Chinese sword vs. Western fencing

[Andy]

Has anyone here attempted to use Chinese sword techniques against a seasoned western fencer? If you have let us know the results.

Andy
Fu Hok Yau Kung Fut Pai

[once ronin]

Using a chinese knife (dan dao) I got creamed.

Using a 1 inch thick by 36 inch long stick I got beat bad twice.

Using a sword (gim) I could even the score.

Nothing beats experience. Theories and talk is always cheap.

[GeneChing]

I got a fair amount of mileage out of Chinese techniques on the strip, all told. Of course, what I used could have been described in fencing terms, but I'd attribute my ability to deploy those techniques to my kung fu training. Arguably, it gave me what little advantage I had out there on the fencing strip.

I remember once having to fence saber in this demo/exchange tournament versus a Junior College. We were an NCAA team and since this tournament was just for fun, the saber squad didn't show. I was never a saber fencer, so I relied mostly on dao techniques. One of my buddies was directing. He nearly ejected me for hitting too hard. I was pretty irate at that call at the time because I didn't feel like I was hitting hard at all. My buddy had dabbled in kung fu so he knew a bit about dao technique and said I was using that stuff unfairly. I was like "whatever, dude..." and was pretty ****ed off at his calls until long after the bout when my opponent took of his jacket - his chest was covered with thick nasty welts, all from me. I then had to sheepishly apologize to everyone for being such an *******.

There was also I time when I kinda tripped this guy in a bout. It was a total accident/reflex, something again out of my dao form. Yep, another penalty for Geno... :o

[KaiKhoon]

I think fencing with sabers wether wood or not would be painful.

[David Jamieson]

That's why padded armour is worn. :p

I haven't tried chinese sword vs a fencer.

sword techniques, unusual cma ones not withstanding have a lot of similarities depending on the shape of the blade.

[TenTigers]

My daughters both made varsity fencing team in High School, when they were in Junior High, I believe due to their Kung=Fu training. They alsways said it was just like Kung-Fu. I fenced in HS, but I had just gotten involved in Kung=Fu, so there is not much to go by there.
I always wanted to fight in the local Rennaissance Faires. Those guys are pathetic. I always imagine dressing in some Chinese/Mongol armour and using double swords-since I also have PMA experience. The main problem, what what I've gathered is, you need to join their organization, such as SCA, and work your way up through the ranks, starting as a squier or knave or something, and I really don't want to get involved with that . i don't wanna learn to speak Elven, or call myself "Midol, Great Wizard of Darvon" or Duke of Worstichire,Earl of Clove, Sir Loin of Beef, or anything like that. Hey, I like Star Trek, but I don't speak Klingon, and I don't walk around wearing Vulcan ears.-if ya catch my drift.
That being said, anyone know of a way that we can form our own Chinese /Mongol organization and play with those guys without the stupid politics? I heard there was a Darke Horde-but they also had all this "work your way up through the ranks, attend the meetings, court the Queen, bull****" and I just wanna bash people with swords. I suppose we can always join the Dog Bros.

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

You cannot generalize western style fencing. the way you use the sword is different depending on whether it is the slashing kind or poking kind. We know that the Spanish can get in close, hence they use the sabers with a short sword combined. The Vikings or Scottish use broad sword techniques when they use the battle ax.

As for the strip fencing vs chinese broadsword, the equivalent way of handling it would be using your broad sword vs chinese straight sword. You cannot match the weapon for speed but you can bait you oppoent to over extend and then break the weapon before slashing them to bits with your broad sword techniques.

Watch the end fighting sequence of Rob Roy, there you have a slashing weapon matching up against a poking weapon.

[neit]

heh rob roy was on tonight. for some reason the poking weapon was used almost completly for slashing? or perhaps my eyes are too slow.

anyways, i was wondering how similar fencing foil or epee are to an authentic dueling weapon. not that dao or jian are always completely accurate either. if i got worked by someone with a foil whilst using my katana, or dao. i would'nt take it too personally.

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

neit,

Fencing in today's terms are highly restricted by rules which would be different to real dueling in the old days. It is kind of the same argument as sports kung fu vs real kung fu.

I would think that there is alot more use of the butt of the weapon when swords clash, kind of like what you do with a chinese Gim or trapping your opponents weapon and kicking him in the nuts.

[Andy]

Those of you with experience against western fencers... Are there any underlying principles that make one method better than the other?

Andy
Fu Hok Yau Kung Fut Pai

[David Jamieson]

Are there any underlying principles that make one method better than the other?

not better, but sometimes different.

btw, a "poking" weapon as you have called it can also be used like a hard whip.

straight swords, such as a jian or double edge sword can be used for slashing and thrusting techniques.

Of course, classical fencing weapons have specific merits designed for the dueling they are used in. I wouldn't take a foil to battle in other words, I would take a weapon that was a little more versatile and could cause damage of the most sever kind with any aspect of the blade.

[GeneChing]

Fencing in today's terms are highly restricted by rules which would be different to real dueling in the old days. You're confusing street fighting and battlefield combat with duelling. Duels of honor were highly codified. There were very strict rules of conduct and etiquette. Modern fencing descended from this.

As for the original question, I suppose it's akin to someone asking if studying kung fu helped them in the sport of boxing. For me, kung fu definately helped in fencing. There was plenty of negative transfer, but the positive far outweighed the negative. For that matter, both kung fu and fencing bled over into my dabbling in Kendo. Kung fu helped more with aspects of handling the weapon, but fencing definately helped with my sense of timing and distance.

[joedoe]

I agree. While I only fenced for a short time, and not that seriously, I found that my experience in kung fu definitely helped in my fencing. The area in which it was the most help was in distancing, and a little in parrying. Still, they are different disciplines so there was a lot I had to learn.

[neit]

i found that the combination of kung-fu, and the shape of my hips(one is kinda offset) that kendo was impossible. yet iaido and kenjutsu have been no problem. the older japanese arts seem to use those nice comfy kung-fu type stances. :)

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

I should have clarrified in the Rob Roy film, the guy with the poking weapon did well to avoid the heavier sabre and did constant injuries on Rob. I mean the poking weapon is not just for poking, but it can be directed with wrist action for small slashes like the chinese Gim.

In terms of dueling, the codified conduct only came about later. I tend to think of dueling as a small street fight with perhaps 3 or 4. Kung fu should have helped in timing and distance unless you are just a forms fanatic.

In a full scale battle that last a day or longer, then no - you want a heavy waepn that isn't going to quit on you. On a slight tangent, that's why the chinese (and perhaps other cultures) carry a chain (like 9 section chain whip) as a secondary weapon to clear the space if you've lost your sword in battle.

[Ben Gash]

Gene, again duelling etiquette was very regional. Here it could be very rough and ready whereas in France and Italy it was much more genteel (if you can refer to killing that way). There are some interesting accounts in English Martial Arts (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1898281297/qid=1095161290/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-5924052-6699867?v=glance&s=books#product-details) by Terry Brown, as well as explanations and details of how the style became less martial.

[David Jamieson]

I guess it would be good to post this here again.

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html

it's an interesting write by a guy in 1599 and deals a lot with western swordplay and how it's trained.

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

Ben Gash,

What dio you mean by the Gentille art of dueling. Do the English go - Pardon me my good sir, may I slice you with my sword?

It's that why the dashing pirates of old won the admiration of fine english ladies with the arrrr de arrrr arrrr swashbuckling attitude?

Oh forget the french, they drink too much win and plaster their face with makeup and speak with this upper crassss accent. Oh la la I'm breaking a sweat, my make up is running.

That's probably why the wild scottish man with raw bravery won the heart of the fine french princess. Those lards of scotland are brave indeed, they wield a wicked broad sword or a battle ax. No wonder why the upper class english don't stand a chance.

I guess it depends on what part of town the book has been written about.

[David Jamieson]

actually, dueling was a practice of the nobility in the time period Gash is referring to.

It was a practice of Honour and generally was a way to exhibit skill moreso than a way of killing someone.

Pretty much every culture has this form of ritualized violence whos main purpose was to save face as opposed to actually whip into the fevered pitch of killing combat.

There was a chance you could die, in fact many duelers met this fate. But as many or more were sent packing to lick their wounds and think of the error of their ways.

Even Chinese martial arts have this flavour of fighting as is shown in the ideas of - a friendly exchange - vs - true combat -.

Even now, sportive combat is not a fight to the death, but the reality is there that fatality is an aspect of even this. Zig when you should zag, go home in a bag.


So oddly enough "Pardon me my good sir, may I slice you with my sword?" while not the exact words perhaps was a likely scenario in regards to these matters.
:p

Real gentlemen had kungfu in that way. :D

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

Kung Lek,

That's why I said earlier that it depends on which part of town the book was written in.

You've addressed the Pardon me my good sir...... but not the arrrr de arrrr arrrrr i'm yellow beard...... they sure don'tr serve their crackers with cavier do they?

[Doug]

Hey Guys,

First, the type of training you receive depends on your teacher. you can get a sense of how applicable Western swordsmanship can be if you watch Wheels on Meals with an actor employing kicks into Western sword work. It is quite dynamic and hardly anything like sport fencing.

For my part, fencing was good exposure into another culture's take on sword work. However, the fact remains that fencing is not representational of real European swordsmanship. Like contemporary wushu, it is designed for sport application and not combat and killing potential. Weight, balance, sword composition, handle composition, and rules limit the realistic aspect. It is a good system, made of foil, epee, and saber skills. A participant can focus on cut, thrust, or both. I found that I was somewhat clumsy and stompy with my footwork. I just felt heavy all the time. When I think back, I am not surprised that more experienced students tagged me.

My kung fu training, in my experience, was vastly greater (I would say superior). There are far more differences in terms of how the body is used to desired effect in kung fu, all of which, in my opinion, produces more positive results.

My mindset was also different with kung fu, for I certainly related to Chinese ideology and practice much more than sport fencing. Simple things such as terminology also shaped my perception of the art. Referring to the lower part of the body as "the trunk" certainly did not promote the idea of a flexible, articulating body, whereas kung fu (in this case, Hung Gar and Choy Li Fut) seemed to naturally promote such things.

My approach to fencing would have been different if I were coming from a kung fu background. As it was, I went into fencing with an Aikido and Naginatado background.

Anyway, sport fencing has potential for excellent fitness. The variations that occur within that potential really is determined by the teacher and your approach.

In any case, comparing Chinese and European sword sparring in the sense of Chinese swordsmanship and sport fencing does not do much good other than create some unnecessary generalizations. Both are great systems of combat that were victorious and beaten down at various times. A separate thread that looks at specific time periods of swordsmanship for both cultures would be more applicable.

Still, I am glad to see this thread here!

Doug M

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

Doug,

"In any case, comparing Chinese and European sword sparring in the sense of Chinese swordsmanship and sport fencing does not do much good other than create some unnecessary generalizations."

No I don't want to compare wu shu and sports fencing. I want a comparison between chinese and european swordsmanship. If going head to head, what the respective strategies would be.

Does anyone here know?

[Doug]

Wow, that is a big comparison. It deserves a thread for each era and sword/knife in question.

Some good books on European sword work (short titles given):

Clements, John. Medieval Swordsmanship

---. Renaissance Swordsmanship

Ed. Kirby, Jared. Italian Rapier Combat

There are others I have that are not in my mind right now. But these are pretty good to start. I think you can find a fuller list of these that I posted some time ago on this forum.

Doug M

[joedoe]

You can also try this website - some very interesting articles.

http://www.thehaca.com/essays.htm

[Doug]

Right--forgot to mention that source. That is even better than his books because the web site is updated and such. The videos are great and do give a quite different impression of European sword work. John is actually a good source (although quite brief in his e-mail) and will reply to you if you contact him. Although I do disagree with his claims at the end of one of his books about Asian masters...

Doug M

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

Doug / Joe,

Thanks guys, I will check it out and I'll let you know my feedback.

[Andy]

Does ayone here have any knowledge of the Spanish school (style) of fencing?

[Doug]

I highly recommend going to www.swordforum.com to the Historical European Swordsmanship Forum to research this question.

Doug M

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

I read some of those articles. Rapier -> good one -> light as a feather -> well balanced. The hilt is used for trapping etc. technique includes sliding in on someone's sword. Close in trapping / wrestling techniques. Use of butt of weapon to hit opponent in face etc.....

Guess what,I could say the same about the techniques used for the chinese straight sword. The way the article describes as to how to play the rapier against the Japanese sword is almost the same as I would with the gim.

My theory is that, it is not the east vs west argument that determines how the weapon is used, but rather the inherent characteristics of the weapon.

Question all, How do you think the rapier would fair against the Gim? Understanding that the Gim is probably a heavier weapon with possibly more cutting ability. The rapier seems more flexible and may contain some whip like action as you would with the chinese long staff (due to its length despite its diameter).

[Doug]

The jian user could fare quite well. Scott Rodell at swordforum.com said he has played against rapier users and did quite well. He is a good source about such comparisons.

As I understand it, rapiers, by and large, were used for thrusting, not cutting. The blade of a raper was rather rigid, not flexible like a foil. Of really long rapiers that I have seen, the blade did not bend due to its size.

Doug M

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

Doug,

Yeah, certainly the Jian has about 1/2 of its techniques relating to cutting. But so do some rapiers depnding on the blade configuration.

The other thing I hadn't raised is the length of the blade. Is the Jian shorter than the rapier - but I guess rapiers come in different lengths.

There is also a 2 handed chinese straight sword, much longer than the single handed variety and it is an awesome dueling weapon - against the normal Jian, it has the tactical advantage by far.

Wonder if the same can be said between a long rapier and jian?

another question - given that rapier users also carry a dagger for close range, why don't jian users also carry a dagger when the usage and configuration of the weapon is kind of similar in many respects?

[Andy]

Has anyone noticed any similarities between Pa Kua footwork and the circular footwork used by the Spanish fencers? Are there any similarities between Pa Kua sword and Spanish sword as both use a circular method and both would need to keep the dominant (sword hand) forward most of the time.

Andy
Fu Hok Yau Kung Fut Pai

[neit]

that european martial arts looks fun. as long as they stay focused on training rather than never ending research and collecting of dozens of weapons they will never use. or costume play. i think european spear-play especially could be loads of fun. i like the focus on weapons. hmmmm this makes me want to look up the western-m.a. guys at my local university. very tempting.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Ego_Extrodinaire
Yeah, certainly the Jian has about 1/2 of its techniques relating to cutting. But so do some rapiers depnding on the blade configuration.
Depending on what you mean, cutting with a rapier is quite different from cutting with a jian. Rapier cutting is nothing like taking limbs, but it is more like "scratching" or more minor cuts. Rapier blades, unless I am mistaken, were not supposed to take an edge along the length of the blade--at least the variation I am thinking of.

The other thing I hadn't raised is the length of the blade. Is the Jian shorter than the rapier - but I guess rapiers come in different lengths.
Rapiers came in a variety of lengths. At one point, they got so long that if they passed a specific, legal length they were broken. Blades could get into the five-foot range.

There is also a 2 handed chinese straight sword, much longer than the single handed variety and it is an awesome dueling weapon - against the normal Jian, it has the tactical advantage by far.
Well, I've never seen a real sparring between these types of practitioners, so I cannot comment on it.

Wonder if the same can be said between a long rapier and jian?
It all depends...extraordinarily long rapiers are not quite helpful once an opponent is beyond the point. That is why a secondary weapon is used. And those varied to interesting uses too.

another question - given that rapier users also carry a dagger for close range, why don't jian users also carry a dagger when the usage and configuration of the weapon is kind of similar in many respects?
They can in the case of two swords. I also would not discount the use of a small knife or something else because Chinese martial arts are quite deep in weapon applications. There is practically a double-weapon form for nearly every Chinese weapon (minus the obvious ones which would be unwieldy). Additionally, there are many combinations of double weapons that can be used to great (for you) and tragic (for anyone else) effect.

Doug M

[GeneChing]

wahh, here we go again. check out this thread on the jkd forum (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=29082&perpage=15&pagenumber=1) :eek:

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

Doug,

Yup, in terms of cutting ability you're absolute right. The rapier cut is a distraction. Although the Jian is unlikely to hack a limb off it can sever tendons and artiaries - not just a flesh wound (assuming no armor of course).

Single handed Jians are about 3 feet long. Rapier of 5 feet would have better range. But the Jian can do more (in mid range). But the Jian seems to be a havier weapon, so closing in on a rapier is likely to be challenging.

In close, I think the jian player will have to contend with the second weapon, knife - so the trapping at the hilt in relation to jian vs jian may not be practical in the case of someone with rapier + knife.

No, usually forms don't have jian + knife, although it would seem logical.

Question is why did the westerners NOT have the Jian and Chinese NOT have the rapier??????

any takers?

[blooming lotus]

Originally posted by GeneChing
I got a fair amount of mileage out of Chinese techniques on the strip, all told. Of course, what I used could have been described in fencing terms, but I'd attribute my ability to deploy those techniques to my kung fu training. Arguably, it gave me what little advantage I had out there on the fencing strip.

I remember once having to fence saber in this demo/exchange tournament versus a Junior College. We were an NCAA team and since this tournament was just for fun, the saber squad didn't show. I was never a saber fencer, so I relied mostly on dao techniques. One of my buddies was directing. He nearly ejected me for hitting too hard. I was pretty irate at that call at the time because I didn't feel like I was hitting hard at all. My buddy had dabbled in kung fu so he knew a bit about dao technique and said I was using that stuff unfairly. I was like "whatever, dude..." and was pretty ****ed off at his calls until long after the bout when my opponent took of his jacket - his chest was covered with thick nasty welts, all from me. I then had to sheepishly apologize to everyone for being such an *******.

There was also I time when I kinda tripped this guy in a bout. It was a total accident/reflex, something again out of my dao form. Yep, another penalty for Geno... :o

LOL....... I'm going to use that.........

Anyway......Frankly Geno, I haven't read the rest, and lmao @ being a hardas* and playing like you mean it. So this in mind..how do you get a real spar/ bout where you can cut loose on??? None of this, teacher's watching , gotta be kind til ( or was that after ??) he knows he's whopped jazz......... how does a person really test their skill?? Retorical right ! :rolleyes:

meiguanxie ;) :cool:

[Doug]

Originally posted by Ego_Extrodinaire
Yup, in terms of cutting ability you're absolute right. The rapier cut is a distraction. Although the Jian is unlikely to hack a limb off it can sever tendons and artiaries - not just a flesh wound (assuming no armor of course).
Actually, the jian is a limb taker. Cuts with a jian are designed not only to easily cut muscles and tendons but also to take off arms, legs, or torsos. Armor would certianly factor in, but it could take that too. You should get a copy of Scott Rodell's book, Chinese Swordsmanship, and his DVDs that are companions to the text (or they can be seen that way).

Single handed Jians are about 3 feet long. Rapier of 5 feet would have better range. But the Jian can do more (in mid range). But the Jian seems to be a havier weapon, so closing in on a rapier is likely to be challenging.
Many factors play a role in such a fantasy encounter, but we can only speculate on it. In terms of better range for a rapier, that is a matter of perspective: is the point going to stop or encourage you to get inside the weapon's "dead zone" and go to school?

In close, I think the jian player will have to contend with the second weapon, knife - so the trapping at the hilt in relation to jian vs jian may not be practical in the case of someone with rapier + knife.
Not quite sure what you mean here.

No, usually forms don't have jian + knife, although it would seem logical.
I didn't say that. I said I would not discount it entirely. What is to say that Chinese soldiers and/or private weapon carriers did not have other weapons (of a potentially wide variety) with them as companion pieces? Even though there may be no apparent form as such, the idea behind it is not too crazy.

Question is why did the westerners NOT have the Jian and Chinese NOT have the rapier??????

any takers?
Sure. Rapiers are limited in what they can do. With no real edge (meaning an edge along the blade), they are good for thrusts, pokes, and scratches (by that, I mean something much worse than an "Ow!"), but they are not cutters. So one way to look at this question is why would Chinese weapon users and makers take on such a weapon with limited capacity? How far would it really go in a crowd of attackers as opposed to (how it is traditionally seen) a one-on-one situation?

Doug M

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

Doug,

"Actually, the jian is a limb taker"

How does that work? There isn't that much weight behind the Jian and only about 3 inches is actually sharp. Taking out limbs you'll need a longer cutting edge and weight behind the weapon - ie broad sword or katana.

"is the point going to stop or encourage you to get inside the weapon's "dead zone" and go to school?"

Not easy against a long weapon. With good footwork the rapier player can add another 2 feet of movement. Plus the long weapon gives good leverage. It's also light and fast. i say it's fairly difficult.

"Not quite sure what you mean here."

Jian players if blade to blade connect then they'll clash to the hilt to trap the opponent's weapon. Well that won't be easy if a rapier player is also carrying a knife. Clashing to trap the rapier brings you in range of the knife.

"I said I would not discount it entirely"

I just thought that if there are Jian+knife forms, it would be more common.

"So one way to look at this question is why would Chinese weapon users and makers take on such a weapon with limited capacity?"

The rapier is possibly a lighter and faster weapon to use. Sure it has far less cutting ability, but it's speed in making thrust should compensiate. Furthermore, it is used in conjunction with a knief so it should address the short-range aspect.

"How far would it really go in a crowd of attackers as opposed to (how it is traditionally seen) a one-on-one situation?"

For both the jian and rapier+knife. Not suitable at all. Broad sword or other heavier weapons to deal with battlefield scenarios. The Europeans had that as well.

[SimonM]

How does that work? There isn't that much weight behind the Jian and only about 3 inches is actually sharp.

It would appear that you haven't ever held a real Jian. Every combat Jian I have seen was sharp all the way down. Also Jian weigh between 1.5 and 5 lbs depending on the manufacturer, the purpose of the blade, the specific specs and the type of steel used. Many European longswords weighed between 3 and 4 lbs. That makes Jian very equivalent to those long swords. The two main differences I have observed are a slightly different profile to the blade and (of course) the characteristic guard design used on jian.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Ego_Extrodinaire
"Actually, the jian is a limb taker"

How does that work? There isn't that much weight behind the Jian and only about 3 inches is actually sharp. Taking out limbs you'll need a longer cutting edge and weight behind the weapon - ie broad sword or katana.
No offesne, but you are mistaken about Chinese swords. Perhaps there was a period when time was most important and, in the heat of the moment, sword blades were sharpened as you suggest. HOWEVER, that is an assumption or stereotype of Chinese jian and dao. It has been repeated enough to convince people about the false image of Chinese swords. The blades were sharpened the entire length of the blade. Scott Rodell at swordforum.com deals in antiques, and in the thousands he has handled, all have had sharpened edges the entire length. And in terms of cutting ability, I refer you back to his work.

"is the point going to stop or encourage you to get inside the weapon's "dead zone" and go to school?"

Not easy against a long weapon. With good footwork the rapier player can add another 2 feet of movement. Plus the long weapon gives good leverage. It's also light and fast. i say it's fairly difficult.
Well, I can only refer back to my experience with "the point" aimed at me. The same applies to trails against a spear user. Get inside the weapon, and the spear man has few choices left.

"So one way to look at this question is why would Chinese weapon users and makers take on such a weapon with limited capacity?"

The rapier is possibly a lighter and faster weapon to use. Sure it has far less cutting ability, but it's speed in making thrust should compensiate. Furthermore, it is used in conjunction with a knief so it should address the short-range aspect.
My next question is have you ever used a rapier and dagger before? Until you see it happen or experience this for yourself, all is theory. Again, ask Scott at swordforum.com about his experiences with rapier users.

"How far would it really go in a crowd of attackers as opposed to (how it is traditionally seen) a one-on-one situation?"

For both the jian and rapier+knife. Not suitable at all. Broad sword or other heavier weapons to deal with battlefield scenarios. The Europeans had that as well.
Again, this is an assumptin apssed on by too many people about jian usage. The jian actually has quite a bit of versatility in terms of encountering multiple attacks. Rapier is far less versatile by the nature of the weapon, especially the longer the weapon. Drawing it, for instance, would be a challenge in itself. I have a video, The Blow-by-blow Guide to Rapier and Dagger (or something like that), which shows a nearly four-toof rapier (blade being four feet) being drawn. For its size, the draw is fairly quick but not fast enough. Such restrictions of a weapon of that size would require something else to compensate , such as a gantelman's code, to keep him from being killed before he can get his "scratcher" out.

Doug M

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

"No offesne, but you are mistaken about Chinese swords. Perhaps there was a period when time was most important and, in the heat of the moment, sword blades were sharpened as you suggest."

That's very interesting. Perhaps is not the heat of the moment, but relate to a different era, not a rush for time. I say this because sword forms in kung fu relate to a sharped tip (+ 3 inch) as opposed to a sharpe shaft. In any case, the shaft would get blunt very quickly from clashing.

"Get inside the weapon, and the spear man has few choices left."

The shaft can still be used. But to get inside the weapon is not easy, the length gives very good coverage / leverage.

"My next question is have you ever used a rapier and dagger before? Until you see it happen or experience this for yourself, all is theory."

No. Anything light and skinny, I would use like a straight sword as an appoximation. Of course I will not have the skill of someone who is specially trained with a rapier.

"Rapier and Dagger (or something like that), which shows a nearly four-toof rapier (blade being four feet) being drawn. For its size, the draw is fairly quick but not fast enough"

Both the jian and rapier are not juick draw weapons like the katana - where the draw is the first cut. But you're right, a longer weapon has this disadvantage.

[SimonM]

Originally posted by Ego_Extrodinaire
"because sword forms in kung fu relate to a sharped tip (+ 3 inch) as opposed to a sharpe shaft.

The Jian form I have been learning includes quite a few cutting techniques that potentially make use of much more than three inches of blade. Honestly, where did you get this number from? The ether?



In any case, the shaft would get blunt very quickly from clashing.


Which is why a person who uses their sword regularly would polish and sharpen their sword regularly. A sword is not going to get too blunt to cut even after a day of rigorous use (unless it completely breaks in the process).

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Doug
Rapier cutting is nothing like taking limbs, but it is more like "scratching" or more minor cuts. Rapier blades, unless I am mistaken, were not supposed to take an edge along the length of the blade

You are mistaken: the rapier was sharp along both edges and some styles made significant use of cutting.


<Rapier> Blades could get into the five-foot range.

I'm not sure where you've gotten this figure. A long rapier blade is 3 3/4'.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Christopher M
You are mistaken: the rapier was sharp along both edges and some styles made significant use of cutting.
Cite your source. Prove this was the case for all rapiers. If you re-read my past posts, you will find I state that most rapiers did not have sharp edges along the blade's length. You will find that you are mistaken.

I'm not sure where you've gotten this figure. A long rapier blade is 3 3/4'.
You probably aren't sure becasue you have not researched this subject. Please do so before jumping to conclusions. Yes, rapiers did get very long; they were not all three-plus feet only. English rapiers could get as long as four-to-five feet or more. When it became a problem, the longer rapiers would be legally broken by law officials if caught.

Doug M

[Doug]

Originally posted by Ego_Extrodinaire
That's very interesting. Perhaps is not the heat of the moment, but relate to a different era, not a rush for time. I say this because sword forms in kung fu relate to a sharped tip (+ 3 inch) as opposed to a sharpe shaft.[QUOTE][B]
That may be difficult to prove since most swords before the Ming Dynasty are not around anymore. Those that do can be studied. I already made the case for the antique dealer who, through his examination of thousands of swords and knives (dao, the edges were all sharpened. Sure, the tip is used extensively, but the middle is also used as well as more.
[QUOTE][B]In any case, the shaft would get blunt very quickly from clashing.
That is why jian swordsmen were not supposed to use the edges to block. The sides are used for deflection or parrying.There are plenty of swords that have nicks, so they show that people did use the edge as well. However, if preventing one's death means blocking an incoming balde with an edge, the choice is obvious. Also, a chipped edge is a damaged edge, so swordsmen will wnt to avoid damaging the blade as much as possible.

The shaft can still be used. But to get inside the weapon is not easy, the length gives very good coverage / leverage.
Yes, to some extent. If you are referring to a waxwood, you should know that there is not historical precedent that shows waxwood shafts were used. In museums, you will find hardwood shafts with Chinese spears and long-handled dao.

Both the jian and rapier are not juick draw weapons like the katana - where the draw is the first cut. But you're right, a longer weapon has this disadvantage.
Acually, a jian is a quick draw weapon. There is historical precedent for it, and some schools actually practice it in their swordsmanship.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Doug
Cite your source.

"The rapier is used primarily for thrusting, but can also be employed in a variety of cutting techniques." (Maestro Ramon Martinez (http://www.martinez-destreza.com/fenfaq.htm))

There was a specific development in European swordsmanship when people stopped using sharpened edges, and it produced, from the rapier, the weapon known as the smallsword (http://www.martinez-destreza.com/fenfaq.htm#historical_weapons). Even in the Italian and Spanish traditions, however, the smallsword continued to have sharp edges.


You probably aren't sure becasue you have not researched this subject.

Del Tin (http://www.deltin.it), considered the top market in reproduction rapier blades for historical use, does not make a blade longer than 42". That's a foot and a half shorter than your claim.

Rapier lengths are measured as the quillons standing as tall as your navel, or from one shoulder to the tip of the opposite hand's index finger. To warrant a rapier blade five feet long, someone would have to be 8'5".

[Doug]

Originally posted by Christopher M
"The rapier is used primarily for thrusting, but can also be employed in a variety of cutting techniques." (Maestro Ramon Martinez (http://www.martinez-destreza.com/fenfaq.htm))
That was already covered earlier in this thread. Cutting with a rapier does not mean chopping off limbs. It amounts to small cuts, depending on the type of rapier blade used. But it does not have anything to do with taking heads, Highlander: The Gathering style.

There was a specific development in European swordsmanship when people stopped using sharpened edges, and it produced, from the rapier, the weapon known as the smallsword (http://www.martinez-destreza.com/fenfaq.htm#historical_weapons). Even in the Italian and Spanish traditions, however, the smallsword continued to have sharp edges.
Research this component of the rapier's history.

Del Tin (http://www.deltin.it), considered the top market in reproduction rapier blades for historical use, does not make a blade longer than 42". That's a foot and a half shorter than your claim.
Whatever Del Tin makes matters little to this point: mass-produced wall hangers or practice toys all amount to generalizations of period weapons and do not encompass the wide range of variations therein. Just because Del Tin does not make a five-foot rapier means nothing. And it is not my claim: research this to find out the historical, written truth for yourself.

Rapier lengths are measured as the quillons standing as tall as your navel, or from one shoulder to the tip of the opposite hand's index finger. To warrant a rapier blade five feet long, someone would have to be 8'5".
I disagree, but it certianly would be very big and cumbersome. That is probably why they were restricted in size by law. Check English history for more information.

Doug M

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Doug
Cutting with a rapier does not mean chopping off limbs. It amounts to small cuts

I didn't say the rapier was used for chopping off limbs, I said it was characterized by sharp edges.


Research this component of the rapier's history.

I have. Which is why I was able to reference it, of course.


Just because Del Tin does not make a five-foot rapier means nothing.

It means that the people actually studying and practicing rapier do not use five foot rapiers. That is a more reasonable standard of evidence than your whimsy, which is all that has been offered up against it.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Christopher M
I didn't say the rapier was used for chopping off limbs, I said it was characterized by sharp edges.[QUOTE][B]
And there is a host of information that contradicts this notion. If you choose not to believe it, that is your discretion.
[QUOTE][B]I have. Which is why I was able to reference it, of course.
If that is what you call research, you have a lot more than paperwork to go through. No offense, but the web site is not enough. There are plenty of other books on the subject. But if you want a quick reference, check this source:
http://www.thearma.org/spotlight.htm

It means that the people actually studying and practicing rapier do not use five foot rapiers. That is a more reasonable standard of evidence than your whimsy, which is all that has been offered up against it.
It is funny that you speak of "whimsey" when you protect plenty of your generalizations as certain and solid. If you bother to research this subject, you will find that you are mistaken. Previous sources on the Internet do not support your perspective. While early "rapiers" were both cut and thrust, rapiers as we know them became edgeless thrusters (not counting the slight edge at the tip for some specific cuts to the face or elsewhere). You also seem to have something amiss in your logic: I never stated people use five-foot rapiers today. Modern practitioners have no need for such lengths unless they are personally interested in one. And, quite frankly, you have the argument all wrong: it is the manufacturers who are up against historical facts that contradict their product lines. Modern mass producers are the ones who distort history very well for a price.

Other than the source you mentioned, where do you get the opinion that all rapiers had sharp edges?

Doug M

[Christopher M]

Doug: you're coming across as needlessly antagonistic. I've offered some resources people may consider for themselves in defense of my position. You have not.

Given this, and as it currently stands, there doesn't seem to be any reason for me to offer further response.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Doug: you're coming across as needlessly antagonistic.
That is an interpretation, not a logical assessment. Looking at how you responded, everyone else will understand why I responded the way I did.

I've offered some resources people may consider for themselves in defense of my position. You have not.
Apparently, your research skills reflect your reading skills. If you R-E-A-D my previous post, I did offer a web site as a quick source. If you are too caught up in your own fancies and will not research this further, that is your problem.

Given this, and as it currently stands, there doesn't seem to be any reason for me to offer further response.
That is because you are unable to back up your claims further.

Doug M

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Doug
I did offer a web site as a quick source.

Doug, an article which says "As with any long bladed weapon, rapiers could always be used to strike a blow with the 'edge.' Many rapier texts include such actions in their repertoire and any swordsman would make himself familiar with them" is a not a very good defense of your claim "Rapier blades were not supposed to take an edge along the length of the blade."

Your own source refutes you.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Doug, an article which says "As with any long bladed weapon, rapiers could always be used to strike a blow with the 'edge.' Many rapier texts include such actions in their repertoire and any swordsman would make himself familiar with them" is a not a very good defense of your claim "Rapier blades were not supposed to take an edge along the length of the blade."

Your own source refutes you.

First of all, you have not stated where you got this from. On that note, your quote does not help you at all.

Second, you arrive at this conclusion because you are a poor reader and also unethical. If you actually read the whole article (assuming it is the one I am thinking of), probably the next sentence or two, you would know that the "cut" (which, by the author's definition, does not have to be done with an edged weapon--which makes sense) would produce painful stings or, at most, slight cuts. (If you have ever been hit with a very narrow piece of metal that is not sharp, you will know what this means.) However, either you 1) chose not to include that portion of the article in order to mask the truth IN ORDER TO support your diminishing point--a highly unethical action since it misrepresents the author's intentions, you thief--or you 2) did a poor job of reading the article and missed that point becasue you were sloppy.

Either way, your claim dissolves into the aether, going nowhere. But you make yourself look really bad. Congratulations.

And you still have yet to answer my pervious questions. If you were honest, you would answer those because they would help cover your sorry state of an opinion. But since you do not, I refer to the above: congratulations.

Doug M

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Doug
First of all, you have not stated where you got this from.

The first quote was from the article you offered, the second quote was from your previous post.

[Doug]

My point exactly--you have no more options and nothing left to say.

Doug M

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

We can conclude so far that the term rapier can encompass a number of designs with variability in their cutting edge and length.

In terms of where I got the 3 inch sharp of a chinese gim, basically an approximate measure. Some of you said that antique gims had a sharp cutting edge throughout the length of the blade - I like to know what era that came from.

As you know straight swords have been around longer than a lot of kung fu system which occurred between the 15th to 17th century.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Ego_Extrodinaire
In terms of where I got the 3 inch sharp of a chinese gim, basically an approximate measure. Some of you said that antique gims had a sharp cutting edge throughout the length of the blade - I like to know what era that came from.
The three-inch sharpness is actually something that has been passed around. Examination of antique swords shows that the blades were shard throughout.

The periods in question would be the available swords from the past that you can find in museums and private collections. Most will come from the Qing Dynasty, few from the Ming Dynasty, and fewer still as to the available swords from before that.

Doug M

[freehand]

Richard Cohen, in his excellent book "By the Sword", on page 49 of Chapter 3 reports on Queen Mary I of England's attempt to stem the new practice of dueling: "...denounced 'divers naughty and insoulent persons' who had been fighting using rapiers up to five feet long and wearing armor underneath their clothing"

The armor as well as the extra-long rapiers were seen as not quite sporting, now that dueling had started becoming acceptable for gentlemen to settle their differences. "Sudden combat" was evolving into "formal duel".

The extra long rapier certainly existed, and the fact that it was seen as unfair and eventually banned where shorter ones were not appears like it must have been an advantage, altho it seems to me like it would be awkward. <shrug>

I have done no real training with the jian or Western swords; my work has been Southern Chinese with the dao or Filipino with sticks or other short, single-edged blades.

Kermit

[Doug]

Thank you for the source, freehand.

Doug M

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

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

[SimonM]

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.)

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

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

[Buddy]

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.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Ego_Extrodinaire
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.

I did address this earlier, but here goes...

Why was it created? Think about a couple of things:

1) Who propagated the myth? What are its origins and why? Why has this "myth" (really a stereotype, NOT a myth) been passed down?

2) 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

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

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.

[Doug]

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

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

[Doug]

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

[SimonM]

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.

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

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.

[SimonM]

Originally posted by Ego_Extrodinaire
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.

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?

[Doug]

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

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

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.

[diego]

Originally posted by Ego_Extrodinaire
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. kinda like you do with your catalog bought star wars lightsabers eh kelvin....god you're such a dhork!

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

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.

[SimonM]

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.

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

"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?

[SimonM]

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.

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

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.

[SimonM]

Ego, you totally missed my point.

The forms (as I already said once) do NOT reflect the metallurgical advances of the last 200 years. There has been no need. The wars of the last 200 years were fought with guns as the main weapon. Hence sword forms have not had to be adjusted to take into account differing metal. In addition, changes in metallurgy are not so paradigmatically different to require a shift in the way the sword is used. The Taiji Jian form that I practice now was probably almost exactly the same (in how it uses the blade) 200 years ago. Somewhere you developed this notion that only 1/3 of the blade was used historically in Jian. You have never said where but you have been grasping at straws to try to support your claim. Now you are just trying to create a shadow of a doubt within your opponent's argument with this whole metallurgy tangent.

Tell me, where did you get this 1/3 notion? Did it just spring full grown from your head or did you get told it by somebody else?

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

I know that the traditional forms have not adjusted to the advances in metal technology. My question is how have you adjusted that issue given that the steel we have now is much stronger, hence you can do more with today's sword compared to those in the past. You seem to either 1) not understand the issue at hand or 2) out for a troll.

[Doug]

Steel is not an issue in this regard. The forms operate as shown regardless of the medium used--metal, wood, plastic, or cardboard. The principles still apply. The practitioner must work around the radically different materials--wood will react quite differently than a cardboard tube--but the form remains the same.

It is an assumption that steel today is better. If you refer to L6 steel, that material is nothing new: it is old technology. But Bugei uses it in their line of Japanese swords. What they make, though, is a modern creation that does not reflect swords of the past. Swords that cut were meant to chip and become dull and require cleaning. They were not meant to cut blade on blade and remain undamaged. Traditional Chinese swords were made into strong steel cutters and thrusters. Their composition was the framework for Japanese swords, which did not change in production: they stuck with the Chinese method and dia a good job of making excellent weapons. Edges were hard with cores that were soft. They were meant to take damage.

To say "you can do more with today's sword compared to those in the past" is also misleading. Even an L6 blade will operate the same way in terms of parrying or deflecting. The only thing is that the user will not see the damage on the balde's edge when he or she incorrectly blocks or deflects another weapon.

The person using the weapon is most important. Even though King Arthur had Excalibur, he was not necessarily the best or brightest swordsman of his time. Thinking of weapons as superior in build or design develops a false sense of superiority, which opens someone up for defeat. When the wako attacked China's coast, written documents describe their swords cutting through the Chinese weapons and those using them. However, General Qi Qiguang's tactics defeated the "superior" wako weapons.

There is plenty of truth in the phrase "the pen is mightier than the sword." The pen is a better weapon tactically but, in the skilled hand, physically as well. The weapon of choice or the quality does not matter: the skill behind the weapon does.

Doug M

[Ego_Extrodinaire]

Doug,

I agree wih almost all that you say. But I think history has shown that the quality of the weapon makes a difference. Evolution from stone, bronze to Iron age is telling of the impact of advances made. In sports, people not only train up their skill but research to find the best equipment.

But as a point in history, if your weapon is constantly being broken by your opponent is something to be worried about. For example if you have a broadsword facing off a jian, one of the strategies you could employ is to break your opponent's jian.

Have you seen the end of the movie, Count of Montecristo?, when the young punk snapped the sword of a more experienced swords man to get the added advantage?

[Doug]

With the examples I provided--cardboard, plastic, wood, metal--the material does not have to be heavy or heavily weighted toward one end as with a stereotypical stone club. That was what I was going for. Something that simply limits how you move because of the sheer weight will play a role. Even still, the weight, in my opinion, is not a giveaway to defeat.

Breaking a jian may prove difficult as you describe because Chinese steel, when the sword-making process did not suffer significantly, was very strong. Even a dao cut may not be enough to do what you subscribe. If "bashing" is involved, well, yeah, then breaky break away.

I liked that movie, and that scene looked good to me. But it is only a movie, and whether or not that would actually happen is beyond the scope of reality. Anything can happen in a movie. Based on that kid's cut, the sword ou hero was using must have really s-u-c-k-e-d. Count of Monte Cristo? Yeah, right--Count of Paper Sword is more like it.

Doug M

[SimonM]

Originally posted by Ego_Extrodinaire
My question is how have you adjusted that issue given that the steel we have now is much stronger, hence you can do more with today's sword compared to those in the past.

I'm sorry but I am afraid you have lost me. The first half of the sentence is framed as a (rather vague question). Just for fun, my answer to the question is: nothing! I have not "adjusted that issue given that the steel we have is now much stronger".

But of course, there is the second part of your question which begins with "hence" - something which usually signifies an answer.

My entire point has (and continues to be) that metallurgical advances have NOT effected the practice of the Jian. This is not ignorance nor is it Troll baiting it is a simple truth.

In other words, yeah, what Doug said.