- 4007.YueFeiDao.JPG (410 KiB) Viewed 14080 times
33" blade, 65 1/2”" overall
Yes, he was... the term dadao is the most generic. The Yuefei dao was designed to be a weapon halfway between a sword & a polearm with a roughly 1:1 blade to grip ratio. Dadao of later design are usually longer then Yuefei Dao with shorter blades and longer poles or are overall shorter weapons, where the blade is longer than the grip, but all of these could be collectively called dadao.omni wrote:... original owners/dealers quite conscious of its identity as a Yue Fei Dao, rather than just another kind of DaDao?..
The great variety of terms for 2 handed sabers/polearms can be quite confusing... as Peter pointed out above, the Zhanmadao has a longer blade than grip & thus is a true 2 handed saber, the weapon in the video you posted could be called a Yuefei Dao, but not a Zhanmadao, the techniques employed by these weapons is different.omni wrote:... Zhanmadao that look like big sabers... also seen swords with a near 1:1 ration, labeled (perhaps incorrectly) a zhanmadao, as in the video I posted earlier.
... another... with the same type of sword...
You'll note above that Peter Dekker has often sighted the Huangchia Liqi Tushi, an 18th c. Book of regulations. We used names in primary period sources as the standard names, these have been, quite understandably, confused for a variety if reasons.omni wrote:... confused about your basis for defining the terms.
... you are essentially saying that they have mislabeled the short polearm, and that it should be called something else.
.... how do you know which one is labeled correctly?
We tend to use Qing era government references, as the vast majority of the material we are looking at is from the last 200 years. It should be noted that names sometimes change with time.omni wrote:... my impression is that you're taking the official military/government records as the authoritative standard (am I right? or are you going with the oldest reference?).
Understandable, but standardization is important or there will be even more confusion, imagine an example where one person is describing the use of a Changadao, based on the text Qi Jiguang left & another is describing the use of a polearm, but both are calling the weapon they are using as a Zhanmadao...omni wrote:... never really thought about it in terms of correct and incorrect use of terms....hence my confusion
The problem you'll run in there is that the "folk" terms will vary even within today's martial arts community, so the simplest think to do to eliminate confusion is to use the term in the period text. We can be sure of those terms, where as we have zero evidence of when other terms were use.omni wrote:... in terms of historical method, I'm giving equal weight to the folk and government use of terms...without inquiring as to which is more authoritative, or which came first.
It is, but in fairness, we can't expect every martial artist, or person of Chinese decent, to be an expert in Qing arms & armor, it is a specialize area of study.omni wrote:... we accept the historical document as authoritative, then the use of the term 'zhanmadao' in those videos is really a misappropriation of the term...