mali
Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF0-FZFZ-wA
Posts: 94
|
Post by mali on Oct 16, 2015 16:53:16 GMT
The one that I have has been modified to be balanced with a heavy pommel so that it can compensate for the heavy blade. However, as far as I know (which isn't very far), jians were designed to be light fencing weapons akin to the rapier (the there are many varieties of these as well). They were used with one hand, and not suited for war. Anyway, historically, were heavier jian with longer blades and thicker cross sections commonly used in any part of China during any time period? Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 16, 2015 20:04:52 GMT
Two-handed jian were most common early: Han dynasty. Lots of artwork showing long two-handed swords being carried as late as Tang, but how many are jian and how many are dao, I don't know. Most of the surviving long Tang swords appear to be dao. Sculpture will show long jian, but whether that is stylised or represents contemporary usage is the question. By Song, the long two-handed swords are almost all dao. Through Song, Ming, early Qing, long two-handed jian are almost non-existent. Somewhat of a revival of the jian in late Qing, but two-handed ones are still rare. What were they used for? Militia weapons, civilian weapons, bling/status symbols, ceremonial weapons, magic weapons. Not mainstream military weapons. The one that I have has been modified to be balanced with a heavy pommel so that it can compensate for the heavy blade. However, as far as I know (which isn't very far), jians were designed to be light fencing weapons akin to the rapier (the there are many varieties of these as well). They were used with one hand, and not suited for war. Song and later: Regular jian (i.e., full-length one-handed jian) are cut-and-thrust swords. Civilian weapons, could be carried by high-ranking officers. They'd work in war, but the standard military sword was the dao. Not at all akin to the rapier, nor to the smallsword, but falling halfway between the two. The rapier is not lightweight; the typical rapier is heaver than the typical arming sword. Where the rapier excels is length. To have that length, it needs lots of blade. To have a sufficiently strong blade, it needs lots of weight. 1.2kg is not unusual, though the really long ones (e.g., 48" or more of blade) could be around 1.5kg. The smallsword is the weapon that excels in lightness and speed. Gives up cutting to do it. 400g is not unusual. A jian doesn't give up cutting, and it's much heavier than a smallsword. Nowhere near the length of a rapier. It's an everyday-carry cut-and-thrust sword of reasonable length and weight. The really light modern jian are not representative of historical jian. Not so long ago, I handled a late Qing two-handed jian. About 3' blade, 1' hilt, so the size of the classic European longsword. A bit lighter, perhaps 1.3kg (I didn't weigh it), a lighter pommel than a European longsword. In fighting, it would be used in much the same way as a European longsword. More cutting oriented than many European longswords. The Chinese fight manuals for such weapons support this kind of use: www.chineselongsword.com/straightswordtranslation.shtml |
|
mali
Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF0-FZFZ-wA
Posts: 94
|
Post by mali on Oct 18, 2015 23:51:18 GMT
Thank you, that was very informative.  |
|
|
|
Post by AlvaroWang on Oct 19, 2015 22:41:07 GMT
It should be noted that jian is a generic word for any double edged sword. As Timo illustrated, there were a lot of different designs for different purposes.
Funny thing is that the modern style jian, which I presume is the one you were referring to, only came to life long after (and I do mean long) the jian were not used in battle anymore. I wonder if when kung fu masters tell us how it should be used is only an educated guess as I feel there were few actual sword bouts with this model so they wouldn't know for sure how a sword fight unveils.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 19, 2015 22:44:44 GMT
At least some jian forms look like re-purposed dao forms.
There was a real jian revival in the 19th century, with the devolution of bandit suppression and similar tasks to local militia units. The jian was a common militia weapon.
|
|
|
|
Post by pellius on May 5, 2016 20:22:26 GMT
Sorry for digging up an expired post, but the more I read here, the more I want to dig into the archives. I'm still getting the hang of the "Quote" feature, so please bear with me. Also, I am using the term "Kung Fu" to refer to the non-sport oriented Chinese fighting arts as exported to the US. I understand at least some of the issues in using the term in this way, but to do otherwise is just too cumbersome in this context.
My martial arts experience is mostly with Kung Fu. I have studied a number of weapons, but not swords. I find swords fascinating, and I'm strongly considering devoting practice time to learning their use. I have a modern oxtail dao, which is where my school begins sword instruction.
Timo said: "The really light modern jian are not representative of historical jian."
My impression has been that the Kung Fu tradition/history (in the US, anyway) claims genuine/documented roots to at least the 16th century, and a mythical history far older. My impression has also been that its history was primarily civilian rather than military in nature. My personal focus has always been on technique and application rather than tradition and history, though, so I accept that I may be mistaken.
I have been left with the impression that the prevailing Kung Fu use of the jian and oxtail dao was due to Kung Fu's non-military origins and its civilian cultural preservation through the centuries. While the military may have moved from cavalry, sabers, bows and armor (ancient weapon systems) to firearms, industrialization and mechanization (modern weapon systems), civilians generally did not.
I mention this impression because it led me to believe that, for Kung Fu sword methods to work, a modern sword would need to be a relatively close match in specifications to the ancient sword upon which the historically-derived techniques were created and refined. In other words, if generations of masters created a system for using a particular weapon, the student really needs to begin with the correct weapon when learning to apply that system. (Of course, once a student truly masters a system, then (s)he would have the capacity to compensate for/use various weapons.)
This brings me to Timo's comment. I would have imagined that there would be a strong connection between the specifications of the modern and historical jian (just as I, perhaps mistakenly, imagine there is a connection between modern and historical katana). It surprises me that there is not.
So, is the difference intentional? Do modern sword forms and techniques assume a modern sword? Do modern forms and techniques work with an historically accurate jian?
I'm considering obtaining a jian in the future. While the chances of me actually beginning sword instruction and then progressing to jian training is not particularly likely, I would nonetheless prefer to choose a suitable sword. Even if I never actually use it, it always sucks when a practitioner takes a look at your weapon and tells you it's not suitable for training. That just kinda takes the shine off. All that said, it would also be good to understand some of these distinctions when shopping for a jian and to know what to look for.
I'm likely to talk to my instructor about all this. However, the conversation will be so much more meaningful if I know a lot more beforehand. Also, I can easily predict his advice to delay buying a sword in favor of obtaining other training items. That makes good training sense, but is just no good for that sword collecting addiction! Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on May 5, 2016 21:22:23 GMT
Do modern sword forms and techniques assume a modern sword? Do modern forms and techniques work with an historically accurate jian? You won't do flashy modern wushu-type routines with a historically accurate jian. But traditional forms should be no problem. There are two common defects with weight and balance of modern martial arts jian:
- They are often too light. Wikipedia currently says 700-900g for a 70cm/28" blade is typical, and that sounds OK to me. Wushu swords at 350-500g are too light.
- They are often balanced too close to the hilt. Many people will claim that the POB should be no further than 1-2" past the guard, and that balanced at the guard is ideal. A jian should be balanced like a cut-and-thrust sword, which usually means a POB at 4-5". Where the POB is doesn't matter in its own right; what matters is where the pivot point is, and that should be very close to the tip. The POB should be where it needs to be to achieve that.
The traditional forms are older than modern jian, so they should work OK. Some schools might have modified forms to work better (or need) light/in-close-POB jian. Light weight lets people do unrealistically quick flashy stuff in wushu routines. Light and/or very close POB lets people do slow-motion forms more easily, with less strain on the arm and wrist. IMO, if you're interested in learning combat-relevant stuff, you should do jian forms with a realistic jian, and do them (at least sometimes), at full speed. If the move doesn't work with a realistic jian at speed, it isn't being done properly. |
|
|
|
Post by pellius on May 5, 2016 23:05:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on May 6, 2016 0:16:07 GMT
The jian forms I'm most familiar with are Taiji forms, and they look OK. If the person demonstrating a form is using a lightweight jian, or doing the form very slowly, then it might be hard to see what should be powering the strikes. In the Yang 32 form, most of the cuts are powered from the core, and IIRC most of the thrusts, too (there are a couple of arm-only thrusts, delivered while the body is moving back - counter-thrusts while moving back to evade an attack).
I wouldn't recommend either of the jian you linked. Maybe they're OK, but I wouldn't take the risk if I was buying them for myself. The 2nd, more expensive, one looks better, but at that price, I'm less inclined to gamble on it being a good sword. In my experience, Huanuo makes OK jian, so I'd recommend and Dynasty Forge jian or Cold Steel jian (except maybe the Battle Gim, but that might be OK too, and you might be interested in it since it's a heavy jian) since they're made by Huanuo, or jian sold under Huanuo's name. The Hanwei Chinese Cutting Sword is an excellent jian - superb antique-like handling. Long grip, though, and it's a big sword, so if you want a shorter hilt and/or a shorter sword, then Huanuo/DF/CS. Or take your chances with something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by gundy on May 6, 2016 0:26:07 GMT
My friend has CS battle gim. Very sturdy piece. Feels way too heavy for me, but seems like that's what you prefer. I actually kinda recommend it.
|
|
|
|
Post by pellius on May 6, 2016 0:46:32 GMT
Thank you for the input. I appreciate your insight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on May 6, 2016 1:46:37 GMT
My friend has CS battle gim. Very sturdy piece. Feels way too heavy for me, but seems like that's what you prefer. I actually kinda recommend it. Do you know where the pivot point is? Ideally for a jian (and same for various other cut & thrust swords, including longswords), at the tip or very close to the tip. The easy way to find the location of the pivot point is the waggle test. Otherwise, pendulum test. See: Waggle test video at blog.subcaelo.net/ensis/dynamic-method-weighing-swords/Waggle test, figure 5 in www.thearma.org/spotlight/GTA/motions_and_impacts.htmPendulum test, figure 6 in the same article. |
|
|
|
Post by pellius on May 6, 2016 15:39:40 GMT
I watched several Youtube Yang 32 sword form presentations; most slow, a couple with moderate speed. Though I've not seriously studied Taiji or other internal-focused Chinese martial arts, I must say that the methodology of power delivery is pretty evident even to me as a casual observer. I understand that there's more to it than is immediately visible (for example, I didn't see even primary applications for some of the movements). Nonetheless, as the form progresses, the external potential and kinetic energy of the movements and postures are readily apparent. It is also obviously demanding of strength, flexibility and endurance. It's also quite beautiful. If I am fortunate enough to seriously study sword, that is my kind of art.
|
|
