Curved blade simply don't exist at that time. That's clearly established by artifact, art and record.
Sword of Goujian is the best embodiment of sword during that period, and no one uses broadsword.
Myths and Facts about historical Chinese swords and polearms vs. Media
- Thread starter crobato
- Start date
Curved blade simply don't exist at that time. That's clearly established by artifact, art and record.
Sword of Goujian is the best embodiment of sword during that period, and no one uses broadsword.
Most likely a myth, although Gan Jiang might be a real person.
He is a pupil of Ou Ye Zi.
. Between them, the 10 legendary swords.
Zhanlu (湛卢)
Juque (巨阙)
Shengxie (胜邪)
Yuchang (鱼肠)
Chunjun (纯钧)
Longyuan (龙渊)
Tai’e (泰阿)
Gongbu (工布)
Ganjiang
Mo'ye
Allegedly, they were made for the King of Chu, Wu and Yue (Goujian).
That's why Sword of Goujian is a major national treasure. Its discovery and existence would be like discovering the sword Excalibur in the West for real. Although some still argue about its validity, Sword of Goujian (certainly made by a truly master craftsman, no matter what) points to that the legendary swords may at least, have a historical basis.
Of special note is the sword Tai'e or in Japanese, Taia. Legend has it, the King of Chu, faced with insurmountable odds, waved this sword to signal a counterattack and won. When asked about how he did it, he answered, the "spirit of the sword (metal?) combined with the spirit of a great king can cause miracles" (or was it "turn the will of Heaven".)
The name of the sword also means "Tai Mountain" like as in "the tallest mountain" or figuratively speaking "No Equal under Heaven". Because of that story, Taia is said to be magical. Legend has it, Shih Huang Di would gain possession of the sword and was buried with him, "ruling all under Heaven by a single sword".
Japanese monk Takuen Soho made the sword Taia the metaphor of Bushido in his "Annals of the Sword Taia" (the Taia-Ki), a chapter in the "The Unfettered Mind". One can say this book is the bible of Bushido.
Many legends are also associated with the Zhanlu sword, including being used by Yue Fei of the Sung Dynasty.
Yu Chang and Sheng Ye are said be buried with king Helu of Wu, he being the archrival and slain by Goujian of Yue.
Historical rediscovery of these swords would be priceless.
Ou Ye Zi, Ganjiang and Mo'Ye are likely to be Yue people, since the region and swordsmiths of Yue are legendary for their swords making during that time. Kingdom of Yue, which is south of Wu, refers to the region now known as Fujian province.
Also remember the swordsmanship of the so called legendary "Maiden of Yue", who is referred to in the Ballad of Hua Mu Lan as being her inspiration. Legend has it, King Goujian summoned her after hearing of her reputation and asked her to train his army. Story suggests that during this period, women fought alongside with men, and that swordsmanship training is already a detailed discipline.
Last edited:
maozedong
Banned Idiot
yes,Ou Ye Zi is a founder of China's legendary sword, Ganjiang is his pupil, they are Yue people. China in this period, there were six assassins paladin, their epic stories, and the sword a relationship.
Yue was in about today Hangzhou,Wu was in about today Nanjing,Chu was in about today Wuhan, they were neighbour kingdoms,these areas in the Yangtze River basin, everywhere rivers, lakes, the terrain not suitable for carriage operations, which do not fit the infantry phalanx,during Chun and Qiu period, in the vast northern China plain, when the mode of warfare, first carriage assault, and then the infantry to follow up, they are using a very long spear, so, I think, the kingdoms of Chu, Yue, Wu working on the first to manufacturing sword method, becaurse the Bronze Age it is not suitable for manufacture of Dao.
Later, Yue destoryed Wu, and then Chu destoryed Yue, Chu has owned the whole region, China only had seven kindoms.
some Yue kingdom people moved out to south, after Qin dynasty destoryed, they re-established Southern Yue kingdom in Fujian,guangdong areas, last, the Southern Yue kingdom surrendered to Han dynasty.
Yue was in about today Hangzhou,Wu was in about today Nanjing,Chu was in about today Wuhan, they were neighbour kingdoms,these areas in the Yangtze River basin, everywhere rivers, lakes, the terrain not suitable for carriage operations, which do not fit the infantry phalanx,during Chun and Qiu period, in the vast northern China plain, when the mode of warfare, first carriage assault, and then the infantry to follow up, they are using a very long spear, so, I think, the kingdoms of Chu, Yue, Wu working on the first to manufacturing sword method, becaurse the Bronze Age it is not suitable for manufacture of Dao.
Later, Yue destoryed Wu, and then Chu destoryed Yue, Chu has owned the whole region, China only had seven kindoms.
some Yue kingdom people moved out to south, after Qin dynasty destoryed, they re-established Southern Yue kingdom in Fujian,guangdong areas, last, the Southern Yue kingdom surrendered to Han dynasty.
Swords are very useful for close-quarter combat, but takes a long time to train. For conscripts, it's much faster to train them with spear type weapons. For a brief period, when European armies would lock each other with spears and pikes on open field, the sword and buckler men were very effective in rolling under the pikes to close in on the enemy and killing them. The side-sword they used were much heavier than the small swords of 1700s-1800s.
For comparison, both Tai Chi sword and European small swords are lightweight weapons. In Europe, it was popular for gentlemen to carry the small sword and learning how to duel. If we look at weapons like the epee, it has no practical use in combat against any armored opponent, only as a specialized urban dueling sword against opponents wearing light clothing, and to inflect light flesh-wounds to satisfy dueling victory conditions.
In China, I doubt it was legal to carry arms openly in a city without special permit in the same era (Qing Dynasty). While the European small swords saw a lot of action, Chinese small/light swords were probably only used in rare martial arts duels.
From the design of the swords... we can actually see the various use the sword was actually built and designed for.
Tai Chi Sword: Light and flexible, is designed for close combat, martial art duel and to certain level, speed. It is practically useless in ancient era and in military movement because soldiers and generals tends to wear heavy armour as pointed out by adeptitus. (side note: The era in which this sword came about is somewhere in the Tang dynasty because at that time the metalogy is more advance and they could finally get a sword that thin)
Chinese broadsword, pudao and Zhanmadao: Heavy, strong and inflexible. Design mainly for hacking and slashing. Very good against cavalry and armoured infantry. Basically they are very good weapon in short range close quarter combat, pudao and Zhanmadao even designed against cavalry, whereby a soldier could loop off the legs of a charging horse.
Qin and warring states sword: At that time the sword is short. Many are actually bronze and it is not easy to forge bronze into very long sword... although the Qin actually managed to find a way to do it using variable angle techniques (something like that). Only in the Han dynasty (Han Wudi's era) did the chinese managed to finally create carbon steel sword. But still the workmanship is kind of crude and rough at that time.
Other than just looking at the developement of the swords and weapons, we must also emphasis on the armour developement in order to actually understand why the weapon was being designed in this way.
During anything prior to the warring states, the armour is practically just leathers and stuffs like that, thus bronze weapons are more than enough to inflict damages to the wearers. However during warring states, iron is basically becoming more popular, thus armour with metal plates riveted on them or tied to them are increasingly becoming more popular. Thus iron weapon is also becoming more useful.
In the Han period, I believe the armour are even more sophisticated with more complicated plates and stuffs, thus steel weapons is needed to actually inflict more damage.
However as metal armour are being introduce, we are seeing that our weapon are more or less becoming heavier and more emphasis was placed not on sharpness but strenght of the weapon. This was because if a weapon is too sharp (the blade was thinner), it would break easier and basically not really useful against whole metal plate.
However as we move down stream, when it came to Qing dynasty, basically metal armour is more or less useless when firearms are being used in huge quantity. Thus the sword designed and used could actually be much thinner and flexible.
I think that is the whole process of the sword development.
Tai Chi Sword: Light and flexible, is designed for close combat, martial art duel and to certain level, speed. It is practically useless in ancient era and in military movement because soldiers and generals tends to wear heavy armour as pointed out by adeptitus. (side note: The era in which this sword came about is somewhere in the Tang dynasty because at that time the metalogy is more advance and they could finally get a sword that thin)
Chinese broadsword, pudao and Zhanmadao: Heavy, strong and inflexible. Design mainly for hacking and slashing. Very good against cavalry and armoured infantry. Basically they are very good weapon in short range close quarter combat, pudao and Zhanmadao even designed against cavalry, whereby a soldier could loop off the legs of a charging horse.
Qin and warring states sword: At that time the sword is short. Many are actually bronze and it is not easy to forge bronze into very long sword... although the Qin actually managed to find a way to do it using variable angle techniques (something like that). Only in the Han dynasty (Han Wudi's era) did the chinese managed to finally create carbon steel sword. But still the workmanship is kind of crude and rough at that time.
Other than just looking at the developement of the swords and weapons, we must also emphasis on the armour developement in order to actually understand why the weapon was being designed in this way.
During anything prior to the warring states, the armour is practically just leathers and stuffs like that, thus bronze weapons are more than enough to inflict damages to the wearers. However during warring states, iron is basically becoming more popular, thus armour with metal plates riveted on them or tied to them are increasingly becoming more popular. Thus iron weapon is also becoming more useful.
In the Han period, I believe the armour are even more sophisticated with more complicated plates and stuffs, thus steel weapons is needed to actually inflict more damage.
However as metal armour are being introduce, we are seeing that our weapon are more or less becoming heavier and more emphasis was placed not on sharpness but strenght of the weapon. This was because if a weapon is too sharp (the blade was thinner), it would break easier and basically not really useful against whole metal plate.
However as we move down stream, when it came to Qing dynasty, basically metal armour is more or less useless when firearms are being used in huge quantity. Thus the sword designed and used could actually be much thinner and flexible.
I think that is the whole process of the sword development.
In4ser
Junior Member
I don't think Chinese ever used used whole metal plates for their armor. The closest thing they had imo was Mountain Scale Armor which i guess is the chinese equivalent to chainmail? ( l) Ming Dynasty perhaps earlier and brigandine towards the Qing dynasty.
my bad.
I was thinking of the western knights when I wrote the previous article. However I believe that thin and flexible blade would still fare poorly againts metallic armour, such as armour with smaller plates tied together and/or what you call mountain scales armours.
But I believe mountain scale armour would provide slightly more protection than normal chainmail armour, but was slightly less flexible and much more expensive to build. For that result only generals and elite soldiers are issue with these type of armour while chainmail was practically issued to all infantry in the west.
You're correct. You don't want to fight an armored knight with long thin sword, especially one that is very sharp, which implies more brittle. These kinds of swords will break. That's why you don't want things like katana when you're fighting a medieval knight.
You're also quite correct about armor-shield relationship with sword and melee arms evolution.
If you're fighting against light infantry, less armor but fast moving, then its preferable that your sword must be light so it can be swung fast enough. But as the opponent becomes more armored, then requires a different sword. A sword against armored opponent is preferably softer, so its less prone to break. Sounds counter intuitive, but laminar sword construction requires a soft core, not a hard one. The hardness is on the edge, but the core itself is soft. For the swordsmith, they need to get this balance of hardness and softness just right. Hence the metallurgy of swords are a very exacting science, requires strict formulas for the heat, time of baking, forging, the composition of iron, carbon and ingredients---in order to facilitate that balance.
Against armored infantry though, its not really the slash that's stronger but the thrust. The point of the sword is the strongest part of the sword and its being reinforced by the whole length of the sword. The best way to penetrate a knight armor is not to slash but to thrust that point with your body weight. Best kind of sword against medieval knights, perhaps the German Zweihander (two hander).
Right up to the Ming, armored infantry in China both Chinese and their opponents, was reaching a zenith in development, and so did the melee weapons used against them.
You're also quite correct about armor-shield relationship with sword and melee arms evolution.
If you're fighting against light infantry, less armor but fast moving, then its preferable that your sword must be light so it can be swung fast enough. But as the opponent becomes more armored, then requires a different sword. A sword against armored opponent is preferably softer, so its less prone to break. Sounds counter intuitive, but laminar sword construction requires a soft core, not a hard one. The hardness is on the edge, but the core itself is soft. For the swordsmith, they need to get this balance of hardness and softness just right. Hence the metallurgy of swords are a very exacting science, requires strict formulas for the heat, time of baking, forging, the composition of iron, carbon and ingredients---in order to facilitate that balance.
Against armored infantry though, its not really the slash that's stronger but the thrust. The point of the sword is the strongest part of the sword and its being reinforced by the whole length of the sword. The best way to penetrate a knight armor is not to slash but to thrust that point with your body weight. Best kind of sword against medieval knights, perhaps the German Zweihander (two hander).
Right up to the Ming, armored infantry in China both Chinese and their opponents, was reaching a zenith in development, and so did the melee weapons used against them.