality 
No I’m not Kelvin, I don’t believe he knows the things that I do.
Ego, you have some difficulty with the reality/fantasy divide don’t you?
Light sabres are fiction. They are not real. This has nothing to do with the art of the sword, either European or Asian.
“Light sabres are fiction. They are not real.”
If you read between the lines, that’s what I’m saying.
any comments on my first paragraph?
Back to the Drawing Board
Sorry to burst your bubble Ego but metallurgical advances probably hasn’t made one whit of difference to the practice of Jian since the end of the 1700’s. You see, after that the firearm began to take over as the personal sidearm of choice. Traditional weapon forms such as Taiji Jian are probably the same as they were then as they have become objects of cultural posterity and part of holistic martial practice. Neither is effected by metallurgy advances.
SimonM,
Not at all. And precisely my point. When we train with chinese swords, the forms partly reflect the type of steel that had goine into making those weapons correct?
That being the case, if we improvize with a piece of metal that we use in a self defence situation today, we can probably do more with it because it is likely to be made of stronger steel.
My comments revolve around how you might think of your forms in light of this.