|
Post by Anders on Dec 1, 2011 22:20:19 GMT
He basically needs the POB down to at least 2", less if possible. Any more then that, he claims its too front heavy for the techniques he's been taught.
I don't think he's used the Adam Hsu. The jian he has now is one of the old Kris Cutlery models that he's modified to bring down the POB. He's now looking to get a full custom made to his exact specs, though. Actually, I'm kinda supposed to help him hunt down a really good custom smith. >_>
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Dec 1, 2011 22:40:36 GMT
I think you have a much too narrow definition of what a jian is. As far as I understand, the Chinese consider any double-edged sword of any kind to be a "jian", just as they consider anything single-edged to be a "dao", including stuff like kitchen knives. They consider katana to be Japanese dao and would probably think of a Type XVIII (or, heck, any Oakeshott Type) as a European jian. Simply put, it's the Chinese word for "sword", and it's incredibly imprecise in exactly the same manner the English word "sword" made Oakeshott create his typology in the first place. So, defining a Jian as "a cut-and-thrust sword with emphasis on slashes, chops, and various thrusts" is sort of a No True Scotsman fallacy since Jian can be any type of double edged sword used over a period of serveral thousand years, from short, broad-bladed bronze swords to this kind of long, slender steel thrusters.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Dec 1, 2011 23:15:36 GMT
True in essence, Anders, but we really shouldn't get hung up on these linguistic nuances, my friend. By that same reasoning, because katana literally means "sword", I could counter that any sword could be considered a katana, which would be absurd, and rightly so; I could also argue that if you were to wear a pair of katana on the same side, with one in place of the wakizashi, that that second katana could then be considered a wakizashi, since wakizashi means "side-inserted sword". And even though we automatically think katana + wakizashi = daisho, I could carry around a nodachi with a katana in my belt and it would also be a daisho, since daisho means "big-small".
I could keep going, but you get my point. When a person says "jian", I immediately picture a double edged sword with a blade around 30", parallel edges, a down-turned guard, a symmetrical wood grip, and a vaguely triangular pommel. In other words, I picture something along the lines of the sword this thread was started about. When someone says "sword", I picture an XII, the quintessential knightly sword, despite my preference for the XVIII. Say "dao" and I picture a niuweidao, not a kitchen knife. On its own, yes, a jian can be any double-edged sword, but in context, it's fairly clear what I was referring to.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Jordan on Dec 2, 2011 22:14:39 GMT
Does anyone have a clue about disassembly of the Shaolin jian?
I've done a web-search but have not been able to unearth anything that might shed light on this process.
|
|
|
Post by Opferous on Dec 3, 2011 4:10:51 GMT
Didn't even know that my review was on the main site :shock: Of the pictures and few antiques I've seen, I've never seen a jian like that with what looks like a hollow-ground blade with a strong central ridge, except perhaps with bronze jian. The width of the blade at the guard is also somewhat anemic. I would expect more along the lines of 1.25" to 1.5". As such, weight also seems to be a bit light for the length, likely due to the previous two factors. Distal taper is to be expected on a jian, so that's good, anyhow. That POB sounds like it's a little close, likely due to the hilt being rather long for the length. I'd expect more like 4.75" POB for one with these proportions. In my opinion, the jian remained relatively similar from the Tang dynasty and on, besides differences in the fittings and some village jian variations (so yes, jian = two-edged sword, but there weren't really any huge variations to make that confusing if you only look at Chinese blades). I would say that the jian for the most part always had cutting in mind or at least moreso than the smallsword. Maybe after the Qing dynasty (1300-1900 ish) things got funky. By that point, swords weren't a huge deal anyhow. Two-handed jian are a whole other beast and really shouldn't be compared to their single-handed breathren. See here for more info: forum.grtc.org/viewtopic.php?p=2558#2558
|
|
|
Post by Turok on Dec 3, 2011 10:22:57 GMT
Larry, don't get me wrong because wushu and performance swords is an art form in its own right! Also your sword is really nice looking and looks very well-made! Its just that I don't think it should be compared to antique Chinese swords and weapons that were pre 20th century, because swords were mostly ceremonial after the Qing Dynasty...of course with the exception of the DADAO!!! :lol:
|
|
|
Post by Larry Jordan on Dec 3, 2011 15:42:35 GMT
That would explain the apparently non-functional dimensional aspects of many of the swords, even though KoA might classify then as "battle ready." Back to disassembly: I think the screw/cap at the end of the pommel is covering a hole within which I will find the real securing hardware. Now, how to get it off without messing up the brass pommel...
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Dec 4, 2011 21:09:03 GMT
First of all, I think you are using a bad example - a katana is decidedly different from a wakizashi, and a tachi is decidedly different from a katana, etc. The Japanese do have generic words for "sword", like ken and tou, but "katana" is not such a word. It's important to note that the Japanese were unusually prone to categorizing their weapons. The Europeans really didn't do that, and as far as I can tell, neither did the Chinese, really.
Second, if I follow your reasoning correctly, you are saying we should only refer to the Type XVII as "swords", because the word "sword" specifically refers to the Type XVII and only the Type XVII?
Of course, I could argue that a Type X is also "a sword", but as you say, that would be absurd.
I think you will find that there aren't really a lot of swords that have cutting less in mind then the smallsword.
It's just, this really doesn't strike me as a "ceremonial" sword. This looks to me like something you can actually take to a swordfight and kill people with.
And if you do that, you can damn well compare it to antique weapons.
Looks like you'll need some sort of specialty tool that fits on the cap.
Of course, I would go ahead and risk messing the pommel up, but I actually took a file to the nut of my antique saber just to make it easier to disassemble so maybe that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by Opferous on Dec 4, 2011 21:37:10 GMT
I'd say you could compare it to post-Republican era jian for a "fair" comparison. To compare it to a Republican era or earlier jian, with 600 years of consistent jian design, is comparing very different things, even if they both can kill somebody.
|
|
|
Post by Turok on Dec 4, 2011 23:37:32 GMT
Well, jians haven't really been used after the Republican era (1911-1949). Like almost every other country, it has largely become a ceremonial weapon. I'm sure you can also use a fencing foil in a swordfight and I'm sure you can use it kill someone with it (or at least poke his eye out). I just think that modern wushu swords shouldn't really be used to compare historical weapons. Now I'm not bashing against fencing or wushu because they are both fun and active sports! Sure it's a sword, and a really nice one too! However if you say "This looks to me like something you can actually take to a swordfight and kill people with. And if you do that you can damn well compare it to antique weapons," then I guess you can compare almost everything at BudK's as being historical, antique weapons Larry,as for your Shaolin jian, I wouldn't take it apart unless you know what you're doing! It looks too nice and shiny as is! Especially since CASHanwei is discontinuing it!
|
|
|
Post by HouShe on Dec 24, 2011 0:45:03 GMT
Having only just gotten back to civilisation, I've read through this thread and was at times amused and baffled.
Chinese swords, Jians in particular are my point of focus.
Now, as for cutting effectiveness. Using correct technique, you can easy carve through tatami mats. In fact, I've seen a Jian cut through the same tatami mat three times before any pieces hit the ground. Considering a tatami mat is generally considered to be about as difficult to carve through as a human arm... Anything more than that isn't really necessary.
(Sure, you could be all about how some people can cut through five tatami mats with a single blow from a katana, but who lines five arms up in a row anyway?)
As for combat methodology, the jian is used in circular attacks. You should be fine using it with foil and saber techniques, modified for the weight of a real blade, since virtually every rapier attack is included in the various styles of jianfa. There will of course be differences, but you can work them out.
Remember, Rodell's form of jianfa, while correct, isn't the only style. Check out San Cai based jianfa (Or jianshu as they generally call it, nomenclature ftw.)
Which is different again. Then that Jian vs Katana video, I've seen it, but while the techniques are valid, it's not how -I- would deal with a Katana.
I've sparred with an Eskrima master, my Jian vs his Eskrima sticks. Depending on whether he was using 1 stick or 2 required a totally different style of fighting, all taken from within my style, but remember, how you fight is entirely dependant upon WHAT you're fighting.
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Dec 24, 2011 2:16:29 GMT
I think your misconception here is that ceremonial weapon = wushu sword. That's a terrible, terrible comparison. There is no way this sword can be equated to a fencing foil. Even if we go by your reasoning here, the equivalent would be an early modern dueling sword. Though, I'd rather compare it too... I dunno, a Patton saber? You misunderstand me. I'm not saying wushu swords are good weapons that should be compared to historical swords. I'm saying that this sword clearly isn't a "wushu sword."Wushu swords are, at least from what I can understand, extremely light, whippy, flimsy things made to bend easily since they are designed entirely for form perfomances. For example this thing. That's a "wushu sword." Whereas the Shaolin here weighs almost 2 lbs and has a POB that suggests some blade presence as well as a pronounced central spine that makes the blade look pretty stiff, implying it's intended to be used for, you know, stabbing things. Even if the design is derived in modern times, this is totally not a sporting tool, is what I'm trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by Turok on Dec 28, 2011 9:41:03 GMT
it's okay, I understand.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Jordan on Dec 29, 2011 15:34:18 GMT
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
I have a few questions below.
Do you have any concerns on the Shaolin blade shape for cutting? Width, thickness and/or ridge?
Although I have fenced foil and to a limited extent western saber, the heavier blade [approx 2 lbs] is something I've not dealt with before. In sports fencing both foil and saber are very light and one can respond quickly without the need for tracing circles (moulinet) to gain blade speed. I have viewed Rodell DVD [Yang Family Michuan Taiji Sword Martial Applications]. At first I found the forms puzzling. But heavier blade management must be key.
Can you provide a link for the latter?
Could you summarize your approach?
|
|
|
Post by HouShe on Dec 31, 2011 0:05:55 GMT
Is it a flat diamond? Clamshell? Or does it have a strange sweep up to the medial ridge? Flat diamond: Most common type of production blade for jian, they're fine for cutting with, but depending upon the individual blade may roll the edge, the same as any edge that doesn't have a nice appleseed edge. But light targets and possibly tatami depending upon on the blade quality should be fine, just build up to more significant targets as your technique improves. Clamshell: The traditional antique geometry. thicker, heavier clamshell edges were expected to come in contact with armour and shields and not be overly effected. Linda was talking about doing her forms one morning in the garden. She also came a little close to one of her trees and took off a small branch, thickness less than 1/2 an inch. Carve through with no problems. Sure you might not get through that 5th tatami mat with the slightly less efficient cutting profile, but the edge is durable. Strange sweepy thing: I have no idea, I can't see how it would be good for it though. Really it depends on what you've got, I can't really tell from the photos. Indeed it is. Compare HEMA rapier fencing with sport foil and saber, they're both similar and different. The strikes are the same, however because the weight of the sport weapons is so incredibly light, you can come from the wrist. Whereas with the real weight blades, you generate up from the feet and body, using the wrist and lower are as a guide. I was comparing techniques once from another school who didn't use real weight weapons with my own. When I tried to do it exactly like them, I nearly tore my wrist in half. However, getting the blade to move the same way through the air, but using the body mechanics I already knew. I could do the same move and in fact, because of the slight change, my follow-up was much nicer. Well, for serious understanding of basic techniques. (And there are far more than the 8 in Michuan) ymaa.com/publishing/dvd/external/sword_fundamental_training Fundamental sword training video, has basic drills, one and two person, etc. San Cai Jian, two person, the form is interesting, the girl in the white is simply doing the solo form. The form splits in half and can be used as a two person drill. The first little intro bit, while teaching some basic moves, is also used as a distancing thing for training. From the sparring I've done against katanas, I also tend to attack the wrist, but with far more percussive intent. Where Wong Kiew Kit attacks up and drags in a smooth motion, I'm lashing out with a Tiao/Beng strike, back down from their blade to let it fall and then moving into something more like Chao, exploding forward to slice across their stomach. Further, he tends to step back more. While the Katana has a slightly shorter blade, due to the way it's used, I tend to prefer the jian up closer, due to it's maneuverability. Also, can't see it, but there was something earlier about how saber teaches block with the edge of the forte, vs us with the flat of the blade. While I'm definitely more jian focussed, for their respective weapons they're both right. With the flat of the blade, when doing jianfa, it is easier to circle into the next attack with block in the flow. Whereas the edge parry then strike feels like two distinct motions. Jianfa is about continuous motion, so it's kind of hard to tell where one move ends and the other starts. (Which I know sounds different to my previous paragraph, but the execution and the explanation look different, but they are the same, or at least I try for them to be.)
|
|
|
Post by Larry Jordan on Jan 1, 2012 22:45:39 GMT
You ask about the blade cross section shape. This view shows how thin it is. It is a diamond shape, hollow ground, which is apparent from the following view.
|
|
|
Post by HouShe on Jan 6, 2012 23:59:29 GMT
Well, essentially, if it's a flattened diamond profile up to convex blade profiles I would cut with it essentially. If it's concave in blade profile, I would avoid it, simply because of the shape may get a lot harder to cut through tougher targets. Also if you're interested, I'm putting together a reference wiki for jianfa. All styles welcome. jianfa.wikidot.comNot that much there currently, however, it's only been up a day and some others have offered assistance (Peter Dekker is one such, to name drop.)
|
|
|
Post by madocreg on Apr 11, 2012 3:20:24 GMT
Back to disassembly: I think the screw/cap at the end of the pommel is covering a hole within which I will find the real securing hardware. Now, how to get it off without messing up the brass pommel...[/quote] I noticed the guard on my Shaolin Jian was loose today so I took off the cap on the end to see if there is a securing hardware underneath. I discovered to my disappointment that there is not, the cap is the securing hardware and very susceptible to damage when trying to remove/tighten it. I was able to reassemble the end cap and get things sufficiently tight to stop the guard from wobbling around but not with out some damage to the soft brass of the nut/cap.
|
|
|
Post by Neovenetar on Apr 11, 2012 12:59:18 GMT
So therefore, the steel version is better than the brass?
|
|