Military use of the 2-handed jian?

[tiamat9989]

The large two-handed swords such as the greatsword and no-dachi were, if I recall correctly, used against polearms/cavalry while the one-handed jian was primarily a civilian weapon.

Where does the two-handed jian fit into usage, then?

Thanks.

[Peter Dekker]

My studies mostly focus on the Qing where one doesn't find anything about two-handed jian in a military context. I know too little about the Ming armies to know for sure whether they used these. Perhaps someone else that knows more on the Ming can fill me in here.

They are however, some Qing examples of large two handed jian known that seem to indicate that the art survived in some circles up until the 19th century.

(Note: Some of these are really long, up to 160 cm in length.)

Functionally I guess they would have combined properties of a cutting weapon and a short pole arm. I don't think they would be very good against cavalry because a straight weapon could send a much greater shock back to the user.

The Asian horses used for war can gallop at about 40 mph and weigh some 600 kilo's. A curved blade will tend to cut and slide off, whereas a straight blade would have a greater tendency to "bounce" and the user could easily lose control over it. Historical accounts* also prove that one doesn't want to stab a moving horse or its rider with a hand-held weapon, the forces are too great to deal with and one loses the weapon or worse. It is different for pikes that were secured on the ground with one foot, but I don't see this happening with a large jian.

Advantages of a long two-handed jian against footsoldiers would probably include:
-Longer range
-Leverage produced by the handle can generate great power
-Unlike a spear, one isn't safe once one passed the tip as the blade can still cut with its edges

Disdvantages would be:
-One needs a lot of space to use them safely
-It is heavier and thus slower than a conventional sword or short spear

(*See: J. Christoph Amberger's "Secret History of the Sword" for a good number of historical accounts on actual sword fights and what happened.)

-Peter

[Nik]

My guess is that the advantages of a long saber too far outweighted that of a long sword to allow much wide-spread use of the latter in formally trained military, as soon as long sabers in sufficient quality became available and in use for the armies, other than for tradition and ceremonial use. Same way as european leaders had dysfunctional large, ornated ceremonial weapons (swords and sabers) for symbolic value. General Qi Jiguang already wrote a manual on the use of such long sabers, someone familiar with him might elaborate on what kind of weaponry his troops were using before he implemented the use of such sabers.

BTW, you weren't exactly safe when past the tip of a long lance, as you can smash people with a fajin delivered with the side of the shaft (on the first 3 ft or so). The ricochet of the tip swinging back supported by consecutive power issueing breaks bones.

[Peter Dekker]

I agree with you on the first part, there were probably too many disadvantages for their widespread use compared to longer sabers. There is also a production factor, such long straight swords are harder and more time-consuming to make than sabers. (Harder to keep straight during quenching, and more time-consuming to polish with twice as long an edge.)

As far as fajing is concerned, I wonder how much lateral force one could produce in a long spear with this technique. Period examples of military spears were rather heavy, and often very long. Regulations tell us that many military spears are between 3 and 4.5 meters in length, and some of the better military heads weigh around 600 - 700 grams.

Where I believe that fajing can be turned into a rather powerful thrust such a spear, I am not so sure about how hard one could hit with it because of the inertia of such a heavy object mounted on such a long shaft. They were far from the short and relatively light spears used in the schools today, with which some people can indeed show impressive feats.

I once mounted one of my antique heads (a 650 gram example) on a 260 cm long shaft, and it was already rather unwieldy sideways while it felt terribly powerful on the thrust even in my relatively untrained hands.

-Peter

[Nik]

Depends on the stiffness of the staff and the power of the soldier. A friend of mine who is 56 can move the tip of a rather short, thick staff by like half a meter or 70-90°, where I can barely move it (not trained anymore ). It's also a LOT easier to produce long jin than short one, if the staff has some flex and isn't totally rigid. You have to still be able to produce a wave that runs through the staff, if it's totally rigid, the reach of the whiplash is too short, to the side.

But that's only a side note.

There are pictures of 2handed-swords usage by soldiers here on Scotts articles pages, carrying 2handed jian use into the Ming era: http://www.sevenstarstrading.com/articl ... =2hand/qin

[Scott M. Rodell]

The large two-handed swords... used against polearms/cavalry while the one-handed jian was primarily a civilian weapon.

Where does the two-handed jian fit into usage, then?

The short answer is we really don't know for certain. As Peter pointed out, we know from existing examples that a very few Two-handed Jian remained in use through the end of the QIng dynasty, but these examples are quite few in numbers & two of the total of 4 which I've seen & handled had markings indicating that they were most likely carried by rebels with the Taiping. The assumption then is that some individual martial artists, who fought with irregular units, be they rebels or village militia (tuan lian) employed shuanghou jian. However, while some two-handed dao were appear in the Qing military regulations, there is no evidence at all of two-handed jian being used by Qing regular forces.

Likewise, it doesn't appear that shuangshou jian were very widely used by the Ming military. Basic cuts for these two-handed jian do appear in the Wubeizhi, a Ming Military encyclopedia (see the thread, Junzi Jian, Book on Shuangshoujian: http://forum.grtc.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=404), but these weapons do not appear in any Ming period illustration of men at arms. So it appears, that in the Ming, as in the Qing, the shuangshou jian was strictly a civilian weapon.

In general, though some two-handed dao (sabers) remained in use during the Ming & QIng dynasties, all evidence points to their use in extreme moderations. The likely reason for this is the battle formations in common use. Both loose & tight shield walls, backed up by spearmen were the common practice. In such tight battlefield conditions, it is difficult to use such long, two-handed swords effectively.

[tiamat9989]

Thanks all!

Kind of a follow-up question based on the differences you all have made between jians and daos...

If I recall correctly the Chinese never really implemented chainmail to the degree the Persians/Europeans did, so am I right to assume that jians that were extremely tapered were not seen very often (if at all)? All specimens of jian I've seen are almost not tapered at all.

[Scott M. Rodell]

... If I recall correctly the Chinese never really implemented chainmail to the degree the Persians/Europeans did...

That's correct, ther was some small scale use during the early QIng, but it never caught on. Both the Ming & Qing used dingjia (brigidine armor).

... assume that jians that were extremely tapered were not seen very often (if at all)? All specimens of jian I've seen are almost not tapered at all.

Yes, that is correct. Remember, jian are cut AND thrust weapons that require sufficient mass forward to do a good job of cutting. A practiced jianke can cut thru two rice straw mats around a bamboo core with a single handed cut, just as a katana welded by two hands does...

[Peter Dekker]

What we also need to keep in mind is that while the Chinese didn't seem to have used chainmail to great extent themselves at any time, they did fight armies that made use of chain mail. They thus did come up with at least two weapons to deal with it:

1. ) Mail-piercing arrows
A special arrow, called "Smooth polished plum needle" mentioned in texts to be especially designed to pierce mail. Unlike examples from other cultures, the head of this arrow was not a very narrow pointy thing but still had cutting edges. It was just a smoother polished version of the standard military "plum needle" head. Apparently it did the job well, perhaps due to the heavy weight of Manchu arrows that could even push a wider head through the vest.

2. ) Armor piercing spearheads
I also have what appears to be an 18th century armor piercing cavalry spearhead with a hardened steel insert running obliquely through the tip. It looks quite effective against all the types of armor, especially mail.




Why not swords, then?
First contact was always made with muskets, bow & arrow and spears and swords and saber were backup weapons for all but the rattan shield division and those few who wielded double handers. So perhaps making an anti-mail sword wasn't such a necessity for the Chinese military.

I also think that a serious blow of a heavy militia jian or Chinese military saber, while not cutting through, will be able to do quite some damage through mail by blunt force alone. Mail really only helps well against draw cuts, it is probably no coincidence that mail then was so popular amongst those who fought deeply curved sabers of the Islamic world and Indo-Persia like shamshirs that almost entirely focus on draw cuts, and less frequently used against more percussive edged weapons like those used by the Chinese.


Below I add some artwork of 18th century war hero Machang who, according to the praises written about him, single handedly broke the enemy lines and penetrated into their ranks. He is among a few Qing officers of the era that are depicted in chainmail, probably captured in a campaign on the Western frontiers of the Qing empire. Machang apparently quite liked it as he wears his mail vest in all four different paintings I have seen him on.

Machang, in mail, shooting a Dzunghar that is also wearing mail. The Dzunghars may have imported the vests from nearby countries that manufactured them, like India. Painting by Jesuit Giusepppe Castiglione, in the collection of the Palace Museum of Taipei. (Especially note his comparatively wide arrowhead of his mail-piercing arrows, of which one is already through the vest.)

http://www.npm.gov.tw/exh96/newvision/large/c02.htm

Machang pulling his bow:


-Peter

[Nik]

So, how much distal taper WAS on the "average" (top quality) jian, used as a wen jian for personal defense ? As pointed out, the main use for a long wen jian wasn't in the military, so working through chain or plate mail wasn't the first option. The number of samples I saw is limited, and the only historical one had "some" on it (and it was an unusually light one). Going from 6-7mm to ~3mm near the tip counts as "considerable" for me. I saw some short jian that had considerably thicker tips than the long versions. So how "accurate" is either version ? The museum pictures I saw didn't look like the tips where 5mm or even more.

[Peter Dekker]

So, how much distal taper WAS on the "average" (top quality) jian, used as a wen jian for personal defense ?

I am familiar with this notion of "wen jian" and "wu jian" but I am not sure whether it is a valid distinction between two types of jian made for use. When looking at Qing weapons that were to complement a ceremonial regalia -which were mostly sabers, by the way- it apppears that some were light and flimsy things, while others were of considerable weight and made fully usable. I guess it depended on who commissioned it and how likely did he think himself having to use it, or how much he valued to carry a functional weapon.

A highly ornate "wen jian" could also come with a heavy and fully usable blade. The difference, then, between a "wen" and a "wu" jian would be mostly in the workmanship and finish and not necessarily in its functional characteristics.

Going from 6-7mm to ~3mm near the tip counts as "considerable" for me.

This taper sounds about right to me for a good full-length jian. Many late pieces that are often not properly hardened were thinner, but fully functional blades tend to be at least 6mm at their base. Some were even a lot thicker, I've even had one with a 12mm thick base.

I saw some short jian that had considerably thicker tips than the long versions.

Although generally ignored by martial artists and collector's, the largest group of jian found on the market are actually thick and heavy duanjian such as you describe. At some point, there must have been at least one effective fighting system with these. They are at least encountered form the Ming-Qing transition period in the 17th century up to the late Qing of the 19th century. All are of rather crude workmanship so they are probably militia jian made in the villages for local defense. It is surprising that many of these are as heavy, or heavier than some of the full-length jian out there, but because they are so short and so nothing of the weight is very far from the hand, they remain very lively.

So how "accurate" is either version ? The museum pictures I saw didn't look like the tips where 5mm or even more.

Very few Chinese edged weapons would have tips that thick, it would make them wield too clumsily. Even the heaviest weapons still tend to taper down to 3-4 mm right before the tip. A few grams at the tip section weigh a lot more when felt from the hilt than a few grams added near the base, which is why they usually kept the tips relatively light.

Rather forward balanced swords usually get this feel by tapering down from 6mm to 5mm midaway and then 3 at the tip, instead of 6mm - 4mm - 3mm of the livelier ones. A millimeter thickness halfway up the blade more or less doesn't sound dramatic, but can make a huge difference in how the sword handles.

Having seen a smaller pool of antique jian than my co-moderators here on the forum, I am interested in what they might have to add.

-Peter

[tiamat9989]

On tapered swords, the second picture on this website shows a very, very tapering bronze (I think?) jian from Zhou dynasty. I don't know how authentic the sword is or accurate the website is, but I thought it interesting nonetheless.

https://sites.google.com/a/brvgs.k12.va.us/zhoutechnologyproject/Home/zhou-calendar-by-kara-carter

Looks too small to be meant for two handed use though...

[Peter Dekker]

It appears to be genuine.

This one tapers in width, rather than thickness. The construction allows it to be well-balanced while maintaining an even thickness throughout. I am not so familiar with bronzes, though, but there might have been benefits from this construction that we are unaware of.

-Peter

[Nik]

This is a picture of the same sword from another source (forgot where I had it from):



I was a bit sceptic since it looks too well conserved, given that it's more than 2000 years old. Without an exact size given it's hard to say something about it's functionality.

[Peter Dekker]

Oh, this one, the third picture on the site!

It is from the collection of the Metropolitan Museum in New York. There is some uncertainty of its exact origins and age but it is suggested that it probably dates from the 4th - 1st century B.C. I am at all not familiar with this style, so there is not much I can add to their assessment of the piece here:

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/05/nc/ho_1998.418.htm#

Due to their age it is indeed rare to find anything that old in this condition, but it does happen. There is even a lacquered wooden crossbow that has survived in a grave in extremely good condition. Some 6000 year old mummies were found in a Chinese desert, their clothes still colorful and faces very much intact. Other sites such as Mawangdui even yielded old texts written on bamboo strips that could still be deciphered almost entirely.

-Peter