Good Documentary

[B.Ko]

http://www.emptyflower.net/forums/index ... topic=6539

Nice documentary.

The order of the clips on the thread is messed up. Episode one is the top picture of each series of 3, episode two is middle picture etc.....

I'm sure there are a few inaccuracies in the documentary however!!!

[tiamat9989]

very cool. thanks for sharing!

[Peter Dekker]

Hi,

It is at least much better than all of the previous documentaries on Chinese swords that I've seen so far. Less assumptions, more historical facts.

Some comments on Part 2 that I just viewed:

It is stated that the dao is harder to use than the jian.
The general consensus in China and the Western world seems to be the opposite: The jian is the harder one to master, with a generally more sophisticated system. The straight, double edged blade also has more "options" than the more straightforward cutting of most dao.

It is stated that the Xiongnu dao was the key to their successes
The attribution of the Xiongnu's success against the Han is probably not so much due to their better sabers, but more likely part of a larger picture including cultural aspects and tactics used. The Xiongnu confederation were (like the later Mongols, Jurchen, and other mounted people of central Asia of various times) "a population at arms". They were practically born on a horse, and trained with weapons from a very young age onward. In their harsh environment only the strongest survived and they largely relied on the hunt for food, in other words, to take their food from nature by armed force. They would have outperformed any soldier from a more "civilized" background in horsemanship, archery, but also in spirit, toughness and strength. This is the main underlying factor in the unlikely sounding successes of such peoples against the armies of great civilizations over the course of thousands of years.
On top of that, using a straightsword against cavalry is not a good idea in any case, no matter how well-trained or well-armed the cavalry is, the horse will go about 40 miles / hour and a straight weapon's thrust will make the wielder lose it whether he is on the horse, or fighting the horse.

But I'm happy that finally a documentary points out that Guan Yu did not wield a yanyuedao but most likely a spear. One of the most common misconceptions in the dojo today.

I'm just being picky!

-Peter

[Peter Dekker]

More comments!

Part 3
It is stated here that a double handed saber is per definition better than a single hander. If this were the case, I wonder, then why did so many cultures rely on single handers? I think there is much more to it than one saber type versus another: large double handed sabers call for less dense formations and cannot be used easily from the horse. Moreover, sabers were frequently backup weapons, smaller ones being more easy to carry next to a primary weapon: bow, crossbow, or pole-arm that are all hard to counter with any type of sword or saber.

There is also an assumption in this part that Ming swords were poorly made, and of inferior steel to Japanese swords who were made by families of sword makers as treasured objects. In fact, Japan also had its sword making centers for cheap mass-produced steel for the common soldiers. Qi Jiguang, a late Ming general was indeed complaining about the quality of his weapons but this was in a time of dynastic decline where military expenses were a main problem, not the ability of sword making as a whole.

Then there is the covering of "hidden weapons". The attribution to some kind of throwing star to Mongol cavalry doesn't seem based in anything. What use is there to throw a spiked ring, if the average Mongol cavalryman carried 2-3 bows and over 60 arrows with range, power and accuracy much higher than anything one could throw?

The "slingshot" or "pellet bow" is assumed to be used in surprise attacks because presumably one can't hear the pellet coming like an arrow. I regularly dodge slow blunt arrows which is doable only by vision, not by listening to them even if one had the ears of a bat. Military arrows without large rubber heads can reach over 190 miles / hour with a traditional composite bow as used in China for at least 3600 years and are rather impossible to dodge. In reality the pellet bows were simply used for bird hunting. They could also be used to down bigger birds of prey without killing them so they could be trained, as a bird of prey trained by its parents was said to make a far better hunter than one trained by humans.

Nearing the end they mention that the best swords made in China were mong others made in the reigns of Kangxi and Qianlong. It is a most interesting subject that was unfortunately ignored in the documentary. Perhaps something for the next show?

-Peter

[Dan Pasek]

While CCTV is very professionally done, and it originates within China so that one might think that the information may be reliable, I would caution viewers from accepting things without fact checking. This is a state run broadcast that apparently has the purpose of promoting Chinese culture, but not necessarily in reliably investigating the material that is used.

I do not know how accurate the information in this specific broadcast is (Peter has pointed out some problems), but there has been outright false information given in at least one of their broadcasts (on Mahjong). The error in the Mahjong broadcast stated that there was an 1861 diary by a British consul during the time that he was stationed in Ningbo (the proposed birthplace of Mahjong) that was obtained by, and in possession of, the Japanese Mahjong Museum. The information that the broadcast indicated was included in the diary could have been very important to researchers investigating the early history of Mahjong, so I passed the information along to a leading Mahjong researcher who had obtained information on the British consul from the British foreign services office some three years prior to the CCTV broadcast. There was no mention of a diary in the information that he had obtained, nor did the Japanese museum know anything about one. Thus, either the CCTV broadcast had misattributed their source for the diary, or it was an outright fabrication (it is still not known if the diary is legit – but so far it does not look promising). A more critical viewing of that broadcast revealed additional subtle distortions and inaccuracies (whether intentional or not is uncertain).

My personal conclusion is that the accuracy of CCTV broadcasts needs to be questioned. I suspect that the subtle goals of propaganda may be adversely affecting the reliability of CCTV.

Dan

[Peter Dekker]

Indeed there are always two things to keep in mind with information coming from Chinese sources:

1.) The influence of propaganda
2.) The "face" system where public disagreement is avoided, which doesn't help to get to the bottom of things. The basically ask the most famous guy in the field, who can rattle at will, and whose ideas will not be openly challenged.


One of the more funny accounts of Chinese propaganda from my personal experience is when without knowing, I becvame part of one of their campaigns: The Japanese had published a new history book, in which they again didn't admit all the crimes they did in China. People may remember this event where news stations all over the world reported that the Chinese were furious. It was accompanied by footage of mass demonstrations in many major cities, aimed at Japanese property.

I would have believed the convincing images on the news, had it not been for the fact I was present at such a "demonstration" while I was living in Chengdu some years ago. We were walking the streets in the city center when we were suddenly faced with Chinese riot police driving everyone to one side of the busy center. One of the most prominent malls was the Japanese Ito Yokado, and the riot police was blocking the streets and pressing the crowd away from there. No-one knew why they were doing this so some citizens got mad and yelled at the police asking why they couldn't pass. This was all filmed from a good distance. From there it really did appear as if the riot police was keeping a crowd of many thousands away from the Japanese department store that they were apparently about to attack. This footage was sent to international news stations and I got emails of friends some days later whether I heard anything about the huge riots in Chengdu.

That evening, still ignorant of why the streets had been blocked for an hour or so we visited the Japanese department store and later had dinner in a Japanese restaurant across the streets. As usual both places were filled with a mix of local Chinese and Japanese and as always, the atmosphere was relaxed. There was no word about this new history book, most people probably hadn't even heard of it.

-Peter

[Peter Dekker]

Having said all that, I still think the documentary was pretty good nonetheless: Western documentaries on Chinese arms do far worse.

To name some examples:

National Geographic's "Top 10 Deadliest Kung Fu Weapons"
The whole list was full of crap but they reached their climax when stating that the number one weapon was a so-called flying guillotine. The Yongzheng Emperor allegedly had this used by his specially trained assassins to kill his brother. It was almost impossible to use and the only hint to its existence was that the prince's head was never found, which could have numerous reasons.

National Geographic's "Perfect Weapon"
When diving into archery they asked an English archer of the Mongolian style about the Mongolian bow. He shot a crappy glass-fiber replica of 40 pounds of draw and stated it could never shoot far. Go figure, actual examples were often 100 pounds heavier or more and made of a laminate of three materials, not one. It was then pitted to a decently made all-traditional longbow and not surprisingly, lost the face-off! In the end they used a Chinese repeating crossbow, by observers in 1930 seen to have a range of up to 300 meters. This example, again, was very amateurishly made and its inability to penetrate the target at a few meters was laughed at.

Again the longbow prevailed, while historical successes are spread over only 3 noteworthy battles, the biggest being Agincourt which still was a battle between two relatively small armies. Compare this to Chinggis Kahn's commander Subotai Bahadar: With his combination of mounted archers and heavy lancers he won 65 battles and conquered 34 nations over the course of a mere 13 years. In both cases though, tactics largely outweighed the weapons used. Still, Western people just love stories on the superiority of bent sticks.

Asian cultures still hold all the records when it comes to traditional archery, but these programs sound as arrogant, ignorant and etnocentric as the general tone of many Victorian travel accounts over a century before.

And then there's of course:
Discovery Channel's "Top 10 Greatest Weapons of All times"
10-Katana
9-Walter PPK
8-Pike
7-harquebuses
6-Boomerang
5-Thompson SMG (Tommy Gun)
4-Barret 50. Cal
3-Longbow
2-AK-47
1-Human Body

I'll keep my ranting short on this one.. Of course the katana is the only sword / saber in the list. Often pitted in programs against crappy made replicas of the swords of other nations. And again, we see the longbow take a very high place.

-Peter

[josh stout]

A human body may be difficult to swing, have very little throwing range, and no penetrating power against even the lightest armor, but they do have heir uses. Launched in catapults they have been instrumental in spreading plague.
Josh

[Peter Dekker]

Perhaps that is what they meant!

-Peter