For people who practice real Jianfa...

[Battosai]

I'm somewhat surprised by the path Chinese wushu took, in many things (I can list 'em if you want ), and one of them is the development of jianfa. I've seen some pictures of real Jians meant for the battlefield during the Ming and Qing, and they aren't exactly the aluminum jians of today's PRC wushu. They're fairly meaty and in fact, they remind me a lot of early rapiers. Unsurprisingly, great deal of similarities exists between Jianfa and Renaissance fencing.

Renaissance rapiers were not the flimsy foils we see today. In fact, they resembled jians a lot, with long blade for thrust but can cut, except it was probably more advanced with the basket hilt. Basket hilt is a great defensive and offensive tool that for some reason never developed in the East. In Japan it's understandable, as the basket hilt makes two-handed use more difficult and long crossguard makes iaijutsu unweildy, hence the round tsuba. In China, though, jians were for all purpose rapiers without the basket hilt.

Okay, there are simillaries, many similarities in fact. More than more practioner of Renaissance fencing has said Jianfa looks a lot like fencing. All good for now but there are two major differences, one of which is what I'm asking for: where's the shield?

A shield, or rather, a buckler or a dagger, was the natural companion to rapier, which helped to mask rapier's defensive deficiencies. What about for jians? Jians are not as long as rapiers but they're also fatter. Besides, southern Chinese had smaller build than the Europeans, thus evening the leverage and strength issue. It seems like natural that a shield would be complementary, yet jianfa is singularly devoid of that natural combo.

What do you think happened? Any ideas or historical opinions you can cite?

[Loke-Gao-Zhu]

jian is just for chinese martial art duels, martial artist, emperors, prince or higher class chinese have a jian

those shield buckler thingy are usually for warfare in big fields.......no one would use a jian to fight in war. only have duels in small areas like emperor's room, etc

european have their own dueling rapier, the skinny type

honestly, european have very poor martial arts.....ok i'm not try to ridicule chinese martial arts but just look at european martial arts compare with bruce lee's.........

[Wu Xing]

I'm somewhat surprised by the path Chinese wushu took, in many things (I can list 'em if you want ), and one of them is the development of jianfa. I've seen some pictures of real Jians meant for the battlefield during the Ming and Qing, and they aren't exactly the aluminum jians of today's PRC wushu. They're fairly meaty and in fact, they remind me a lot of early rapiers. Unsurprisingly, great deal of similarities exists between Jianfa and Renaissance fencing.?

First, which kind of wushu that you are talking? Honestly, I don't want to start the "wushu" issue with you again since I'm very bored about it. However, I try to answer you question here since it might help many people see something different from what you usually understand/hear/see.

Well, from what I know, jian was never used in the battlefield in very long time. The main reason is the technique developed in jian using a lot of footwork which doesn't work quite well in the battlefield fighting. Also, the armor often used in the battlefield make the jian less effective than other weapons (like sabre, spear, miao dao, etc.). However, practicing jian could be useful in the battlefield and jian is one of the best/convenient weapon in the old-day daily life (& death) fighting. Practicing jian requires a refined skill that can be used/coopoerated with other weapons (for example, spear & jian techniques are quite similar). Also, since jian usage less requires a specific design like a big guard for blocking like sabre (I talk about jian guard later), jian technique may also be easier adapted with other things in life to use as weapon. As I know (based on what I got from my master from the "new record of arm" (if I remember the name correctly) by famous general Qi Ji Guang in Ming dynasty), in the battle field conducted by general Qi, his army used the weapons such as spear, staff, sabre & shield, miao dao, etc. Nevertheless, I'm quite sure there is no jian in the list. If you see something from museum, it might be a different type of weapon (which may also call "sword" in English) not jian that I'm talking now. And the jian I'm talking is quite old since it was mentioned in the record of arm (at least Ming or before dynasty). I cannot say that I'm 100% correct but this is what I learn/know.

Then, about jian, today the real jian still a jian - a real weapon that can be used to kill. But the "wushu" jian that used in this "martial art-like dance" is just a tool for performance art which cannot be used to kill. The real jian is strong and you might not easily find in a martial art store (I doubt you can really find one). My own real jian was custom-built (outside China).

Renaissance rapiers were not the flimsy foils we see today. In fact, they resembled jians a lot, with long blade for thrust but can cut, except it was probably more advanced with the basket hilt. Basket hilt is a great defensive and offensive tool that for some reason never developed in the East. In Japan it's understandable, as the basket hilt makes two-handed use more difficult and long crossguard makes iaijutsu unweildy, hence the round tsuba. In China, though, jians were for all purpose rapiers without the basket hilt.?

I'm not very familiar with rapiers. However I have seen the rapier in a picture shown a Western sword play in 17th century. In my opinion, it may resemble a lot of jian character but it is still different. This means the way to use rapier should be different from the way to use jian. In "The Art and Science of Fencing" by Nick Evangelista (the only fencing book that I have right now beside another book about Medieval Longsword that I have), in page 18, it was written as follows,

"... Perhaps the greatest transformation in fencing technique came with the development of the rapier in the 16th century. A long-bladed sword designed exclusively for thrusting, the rapier set the fencing world on its ear. For centuries, swords had been envisioned as edged weapons, designed for cutting important parts off of one's opponent. Suddenly, men were poking neat, lethal holes in one another. ..."

As noted in an above quote, the rapier was designed mainly (if not only) for thrusting. While, jian can be used in many ways other than a "simple" thrusting although thrusting is a major offense of jian. Of course, this is from the book that I have and I don't know much about rapier as well (so don't believe me that much about rapier).

Okay, there are simillaries, many similarities in fact. More than more practioner of Renaissance fencing has said Jianfa looks a lot like fencing. All good for now but there are two major differences, one of which is what I'm asking for: where's the shield?
A shield, or rather, a buckler or a dagger, was the natural companion to rapier, which helped to mask rapier's defensive deficiencies. What about for jians? Jians are not as long as rapiers but they're also fatter. Besides, southern Chinese had smaller build than the Europeans, thus evening the leverage and strength issue. It seems like natural that a shield would be complementary, yet jianfa is singularly devoid of that natural combo.

What do you think happened? Any ideas or historical opinions you can cite?

I'm a jian practitioner and I consider myself to know a real jian and jian techniques. However, it is hard for me to compare jian and rapier since I'm not a rapier practitioner. Therefore, I will not take an opinion on a practitioner of Renaissance fencing as a fact/truth. Since they might not know anything about jian, in fact I think only a very handful people in this world know a real jian technique.

About your question, where's the shield? My answer is "jian has no shield". Jian is a weapon that does not rely on a shield at all. The jian guard (or jian shield) is not used as a guard or shield. In a real jian technique that I learn, it is used for jian manipulation which make jian very flexible in manipulation & creating a unique jian technique/strategy (if you put the rapier shield on jian, this technique that used for this new jian has to change too which might not be good as the jian without the shield). In the real jian that I know, the edge of the guard should not point to the tip of the jian for a practical reason of the jian usage. If you go in most martial art store, most (if not all) of jian guards, you will see, are pointed to the tip of jian which is wrong. My master told me that, in the old book about jian, it was said that jian has three tips point to the direction of jian handle (i.e., 2 tips on jian guard and the end of jian handle point in opposite direction of the tip of jian) - in other words, this means the guard should be widest near the hand and slant inwards towards the blade. However, the jian that used in ceremony has jian guard that point to the tip of jian because it will create 3 tips point to the sky (or heaven) and it may look somewhat prettier - but will create a flaw when this jian is used. If you are interested to learn more about jian structure, I refer you to an article by Adam Hsu, "A Straight Talk about Straight Sword" in Kung Fu TAI CHI magazine issued in Febuary 2005.

So, why jian has no shield? This is because jian will not be used to directly block the opponent weapon and it is a weapon with refined skill of its user. In fact, you may consider that "jian blade is the real jian shield" (and different part of jian blade have different type of usage - don't treat the whole blade is the same). Jian "block" (when I say "block", it doesn't mean block but some technique that used to prevent opponent weapon reach jian user) with the blade but it is not a direct block - this "block" is created through a circular movement (which may not the same speed - just forget anything that you learn from Wuxia novel & TV/movies). This circular movement is one of the key points of the jian. It could be a jian shield. It can be used for entangling the opponent's weapon. It can be used for both offense and defense. Also, a high level jian user could use jian with almost no contact with his/her opponent weapon at all through his/her footwork & the way he/she manipulate weapons. So, if there is no contact or no block, why we need shield? Right? (Note: sabre's shield is a necessary & important part since block is a major technique of sabre)

I want to emphasize that there is no real jian techniques were/are (or will be) shown in any TV, movies, etc. In fact, during a fight of a jian expert, if you close your eyes, you will rarely hear any sound of weapon hit each other (which may not create an excited TV/movie scene) - which is much different from what you see in TV or movies.

Somehow, jian techniques are/were considered a secret and only a very handful people in Chinese history know about it. As stated in "The Record of Arm" (Shou Pi Lu) by Wu (sorry remember only his last name, i.e., Wu), in this book which basically all-about-weapon book ("arm" = weapon, and Wu was very skillful in spear), only one poem was devoted in jian (not because he didn't know about it but more like it was a secret and it was even stated in his poem). In fact, in the old Chinese history, this poem (in the record of arm) was the only writing that really talk about (the secret of) jian technique. Btw, the poem is quite short ("easily" fitted in a page of a typical Chinese pocket book). In a part of this poem, it was stated that "...until my hair turn white (his age probably 50+ years when he wrote his book), I just see my own jian (i.e, he just know a real jian technique which he learn from an old master who he never reveal who this old man was, just referred this old man with a certain name)...". This poem is quite complicated and needed a qualified master to interpret. As you see, even in the old days (Wu lived in Ming or the earlier dynaster, I forget, but he live before general Qi Ji Guang for sure), a real jian technique was rarely seen and very secret. In fact, a person who made a real jian technique more well known, in my opinion, was the warlord general Li Jing Ling (or Li Fang Chen, he used to be the Governor of Hebei during the president Sun Yat Sen's period, or around this time before communist, and he got nick name a "sword king"). Part of my sword style linkage was linked to him (I learn 2 sword styles, one is direct Li Jing Ling's style + some additional materials and another one is a standard northern sword which may or may not link to Li Jing Ling - this part I don't know). Li Jing Ling was very famous in a martial art circle and he was very powerful in the politics/military. Somehow, he might not be very well known outside (or even inside in this modern day) the martial art circle.

As stated by Adam Hsu in his article I mentioned above (page 35 in the magazine),

"Many Chinese operas use swords that are just stage props, but the hand guards are correct (i.e., the guard is widest near the hand and slant inwards towards the blade, Wu Xing). In Chinese paintings, look for people carring swords. They are correct. A statue of the Door Guard God often sits at the entrance to Chinese temples. If it carries a sword, the guard is correct. Even children's mimiature toy swords have correct hand guards. Therefore it's extremely difficult to understand why, only on modern Chinese swords manufactured for the hands of kung fu masters and their students, they are turned the wrong way."

I think Adam Hsu may refer to his experience when he was young (he is 60+ years old for sure and probably almost 70 years old now, I think) since I don't think I see many jian with correct hand guard or jian guard (which will not be used as a guard - to make this clear - "guard" is just a name for referring). Of course, I hardly went to Chinese temple and hardly (if not never) see Chinese painting with jian.

Maybe what Adam Hsu's following statement is true (which I don't know whether it is true of not, I'm talking about the communist government's rules/laws),

"In Mainland China, the communist government drafted laws to prevent manufacturers from producing real weapons that could be used in real combat and could really kill. ...
... Although rifles can dominate traditional weapons, officials had fears that if citizens could own and hold real weapons, they might psychologically generate enough confidence and spirit to inspire rebellion and foment revolution.
...After the communist takeover, all the made-in-China weapons exported to the rest of the world, from best to poorest quality, were basically props--shaped like the real thing but useless in combat. Weapons-makers were forbidden by law to perform certain procedures such as crunching and pounding, which allow the weapon to really cut and thrust into a target without bending and breaking.
...The government did want to encourage bare-hand and weapons forms in modern wushu (which is a martial-art-like dance that I, Wu Xing, usually refer to). Year ago, after the vigorous promotion of modern wushu began, "weapons" became even more unreal. They were progressively thinner, lighter, softer.
...In use, the blade weaves and whips around, creating a metallic theatrical sound effect. ..."

However, Adam Hsu stated a good news (which I don't know whether it is true or not),

"Happily, in 2003, the communist government finally lifted its restrictions (about make a weapon that can be used for real, Wu Xing). Soon it will be possible to get Chinese weapons made of combat grade materials. This is a great opportunity to reverse error and once more manufacture weapons with the correct structure. ..."

Which I doubt it since there are too many misunderstanding about the Chinese weapons. It is very hard to believe that this misunderstanding can be correct easily through the popularity of the modern wushu (especially after it is in Olympic game) and only a handful masters (over a whole world) with true knowledge & martial art skill (of course, it is also hard to remove a traditional conservative idea from a martial art master's mind. It is not always bad to be conservative, in my opinion. And I'm quite conservative too).

It is a sad story.

PS: I think I answer an original question about where's the shield? Also, I put some knowledge/opinion here hoping that this may help others from the misunderstanding in Chinese martial art. In fact, this is my purpose that keep posting information about the real Chinese martial art in this WuXia webboard. It may just be only a waste of my time. Nevertheless, I hope, it may help my thinking or teaching in the future since I plan to teach a traditional Chinese martial art (but I'm still in training and still far from being a real master). I have to accept that I will put just enough information to clear misunderstanding and I plan not to put any technical information about Chinese martial art unnecessarily since I'm still quite immature and also selfish (i.e., don't expect me to tell you everything but I will be honest). Nevertheless, I feel that, after seeing a few martial art masters regretted about Chinese martial art nowadays, I think I better start talking something.

Also, importantly, I will be serious ONLY about the martial art topic. I still like to have a light & fun talk about other Wuxia topics. Please don't think that I will only talk seriously. I still want to have fun here.

Sorry about being serious in this martial art topic and hopefully that your guys don't mind about my talk,

Sincerely,

Wu Xing

[Wu Xing]

honestly, european have very poor martial arts.....ok i'm not try to ridicule chinese martial arts but just look at european martial arts compare with bruce lee's.........

I'm not European martial art expert. But, what I heard is that the real traditional Europen martial art was supposed to be very good. However, as I have heard, it was all destroyed after inventing the firearm (or industrial revoluation). Basically, the European martial art has been died before the real Chinese martial art start getting degenerate. In fact, all traditional Asian martial art are already degenerate.

I have heard that there are many groups of people try to recover European martial art by doing research on traditional old European martial art books/classics and try to figure out what it means in the books (or how to use the weapons) by testing in the simulated fights. Of course, those who do research are martial art practitioners (or have some background at least) from other martial art systems/styles. There are many books about European martial art weapons especially swords (there are many types of sword). I have one book who could be the result through this effort about Medieval Longsword. About how good this research is, I don't know since I have only limitted knowledge in this European martial art field.

About Bruce Lee, usually people (including me & people around me) consider him as a good (street) fighter and probably the best fighter in the movie industry so far. However, many traditional Chinese martial art masters do not consider him as a true representative of the traditional Chinese martial art. I think someone in Wing Chun society know more about Bruce Lee and give a better information than me.

[Battosai]

First, which kind of wushu that you are talking? Honestly, I don't want to start the "wushu" issue with you again since I'm very bored about it. However, I try to answer you question here since it might help many people see something different from what you usually understand/hear/see.

I didn't know there was an issue with "wushu"; it's simply a shorthand for Chinese martial arts. Since you seem to dislike the term vociferously, it'll be CMA instead.

Well, from what I know, jian was never used in the battlefield in very long time. The main reason is the technique developed in jian using a lot of footwork which doesn't work quite well in the battlefield fighting.

Someone resurrected this thread after two years, so I'm not sure myself what I meant. Presumably I meant jians usable on the battlefield. IIRC, the site showed authentic Ming- and Qing- era jians meant to be carried on the battlefield. Not as primary weapons, of course, but as sidearms like all swords from Japan to England were meant to be.

As I know (based on what I got from my master from the "new record of arm" (if I remember the name correctly) by famous general Qi Ji Guang in Ming dynasty), in the battle field conducted by general Qi, his army used the weapons such as spear, staff, sabre & shield, miao dao, etc. Nevertheless, I'm quite sure there is no jian in the list.

It has been years since I've checked this out, but I'm jian is listed in one of these onmibus books written during the Ming dynasty. If it's not in General Qi's encyclopedia, then it's in that other one.

If you see something from museum, it might be a different type of weapon (which may also call "sword" in English) not jian that I'm talking now. And the jian I'm talking is quite old since it was mentioned in the record of arm (at least Ming or before dynasty). I cannot say that I'm 100% correct but this is what I learn/know.

The website, which I recall was highly praised by practitioners of CMA (many of whom have practiced for years, are historians, and some have trained in China) for accuracy, called these Ming/Qing blades jian. IIRC, it was a very knowledgeable site, which sold authentic and reproduction Chinese swords, and featured detailed articles on Chinese metallurgy and swords.

Then, about jian, today the real jian still a jian - a real weapon that can be used to kill. But the "wushu" jian that used in this "martial art-like dance" is just a tool for performance art which cannot be used to kill. The real jian is strong and you might not easily find in a martial art store (I doubt you can really find one). My own real jian was custom-built (outside China).

You'll like this company then. Only if I can remember the website again. Really, this discussion should've happened two years ago, when everything was fresh on my mind.

I'm not very familiar with rapiers. However I have seen the rapier in a picture shown a Western sword play in 17th century. In my opinion, it may resemble a lot of jian character but it is still different. This means the way to use rapier should be different from the way to use jian. In "The Art and Science of Fencing" by Nick Evangelista (the only fencing book that I have right now beside another book about Medieval Longsword that I have), in page 18, it was written as follows,

"... Perhaps the greatest transformation in fencing technique came with the development of the rapier in the 16th century. A long-bladed sword designed exclusively for thrusting, the rapier set the fencing world on its ear. For centuries, swords had been envisioned as edged weapons, designed for cutting important parts off of one's opponent. Suddenly, men were poking neat, lethal holes in one another. ..."

As noted in an above quote, the rapier was designed mainly (if not only) for thrusting. While, jian can be used in many ways other than a "simple" thrusting although thrusting is a major offense of jian. Of course, this is from the book that I have and I don't know much about rapier as well (so don't believe me that much about rapier).

Actually, the term "rapier" encompasses great many swords of all types, which rankles great many researchers in trying to reconstruct techniques; for example, just what type of 'rapier' was Silver ranting about in his classic treatise?!

Even more maddening is that the Italian masters never actually called any weapon a "rapier"! Thus, in translations, people goof a lot, especially if the translator is not well-versed in Renaissance martial arts. These masters simply called any single-handed sword a "spada", which could mean anything from spada lunga (longsword) to sciabola (saber).

Rapier did become "standardized", but that didn't happen until the 18th century; until then, there was no rhyme nor rhythm in exactly what constituted a "rapier". In fact many 16th and 17th century Italian sword arts manuals treat rapiers as cut and thrust swords, equally adept at both tasks.

However, the Italian masters preferred thrust over cut, because it was deemed more lethal in the immediate sense than a cut from a lightweight sword such as a spada. For longswords and bigger, cut and slice were very effective of course.

Fabris, one of the Italian masters, wrote this about a thrust:

If you perform a correct passing attack and your sword lands on target, it will penetrate your opponent's body all the way to the hilt, which will further punch and shock your opponent. In addition, the wound that you would so inflict would be disabling enough that the opponent will not have the resources to pull his sword back and wound you.

I'm a jian practitioner and I consider myself to know a real jian and jian techniques. However, it is hard for me to compare jian and rapier since I'm not a rapier practitioner. Therefore, I will not take an opinion on a practitioner of Renaissance fencing as a fact/truth. Since they might not know anything about jian, in fact I think only a very handful people in this world know a real jian technique.

About your question, where's the shield? My answer is "jian has no shield". Jian is a weapon that does not rely on a shield at all. The jian guard (or jian shield) is not used as a guard or shield. In a real jian technique that I learn, it is used for jian manipulation which make jian very flexible in manipulation & creating a unique jian technique/strategy (if you put the rapier shield on jian, this technique that used for this new jian has to change too which might not be good as the jian without the shield). In the real jian that I know, the edge of the guard should not point to the tip of the jian for a practical reason of the jian usage. If you go in most martial art store, most (if not all) of jian guards, you will see, are pointed to the tip of jian which is wrong. My master told me that, in the old book about jian, it was said that jian has three tips point to the direction of jian handle (i.e., 2 tips on jian guard and the end of jian handle point in opposite direction of the tip of jian) - in other words, this means the guard should be widest near the hand and slant inwards towards the blade. However, the jian that used in ceremony has jian guard that point to the tip of jian because it will create 3 tips point to the sky (or heaven) and it may look somewhat prettier - but will create a flaw when this jian is used. If you are interested to learn more about jian structure, I refer you to an article by Adam Hsu, "A Straight Talk about Straight Sword" in Kung Fu TAI CHI magazine issued in Febuary 2005.

So, why jian has no shield? This is because jian will not be used to directly block the opponent weapon and it is a weapon with refined skill of its user. In fact, you may consider that "jian blade is the real jian shield" (and different part of jian blade have different type of usage - don't treat the whole blade is the same). Jian "block" (when I say "block", it doesn't mean block but some technique that used to prevent opponent weapon reach jian user) with the blade but it is not a direct block - this "block" is created through a circular movement (which may not the same speed - just forget anything that you learn from Wuxia novel & TV/movies). This circular movement is one of the key points of the jian. It could be a jian shield. It can be used for entangling the opponent's weapon. It can be used for both offense and defense. Also, a high level jian user could use jian with almost no contact with his/her opponent weapon at all through his/her footwork & the way he/she manipulate weapons. So, if there is no contact or no block, why we need shield? Right? (Note: sabre's shield is a necessary & important part since block is a major technique of sabre)

I would say that none of the above were foreign to the Renaissance Italian, German or English masters of sword. Plus, everyone from Japan to England pretty much parries the same way; there's nothing unique about jian parrying techniques. It's rather elementary if you think about all swords' metallurgical properties; they won't last very long if people really did parry like they do in the movies!

Somehow, jian techniques are/were considered a secret and only a very handful people in Chinese history know about it...

I seriously doubt this, but because so much time has passed since this post was originally posted, I really don't feel like digging up my old notes or doing research anew, so I'll concede this point.

[Battosai]

I'm not European martial art expert. But, what I heard is that the real traditional Europen martial art was supposed to be very good. However, as I have heard, it was all destroyed after inventing the firearm (or industrial revoluation). Basically, the European martial art has been died before the real Chinese martial art start getting degenerate. In fact, all traditional Asian martial art are already degenerate.

I have heard that there are many groups of people try to recover European martial art by doing research on traditional old European martial art books/classics and try to figure out what it means in the books (or how to use the weapons) by testing in the simulated fights. Of course, those who do research are martial art practitioners (or have some background at least) from other martial art systems/styles. There are many books about European martial art weapons especially swords (there are many types of sword). I have one book who could be the result through this effort about Medieval Longsword. About how good this research is, I don't know since I have only limitted knowledge in this European martial art field.

I would like to clarify that Western martial arts (WMA) did not in fact die; they instead evolved from military combatives to civilian martial arts. When people say they're trying to resurrect WMA, they usually mean rediscovering the lost military combatives. In the US, it's also about going back to the original Renaissance masters, as opposed to how their techniques evolved over the centuries. In Europe, as late as 1920's, people learned sword arts and dueled, sometimes to death. There's a famous story of an Italian Olympic fencer who was challenged by an old-school rapier master to a duel; the Olympic fencer was promptly skewered by the traditional rapier master to death...

There were regular sword duels all over Europe in the 19th century, though by mid-19th century, pistols began replacing swords for duels. Still, duels did happen. Burton, one of the most celebrated historians of swords all over the world (he was the first European to catalogue and compare swords from China and Japan, to swords made in other parts of the world, like India or Persia or Europe), was an accomplished swordsman and he dueled frequently and fought using his sword in battle. He was an officer in the British Army and saw action in India and China, and actually liked to use his sword over his pistol.

Germans and Russians were famous swordsmen, and they never hesitated to use their swords in war. During the Tsientsin conflict and Boxer Rebellion, these officers left accounts of using swords in battle against the Chinese. During the Russo-Japanse War, Russian and Japanese officers frequently exchanged sword blows, Russians getting the better because of their size and strength, though not always; when a Japanese officer slew the regiment's champion swordsman, the enraged regiment shot and killed the poor Japanese officer!

What all this means is that civilian WMA never died out in Europe, though it died out rather fast in the US, after the Revolution. What hurt and made it seem as though WMA had died was WWI; the destruction of German and Russian aristocracy literally killed off the mainstay of WMA schools. As result, WMA suffered something similar to the Cultural Revolution.

If you want to learn more about WMA, there's a great book on the subject:

The Art of Dueling, by Tom Leoni.

As an aside, WMA is not entirely devoid of mysticism. The Spanish fencing school is infamous for opaque, esoteric concepts and methods of technique excution, some of which I was told look very much like taiji, that it can be said to be the internal school of WMA.

[Wu Xing]

I didn't know there was an issue with "wushu"; it's simply a shorthand for Chinese martial arts. Since you seem to dislike the term vociferously, it'll be CMA instead.

I like CMA better as I usually use actually.

Someone resurrected this thread after two years, so I'm not sure myself what I meant. Presumably I meant jians usable on the battlefield. IIRC, the site showed authentic Ming- and Qing- era jians meant to be carried on the battlefield. Not as primary weapons, of course, but as sidearms like all swords from Japan to England were meant to be.

That could be a different type of jian. I have seen "jian" in another book that show pictures the jian from Ming & Qing dynasty. Basically, it is the same jian as I know. I think you need to put some pictures or the link to the pictures of the jian you are talking about so that I can see. But the jian that we usually call today (as seem to be the same as the Ming/Qing jian I saw in the book), as I know (now you make feel uncertain, I need to check out the details this coming weekend), is not the battefield weapon.

Btw, I never see this thread until now. And I respond to this thread actually because of the post#1 of this thread.

It has been years since I've checked this out, but I'm jian is listed in one of these onmibus books written during the Ming dynasty. If it's not in General Qi's encyclopedia, then it's in that other one.

I need to see pictures of the jian you refer too. And it is better if you can refer me to the books that talk about the jian in the battefield too. I know someone who can check this thing out in details.

The website, which I recall was highly praised by practitioners of CMA (many of whom have practiced for years, are historians, and some have trained in China) for accuracy, called these Ming/Qing blades jian. IIRC, it was a very knowledgeable site, which sold authentic and reproduction Chinese swords, and featured detailed articles on Chinese metallurgy and swords.

Honestly, I always doubt to most so called CMA experts. I'm sorry to say this but, most of the time, nowadays the famous CMA experts are not real. There was a representative from a sword-making company once come to my CMA school to show their sword. They have a good linkage/name but their swords, while not very bad, is too expensive and their specification might not be totally correct too. Also, when people talk about training in China, my question is when they train (i.e., which year & period they trained), where they train and who they train with. Chinese communist control China quite a while and there are many restrictions on weapon & traditional CMA (for example, culture revolution). Also, the sword of the emperor might not be a practical combative sword. It could just be for decoration not the real battlefield (or even combat) weapon. There are a lot of things going on and need to look into very details.

You'll like this company then. Only if I can remember the website again. Really, this discussion should've happened two years ago, when everything was fresh on my mind.

Again I never see this thread (or may be not that interested to response at that time). If you can find it, I'm interested to see the website of this company.

Actually, the term "rapier" encompasses great many swords of all types, which rankles great many researchers in trying to reconstruct techniques; for example, just what type of 'rapier' was Silver ranting about in his classic treatise?!

Even more maddening is that the Italian masters never actually called any weapon a "rapier"! Thus, in translations, people goof a lot, especially if the translator is not well-versed in Renaissance martial arts. These masters simply called any single-handed sword a "spada", which could mean anything from spada lunga (longsword) to sciabola (saber).

Rapier did become "standardized", but that didn't happen until the 18th century; until then, there was no rhyme nor rhythm in exactly what constituted a "rapier". In fact many 16th and 17th century Italian sword arts manuals treat rapiers as cut and thrust swords, equally adept at both tasks.

However, the Italian masters preferred thrust over cut, because it was deemed more lethal in the immediate sense than a cut from a lightweight sword such as a spada. For longswords and bigger, cut and slice were very effective of course.

Fabris, one of the Italian masters, wrote this about a thrust:

If you perform a correct passing attack and your sword lands on target, it will penetrate your opponent's body all the way to the hilt, which will further punch and shock your opponent. In addition, the wound that you would so inflict would be disabling enough that the opponent will not have the resources to pull his sword back and wound you.

Thanks for your information.

I would say that none of the above were foreign to the Renaissance Italian, German or English masters of sword. Plus, everyone from Japan to England pretty much parries the same way; there's nothing unique about jian parrying techniques. It's rather elementary if you think about all swords' metallurgical properties; they won't last very long if people really did parry like they do in the movies!

The general idea of the technique is probably not much foreign for other swords. But the detail could be quite different. To make it clear, I didn't put any detail how to control jian yet. Thinking about this. Chinese has miao dao which is basically same as japanese sword but longer (longer than katana and it seems to be longer than Tachi as well). The miao dao guard is the same as japanese sword (or a bit larger). Maio dao technique also includes a circular parry as sword (but not the same amount of details because of the blade/handle/guard structures). Also, many proficient CMA master (that I know and in the old days) know Miao dao pretty well. But they all still think jian technique is better without a big guard like Miao dao. This is due to the way jian technique is executed. The way to execute jian and strategy of jian are different from miao dao, japanese sword, Western sword. Although there are something similar, it is still different. Only way to know is to use it and practice it. I learn both miao dao and jian. I feel the different and I like jian as it is without a big guard (that can be used as shield).

My previous post about jian was very superficial. I didn't try to explain the details about how jian is executed but try to explain why jian doesn't need a big guard. If other swords did whatever I talk about jian in my previous post, why do they need the guard then? Can you explain to me? The jian guard is trade off a subtle & sophisicated way to execute the jian which create the uniqueness of the jian technique/strategy (note: every weapon has their own uniqueness). Whether you see it or not, it is there.

As a second thought, I put something here. First, the subtleness of jian control is (partly) through the fingers on the jian guard which could be difficult to do on the guard of sabre/miao dao/japanese sword and western sword (including rapier). Second, the jian technique involves both hands (not one). The second hand of jian could do a lot of things including balance the weapon hand (which rapier should do the same thing too but might not be exactly the same way), a support for the offense/defense (means both hand could be on jian handle), etc. And many of real jian techniques (although might not be a major techniques) involves swiching from one hand holding jian to another hand for technical/strategy purposes (and good jian practitioner usually can use jian in either hands - note: one jian at a time not 2 jians at the same time).

I seriously doubt this, but because so much time has passed since this post was originally posted, I really don't feel like digging up my old notes or doing research anew, so I'll concede this point.

People have different opinions. However, just take a look how many people nowadays know exactly how jian can be executed effectively. In the Chinese history, how many jian experts? From my knowledge, the jian experts were a few but each of them were extremely good. Also, many people even thought jian was just for show not real (such as Gu Long ). Why?

[Wu Xing]

The Art of Dueling, by Tom Leoni.

Thanks for your information. I'll check out the book.

[Wu Xing]

Battosai,

There is a time I visit Thailand last year. I have demonstrated some of jian technique to my friend. Unfortunately, they didn't have jian so I use a Western like (wooden) sword with a guard/shield. Although I can execute many techniques with ease, however I also have a hard time to do many other techniques since I feel very uncomfortable because of losing many of flexibility I feel when I use jian. Let say there is a reason why jian is designed this way if you cannot see why. Unfortunately, I cannot give you a better explanation about jian through this webboard (i.e., I'm not good enough in my writing/explanation without real action). If you really want to know more, you can send me PM. I might be able to suggest someone who I think is qualified to explain the details to you in person (depending on where you live). It is better to meet a qualified master in person than reading from internet. Also, from my limited knowledge, I don't know a really good jian book in English right now (note: there are some "good" books in certain level/information but I don't see any book that is good enough to convince you - for you, I think it is needed to see in person).

Also, another example of sword with a small guard (if you call it is a guard) is Thai sword. Also, from my limited knowledge, in the old days (at least in the certain periods like the beginning of the current Thai dynasty about 220 years ago) Thai soldier rarely wear armor in the battlefield (excluding the general or high-ranking people). I think Thai army was not that weak. Why do the Thai sword has no guard? There should be some reasons, isn't it?

Check out this webpage for Thai sword (actually, literally and technically, it is Thai "sabre" - I'm talking the one in the website below)

http://www.muaychaiya.com/article008.html

Anything in this website is pretty much traditional. It think the weapon in this website was also used in the battelfield but I'm not 100% sure. Although there is English version of this website but it doesn't have the weapon page. So sorry about Thai language in the website...just take a look only pictures.

Another page I have found (by searching thru internet) is

http://www.tribaltrappings.com/ATW_2.html

When I visit Thailand, I have a chance talking with traditional Thai martial-art master (the guy in the muaychaiya website) and have tried wooden Thai sabre a little bit. I think it is very nice and easy to manipulate. However, the fighting strategy of this weapon should not be the same as jian (although I can use some of the jian basis I learn in it - note: jian basis is reasonably generic). Also I don't have much idea how to really use Thai sword/sabre (note: I have tried some of muaychaiya barehand basis, not very much, though).

[Wu Xing]

Correction/Notes:

1. The correct translation of General Qi Ji Guang (1528-1587)'s book should be 'New Book on Effective Military Techniques'. The name I put earlier is not correct.

2. 'Record of Arms' (or 'The Record of Arm' as I used in my previous posts above) was written by Wu Shu (1611-1695) during Ming dynasty. Therefore, Wu Shu (i.e., 'Record of Arms') was after General Qi Ji Guang's period. I make this mistake in my post above (at least implicitly).

3. The jian we usually refer to (not the jian using in martial-art-like dance) is quite old (as I heard, it could be dated back to Zhan Guo period but at least it was before Ming). Nevertheless, there were many types of jian like long jian or other variation. In the military manuals/books in Ming/Qing dynasty, a person I know (who know many of this types of books) told me that he never see any book that includes jian in its use (e.g., in General Qi's book). However, it is possible that there are some generals/soldiers that brought jian into the battlefield but it should not be used as a main weapon in the battlefield or military strategy/technique (probably more personal thing). Also this jian might be a different version of jian (i.e., not the one that we usually see).

4. About jian treated as secret, in my opinion, it may be hard to prove or disprove about this claim/statement. As I mentioned earlier, people have different opinions. However, the fact is that there is almost no information about how to use jian published in the old China (i.e., before the end of Qing dynasty). Only one that master recognize (after asking many qualified people & probably with a bit of his own research) is the message in 'Record of Arms' (or 'The Record of Arm' as I wrote earlier). Nevertheless, the jian techinques/training have been passed down until the current day through jian masters from generation to generation.

5. I just got 2 rapier books, i.e., 'Art of Defence' by William E. Wilson and 'Art of Dueling' translated from Fabris's trestise by Tom Leoni. Thanks for Battosai's information about the 'Art of Dueling'. I consider both of them are very good books and I'm very glad to have the 'Art of Dueling' since it seems to be a classic rapier book (from 1606).

I have not read these 2 books in very details yet. Nevertheless, from what I see, the technique/strategy of rapier are not the same as jian. It is true that there are a lot of similarity and in fact I plan to study rapier in a bit more details to improve my understanding of jian & other weapons (but might not have any chance to try the real rapier in the real training with rapier master). One difference, that seem to be very obvious to me, is that rapier practitioner use rapier 'shield' a lot in their techniques. This is quite obvious since rapier has 'shield' so it should be used & needed in their techniques. Although it might not be exactly the same, the way that rapier 'shield' used reminds me of how Chinese sabre 'shield'/guard is used. In this perspective, rapier has both element from jian & Chinese sabre but not the whole out of two. As I said, I consider each weapon is pretty much unique. Also, each weapon has its own advantage & disadvantage over another weapon. For (very) rough example, jian is simpler than rapier. Rapier 'may' probably be safer for the user than jian. So, jian user 'may' probably require more skill than rapier to effectively use (i.e., jian disadvantage). On the other hand, jian techniques may probably be more flexible and the jian skill may probably be transferred to other weapons easier than rapier skill (i.e., jian advantage). Since jian is simpler, logically it is easier to adapt to other weapons (at least this is true for the jian part but I'm not 100% sure about rapier part). In conclusion, in my opinion, it is a human not weapon that decide who is better in this case.

Regards,

Wu Xing

[Xi Men Chui Xue]

I'm a jian practitioner and I consider myself to know a real jian and jian techniques. However, it is hard for me to compare jian and rapier since I'm not a rapier practitioner. Therefore, I will not take an opinion on a practitioner of Renaissance fencing as a fact/truth. Since they might not know anything about jian, in fact I think only a very handful people in this world know a real jian technique.

About your question, where's the shield? My answer is "jian has no shield". Jian is a weapon that does not rely on a shield at all. The jian guard (or jian shield) is not used as a guard or shield. In a real jian technique that I learn, it is used for jian manipulation which make jian very flexible in manipulation & creating a unique jian technique/strategy (if you put the rapier shield on jian, this technique that used for this new jian has to change too which might not be good as the jian without the shield). In the real jian that I know, the edge of the guard should not point to the tip of the jian for a practical reason of the jian usage. If you go in most martial art store, most (if not all) of jian guards, you will see, are pointed to the tip of jian which is wrong. My master told me that, in the old book about jian, it was said that jian has three tips point to the direction of jian handle (i.e., 2 tips on jian guard and the end of jian handle point in opposite direction of the tip of jian) - in other words, this means the guard should be widest near the hand and slant inwards towards the blade. However, the jian that used in ceremony has jian guard that point to the tip of jian because it will create 3 tips point to the sky (or heaven) and it may look somewhat prettier - but will create a flaw when this jian is used. If you are interested to learn more about jian structure, I refer you to an article by Adam Hsu, "A Straight Talk about Straight Sword" in Kung Fu TAI CHI magazine issued in Febuary 2005.

Thanks for very detailed explanation. Is there any picture to illustrate how a real "jian" look like?

Just curious, is the Japanese Samurai sword also some kind of "jian"?

Thanks.

[Wu Xing]

Thanks for very detailed explanation.

Hi Xi Men Chui Xue, it is my pleasure although I don't want to do this type of explanation very often.

Is there any picture to illustrate how a real "jian" look like?

Honestly, it is very hard (if not impossible) to say whether the jian in the picture is real or not. Although there are something that we can tell whether it is correct or not by observing the jian image such as the design of jian guard (as I described in my previous posts). Also, there are many variations of the "real" jian design. For example, although the spec of the guard is that "the guard should be widest near the hand and slant inwards towards the blade", this is by no mean that there exists only one jian guard design. Also, there are different ways to design the ridge (or spine) of jian blade.

An example of the "real" jian can be seen at http://therionarms.com/reenact/therionarms_c738.html which the jian is designed by Sifu Adam Hsu. My practice "real" jian is different from Sifu Hsu's jian (sorry I don't have my jian picture right now). Although both my jian and Sifu Hsu's jian meet the spec of jian guard, they are quite different from the looks (Sifu Hsu's jian is much more stylish than mine. My jian guard is just a plain black-color methal but I consider it beautiful in its own [plain] way). Also, Sifu Hsu's jian ridge is also different than mine but both of them are correct.

However, strictly speaking, someone may say that both Sifu Hsu's jian and my jian could also be considered more or less "not absolutely real" jian since it was supposed to be a practice jian (i.e., it might not be exactly the same design as the jian that is designed for the real killing. Btw, in my opinion, the details length, weight, etc. of true combat jain could be different for different persons' body, personalily, techniques, etc.). Therefore, although there exists so-called "real" and "unreal" jian, there are also many different types of "real" jian (for practice, for real combat, etc.). For example, in my opinion (as suggested by my master), the jian for practice could be heavier than the real combat jian to build strength & speed of a jian practitioner. My jian is pretty heavy but I'm not sure about Sifu Hsu's jian. This is simply because I never measure the weight of my jian or, in general, any jian. Therefore, I don't really know how heavy Sifu Hsu's jian until I know my jian weight or I have a chance to hold Sifu Hsu's jian (sorry I don't have any tool to measure my jian weight with me and I don't want to bring my jian to other public places to measure its weight as well ^^).

So, what make the jian "real"? Beside its shape (e.g., the shapes of guard and blade) and dimension (the correct dimension of jian also depend on the dimension of the jian practitioner like how tall he/she is & how he/she plan to use). The strength of the blade is very important (most of jian that you see in most martial art store nowaday is too flexible). The weight and weight distribution (& center of gravity) of jian is also very important especially the weight distribution. The weigth distribution of jian is pretty unique and I believe that it is different from Western sword (at least long sword but I'm not so sure about rapier) and Japanese sword (as far as I know since I have only a chance to hold the real japanese katana twice and tachi once). It is quite special since the weight distribution of jian is more toward handle not in the front (say - I refer the tip as the most front part of jian). It is hard to describe the correct weight distribution for me since I know it through my own feeling (& I need to swing or thrust to confirm it too).

About my (personal) opinion, why do I usually refer the jian in the martial art store nowaday is "unreal"? In fact, most of jian in typical martial art store have a correct shape (except jian guard). In addition, many of them has a quite good weight distribution as well. The main problem (beside jian guard) I consider those jian "unreal" because of its blade - just simply "its blade is not real so it is not a real jian" (Note: if we replace these "unreal" jian with real blade, the weight distribution of this "new" jian might not be correct and basically everything of this jian need to be redesigned). And this might be quite difficult to see whether the jian is real by simply looking in the picture.

Just curious, is the Japanese Samurai sword also some kind of "jian"?

"Strictly speaking", japanese samurai sword (such as katana or tachi) is called "Dao" in Chinese. "Dao" is usually translated as "sabre" or "broadsword". (Note: Although there are some weapons that are supposed to be called "Dao" (from the shape) but people call them "Jian" in China - I think it could be very confusing sometimes). To make it a bit clear, there is one Chinese weapon called "Miao Dao" (I'm not so sure about which Chinese character of "Miao" but I was told that it was called "Miao Dao" because the shape of this weapon has the shape of rice). Miao Dao was first developed by General Qi Ji Guang as one of the weapon used in the combat with Japanese during the Ming dynasty. In fact, Miao Dao was originally designed from Japanese sword (I'm not sure it is katana or tachi - Although some people believe that Miao Dao is in fact tachi but I have a different information as I will explain next).

From what I learn, the length of Miao Dao is longer than both katana & tachi. I have seen Miao Dao, katana & tachi before. Although I'm not totally sure that the tachi that I see is "real", nevertheless, Miao Dao that I know is definitely longer than tachi that I've seen. Curve-wise, tachi is more curve than katana. However, I was told that the Miao Dao curve is about the same as katana...but I never try to confirm it (I've seen tachi only once and I don't remember how curve tachi is).

For interested readers, from what I heard, the original Miao Dao technique designed by General Qi is really a Japanese sword technique but "simpler" (I may say it could be much simpler). Also, Miao Dao was intentionlly designed to be "longer" than Japanese sword (that those Japanese people fought with General Qi's army). Therefore, Miao Dao is supposed to be longer than Japanese sword (including tachi, I belive) to have a "length advantage" during the combat. In this sense, Miao Dao is not tachi. Later, many Chinese martial artists include Miao Dao in their system and improve Miao Dao technique. From what I learned, Miao Dao techniques has been modified many times with (probably ancient) techniques of Chinese long sword (or sabre), spear technique, etc. Chinese maritial-art styles that have well-develope Miao Dao technqiues, that I know, includes Long fist (Changquan) and Xing Yi. The version of Miao Dao system that I learn come from Long fist system (but "probably" with influence from Xing Yi system as well).

Btw, from my internet search (half hour ago ^^), I just found a picture of Miao Dao at http://thomaschen.freewebspace.com/photo2.html (see the bottom-right of this webpage). In this page, they say Miao Dao overall length is about 1.95 meters (Again, I never try to measure the real length of Miao Dao since I measure the correct length of Miao Dao through the Miao Dao pratitioner body length - nevertheless, this 1.95 meters is definitely not the length for my body size - is this because people in the old day was big [from my opinion, 1.95m requires a person with about 2-meter height or a bit more] or maybe it was just a length design for battles at that time or simply a mistake in this website, I don't know). Also, you will find information about Japanese nodachi (one type of japanese sword and it is longer than tachi) at http://www.angelfire.com/dragon/swords/nodachi.html . It is mentioned in this page that the length of nodachi (which longer than tachi) is over 5 feet long with a tsuka (hilt or handle of nodachi) of greater than 15 inches. Assuming that 5-feet length didn't include tsuka length, therefore, 5 feet + 15 inches is about 1.88 meters and 1.95 - 1.88 = 7 cm. Based on this information, we may consider that it is likely that Miao Dao is longer than katana & tachi. However, it might be the same length or a bit longer than japanese nodachi. Also, nodachi may be the japanese longest sword (Note: from http://www.angelfire.com/dragon/swords/tachi.html, it is mentioned that tachi length is up to 3 1/2 feet which is shorter than nodachi 5-feet length). Again, these information came from my internet search. If I want to be sure, I need to carefully check from more reliable sources (which I might not do this). Anyway, all these measuremts cannot be taken very seriously as the truth but only for some idea of the length comparison. This is because it came from the internet search (I don't know how reliable these informaiton is) and most weapon has no one specific length - most of the time, it depends on its (weapon) user (this means I'm not sure all the lengths I got here are referred to the same human body size).

To answer Xi Men Chui Xue's question, Japanese samurai sword should be called "Dao" in Chinese (not jian) by specification. Miao Dao (which is Japanese-like Chinese sabre) is also called "Dao".


EDIT: change from "bottom-left" to "bottom-right" - the location of Miao Dao information in the webpage that I found from internet.

[Xi Men Chui Xue]

Thanks again, Wu Xing.