Hello friends. I was reading Kenneth's posts on knives below:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...t&p=4909540
In Europe, it seems like the possession of a dagger was a fairly widespread practice, and in Japan, the Samurai had the tanto. For this reason, I was wondering about the parallel in China.
And I was intrigued in particular by the picture of the Halberdier with a knife. So I was wondering: though we know that some sidearms, like Dao and Jian were standard issue, what about knives or daggers, as both a last-ditch combat weapon or utility tool? If soldiers had them, were they personal belongings or government issue?
Discuss the issue of military knives further.
Here are some daggers from Huangchao Armory antiques.
Tibetan Dagger
A Hunting Knife
A Qing military dagger
A dagger named "Xu Furen" (archived, zoom-in may not load)
Sadly, the page for their Qing Dynasty green camp dagger is not working, and an interesting one they had called the "Big Water Splitting Dagger" is likewise gone.
Full Version: Knives in use by the Chinese military
Dagger in the West until Late Medieval (15th century) became a habit although they might no longer play a significant part in practice. They, however, were still the most common weapon for Crossbowmen and Archers. Using dagger was still essential to self-defence when a crossbowman finds himself threatened by a counterpart in the process of reloading his crossbow. Some might even know how to use them to throw. But this speculation might be only an imagination from movies.
I still think that major daggers in Western Europe was, like the Chinese somehow, ... cutting foods and meats.
I still think that major daggers in Western Europe was, like the Chinese somehow, ... cutting foods and meats.
QUOTE (Boleslaw I @ Feb 22 2008, 09:25 AM) 
Dagger in the West until Late Medieval (15th century) became a habit although they might no longer play a significant part in practice. They, however, were still the most common weapon for Crossbowmen and Archers. Using dagger was still essential to self-defence when a crossbowman finds himself threatened by a counterpart in the process of reloading his crossbow. Some might even know how to use them to throw. But this speculation might be only an imagination from movies.
I still think that major daggers in Western Europe was, like the Chinese somehow, ... cutting foods and meats.
I still think that major daggers in Western Europe was, like the Chinese somehow, ... cutting foods and meats.
Ah but to be honest, if an archer is ever in that situation, he is better off running away. I mean, a dagger can't stop much of anything. . .
QUOTE (mariusj @ Feb 23 2008, 01:14 AM)
Ah but to be honest, if an archer is ever in that situation, he is better off running away. I mean, a dagger can't stop much of anything. . .
Close combat gives no chance to run among the mass. On the other hand, an archer also has with him a falchon. Using this type of sword and dagger could protect him at least in skirmishing situation, if not grand battles.
First, I like to address the original question of this thread.
Chinese army do/did have standard issue of weapons of many kinds. In a good and efficient government with few corruptions, the army weapons are/were very good -- for example, the Qin army weapons.
When the Chinese government become corrupt or inefficient, the standard issued army weapons became very, very substandard. I have heard someone (can't remember where) talked about the Ming dynasty armies' standard issued weapons were so bad towards the later half of the Ming period that they were like papers when meeting with Manchu's or Japanese pirates' weapons -- you could see that if you have watched the latest documentary from Discovery Channel about re-building the Great Wall during the Ming dynasty and about General Qi Jiguang. I think the later part of the North Song and South Song dynasties were also the same. I believe there were reports of major corruptions in the Song courts in the area of weapon productions for the military. I remember a few great defeats in Song dynasty were due to exactly or close to deficiencies in the standard weapons as well as very bad army morale when the soldiers knew they had very substandard weapons!!! We really don't need to specifically point out the late Qing dynatsy for this problems of corruption and bad standard military weapons -- they were very bad, and I have heard/read that the problems might have started soon after Kangxi or earlier, even.
I believe the kinds of the knives that you have shown might have been used by the Chinese soldiers in Han or Tang or other dynasties that many non-Han Chinese were in the Chinese armies. However, I am not sure whether they have such styled knives as government standard issues to the armies/soldiers. Although I thought I saw something similar in the standard issues of the Taiwan (and probably PROC) military personnel (my half-brother was in the military as all Taiwan young men of a certain age) and I think the Chinese governments in the past had probably issued something similar to their soldiers, but I could not say that those knives were exactly the Yengisar knives. I think when a knife's design is as nice as those Yengisar knives and perfected through the use of a couple of thousands of years, any army in the world would be glad to include the knives of that style in their standard army's weapon issue!!!
Regarding archers and running away during the battle, I have read that soldiers who ran away from their enemies during the battles would probably get killed anyway. They were either killed from behind by their enemies or killed by their own officers. Only when their officers were running as well and the enemies had no horses (or they found some horses that were as fast as the enemies' horses), the run away soldiers might live through the defeat. However, the government (or generals or officials who represented the government and the Emperors) might decide to execute them for running away later. Therefore, some of the braver soldiers would try to engage in the hand to hand combats with their enemies in the hope that they might take their enemies with them in the worse case situation. I do believe (and have the impression) that some of the Chinese archers do have certain standard issued knives or swords to protect themselves in such situations. However, when facing the charging nomadic cavalries or ferouciously looking barbarians, I think some if not most of the Chinese soldiers, who were usually farmer boys and very badly trained in many of the Imperial periods, would probably drop their weapons (lilke the bows) and ran -- That situation had happened many, many times in the Chinese history!!!
Unfortunately, the Chinese generals and officials were usually the ones who ran the fastest and knew how to cover up their own shames the best!!! 
The Chinese high officials and generals who ran from the battle fields were also very good at blaming their subbordinates and common soldiers and executing them to distract attentions from their own failures!!! My father was almost executed (thrown in jail awaiting being shot the next morning without trial or appeals) by KMT for such lame excuses and reasons, and he did not run (and would have stayed to the end) until his friends dragged him away almost mere minutes before CCP came into the city he held in trust for KMT government!!! 
My father said his hair went completely white that night for being so scared, but his friends (the high level ones in KMT government and had "retreated" with Chiang Kai-shek a long time, like months, before my father to Taiwan) saved him by telling Chiang and those KMT officials in charge of such matters, "We, the higher officials in KMT, were all ran away from our posts to Taiwan long before he did. What would be the point to execute a low level official who did not even leave his city until the very last hour of its fall!?" After my father was released from jail, he decided he would become a law professor and a lawyer in Taiwan and never a government official ever again!!! He said, "It would be easier and safer to run away as a common citizen and not a government official if such situation occurs again!!!" 
According to my mother, he had nightmares long time after (even when I was in my early teens, about 20+ years later), so my mother decided to immigrate to U.S. and not stay in any territories that are close to mainland China!!! Without any English and any formal education or skills or trainings (including driving), she went to U.S. alone when whe was in her mid 50's. With her friends' help, she got us all green cards and moved us to U.S. She also learned reading and writing English as well as driving, and she has invested in Real Estates and never got cheated by any one of her money. My sister-in-law, who is a native born Californian (American and not Chinese) and has a Real Estate license, invested in the same time period as my mother and in better regions (like in Southern California and not half in some eastern states that did not have as hot a housing market as California and some in California like my mom did), but my sister-in-law's investment results were not as good as my mother's -- I am very interested in records and comparisons, etc., and I did a very extensive comparisons myself and was very amazed at my results. 
Basically, that is also why I would NEVER consider to move back to ANY Chinese territories, like mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore at all and why I am deeply distrustful of ANY Chinese governments or politicians even though I love Chinese history and culture and people!!! 
Chinese army do/did have standard issue of weapons of many kinds. In a good and efficient government with few corruptions, the army weapons are/were very good -- for example, the Qin army weapons.
When the Chinese government become corrupt or inefficient, the standard issued army weapons became very, very substandard. I have heard someone (can't remember where) talked about the Ming dynasty armies' standard issued weapons were so bad towards the later half of the Ming period that they were like papers when meeting with Manchu's or Japanese pirates' weapons -- you could see that if you have watched the latest documentary from Discovery Channel about re-building the Great Wall during the Ming dynasty and about General Qi Jiguang. I think the later part of the North Song and South Song dynasties were also the same. I believe there were reports of major corruptions in the Song courts in the area of weapon productions for the military. I remember a few great defeats in Song dynasty were due to exactly or close to deficiencies in the standard weapons as well as very bad army morale when the soldiers knew they had very substandard weapons!!! We really don't need to specifically point out the late Qing dynatsy for this problems of corruption and bad standard military weapons -- they were very bad, and I have heard/read that the problems might have started soon after Kangxi or earlier, even.
QUOTE (Tujue)
did the chinese army ever use knifes from Yingjisha ?
Yengisar knifes
Yengisar knifes
I believe the kinds of the knives that you have shown might have been used by the Chinese soldiers in Han or Tang or other dynasties that many non-Han Chinese were in the Chinese armies. However, I am not sure whether they have such styled knives as government standard issues to the armies/soldiers. Although I thought I saw something similar in the standard issues of the Taiwan (and probably PROC) military personnel (my half-brother was in the military as all Taiwan young men of a certain age) and I think the Chinese governments in the past had probably issued something similar to their soldiers, but I could not say that those knives were exactly the Yengisar knives. I think when a knife's design is as nice as those Yengisar knives and perfected through the use of a couple of thousands of years, any army in the world would be glad to include the knives of that style in their standard army's weapon issue!!!
Regarding archers and running away during the battle, I have read that soldiers who ran away from their enemies during the battles would probably get killed anyway. They were either killed from behind by their enemies or killed by their own officers. Only when their officers were running as well and the enemies had no horses (or they found some horses that were as fast as the enemies' horses), the run away soldiers might live through the defeat. However, the government (or generals or officials who represented the government and the Emperors) might decide to execute them for running away later. Therefore, some of the braver soldiers would try to engage in the hand to hand combats with their enemies in the hope that they might take their enemies with them in the worse case situation. I do believe (and have the impression) that some of the Chinese archers do have certain standard issued knives or swords to protect themselves in such situations. However, when facing the charging nomadic cavalries or ferouciously looking barbarians, I think some if not most of the Chinese soldiers, who were usually farmer boys and very badly trained in many of the Imperial periods, would probably drop their weapons (lilke the bows) and ran -- That situation had happened many, many times in the Chinese history!!!
Unfortunately, the Chinese generals and officials were usually the ones who ran the fastest and knew how to cover up their own shames the best!!!
The Chinese high officials and generals who ran from the battle fields were also very good at blaming their subbordinates and common soldiers and executing them to distract attentions from their own failures!!! My father was almost executed (thrown in jail awaiting being shot the next morning without trial or appeals) by KMT for such lame excuses and reasons, and he did not run (and would have stayed to the end) until his friends dragged him away almost mere minutes before CCP came into the city he held in trust for KMT government!!! My father said his hair went completely white that night for being so scared, but his friends (the high level ones in KMT government and had "retreated" with Chiang Kai-shek a long time, like months, before my father to Taiwan) saved him by telling Chiang and those KMT officials in charge of such matters, "We, the higher officials in KMT, were all ran away from our posts to Taiwan long before he did. What would be the point to execute a low level official who did not even leave his city until the very last hour of its fall!?" After my father was released from jail, he decided he would become a law professor and a lawyer in Taiwan and never a government official ever again!!! He said, "It would be easier and safer to run away as a common citizen and not a government official if such situation occurs again!!!" According to my mother, he had nightmares long time after (even when I was in my early teens, about 20+ years later), so my mother decided to immigrate to U.S. and not stay in any territories that are close to mainland China!!! Without any English and any formal education or skills or trainings (including driving), she went to U.S. alone when whe was in her mid 50's. With her friends' help, she got us all green cards and moved us to U.S. She also learned reading and writing English as well as driving, and she has invested in Real Estates and never got cheated by any one of her money. My sister-in-law, who is a native born Californian (American and not Chinese) and has a Real Estate license, invested in the same time period as my mother and in better regions (like in Southern California and not half in some eastern states that did not have as hot a housing market as California and some in California like my mom did), but my sister-in-law's investment results were not as good as my mother's -- I am very interested in records and comparisons, etc., and I did a very extensive comparisons myself and was very amazed at my results. Basically, that is also why I would NEVER consider to move back to ANY Chinese territories, like mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore at all and why I am deeply distrustful of ANY Chinese governments or politicians even though I love Chinese history and culture and people!!!
QUOTE
I have read that soldiers who ran away from their enemies during the battles would probably get killed anyway. They were either killed from behind by their enemies or killed by their own officers. Only when their officers were running as well and the enemies had no horses (or they found some horses that were as fast as the enemies' horses), the run away soldiers might live through the defeat. However, the government (or generals or officials who represented the government and the Emperors) might decide to execute them for running away later. Therefore, some of the braver soldiers would try to engage in the hand to hand combats with their enemies in the hope that they might take their enemies with them in the worse case situation.
Perhaps things like Enemy At The Gates give you fall impression upon actual military battles. The proportion of Officers over lower ranking soldiers were small usually. Thus one officer cannot only kill a running soldier while leaving a whole formation behind him. Some records from Khawarzm report that their archers were usually reinforced by heavier infantry standing behind. I have no idea how Chinese army dealt with cavalry charges. But in Europe, the most fundamental formation to protect archer is to insert a line of pikemen or spearmen behind them. So, this allows the formation to have time to turn from missiling to close combating. Archers would be given more time to step back and fire at will, if not immediately stop.
As I many times try to emphasise, the most important fact for infantry to prevail over cavalry charges is to hold firmly their formations. Poorly trained troops, as you described, might be the prey for slaughter.
Finally, fireball, perhaps you may agree with Frederick The Great that one soldier should scare his officer ten times more than his enemy. Harsh punishment and discipline were the bulk in making the incredible strength of the Mongols and other successful armies in the world, including China.
Using knives still became essential in Medieval Combat, not only for archers, but virtually all kind of troops. Once engaged in a ferocious hand-to-hand combat, soldiers may lose their primary weapons. Kives help them to stab the counterpart at close range effectively. A situation like this might substantiate this: A Cavalryman successfully rides down a spearman, but cannot kill his counterpart. So he is pulled down from his horse by an archer and being killed by a knife slash.
So, in close combat, things like this may happen. Possibilities are extremely various.
QUOTE (Boleslaw I @ Feb 24 2008, 09:23 PM)
Perhaps things like Enemy At The Gates give you fall impression upon actual military battles. The proportion of Officers over lower ranking soldiers were small usually. Thus one officer cannot only kill a running soldier while leaving a whole formation behind him.
No, when I was reading about such Chinese practices in history, the main actors for "Enemy At the Gates" were still in their previous lives and not this one.
My elder brother made sure that I made Art of War and famous battles in Chinese history as one of my self study curriculums. He also made sure I would join him and his friends when they discussed battle strategies used in these battles. In addition, when I was learning my traditional Chinese set phrases in elementary school, a lot of the phrases came from stories of such battles and my father as well as many of ancient Chinese scholars discussed in Classical texts about such tactics associated with these stories for the set phrases as well.It was a fairly usual practice for some of the more sensible Chinese armies and Chinese generals to have a group of soldiers acting as executioners behind the lines of common soldiers, especially when the common soldiers were ill trained with low morale. When the common soldiers' line colapsed and they turned tails to run, the common soldiers would be face to face with these executioners. Sometimes, with some killings, the line would hold again and save the whole battle. The executioners were most likely the Commanding Generals' personal guards and much better trained and equiped. When they could not hold the common soldiers' lines, these personal guards would also help their lords to escape the battle fields. These situations happened a lot in battles of Ming armies versus Manchu armies.
QUOTE
Some records from Khawarzm report that their archers were usually reinforced by heavier infantry standing behind. I have no idea how Chinese army dealt with cavalry charges. But in Europe, the most fundamental formation to protect archer is to insert a line of pikemen or spearmen behind them. So, this allows the formation to have time to turn from missiling to close combating. Archers would be given more time to step back and fire at will, if not immediately stop.
Some Chinese Generals and armies would also do the same things, but not necessarily all of the Chinese Generals and armies would be so smart -- It was really not the armies' or the soldiers' faults if they happened to have bad commanders!!! I usually got really upset and mad when I am reading some of the really idiotic ideas from certain Chinese Generals (or Emperors or their eunuchs or non-military officials). That is why I usually avoid reading any battles after the early Ming dynasty.
QUOTE
As I many times try to emphasise, the most important fact for infantry to prevail over cavalry charges is to hold firmly their formations. Poorly trained troops, as you described, might be the prey for slaughter.
I agree.
QUOTE
Finally, fireball, perhaps you may agree with Frederick The Great that one soldier should scare his officer ten times more than his enemy. Harsh punishment and discipline were the bulk in making the incredible strength of the Mongols and other successful armies in the world, including China.
I agree. Good Chinese Commanders would do the same. Actually, that was the fundamental principle of training soldiers since before the Art of War in China.
QUOTE
Using knives still became essential in Medieval Combat, not only for archers, but virtually all kind of troops. Once engaged in a ferocious hand-to-hand combat, soldiers may lose their primary weapons. Kives help them to stab the counterpart at close range effectively. A situation like this might substantiate this: A Cavalryman successfully rides down a spearman, but cannot kill his counterpart. So he is pulled down from his horse by an archer and being killed by a knife slash.
So, in close combat, things like this may happen. Possibilities are extremely various.
So, in close combat, things like this may happen. Possibilities are extremely various.
I agree.
Hey, fireball, you know what? I am still very content with Chinese Art Of War that rarely the aristocracy caused disruption upon formation. Loss was usually due to weak trained troops, fortune, good tactics. Unlike the French in Agincourt, they were "so strong that they have to lose", even they pertained an excellent tactic before the battle. ha, ha
QUOTE (fireball @ Feb 25 2008, 01:21 AM)
No, when I was reading about such Chinese practices in history, the main actors for "Enemy At the Gates" were still in their previous lives and not this one. My elder brother made sure that I made Art of War and famous battles in Chinese history as one of my self study curriculums. He also made sure I would join him and his friends when they discussed battle strategies used in these battles. In addition, when I was learning my traditional Chinese set phrases in elementary school, a lot of the phrases came from stories of such battles and my father as well as many of ancient Chinese scholars discussed in Classical texts about such tactics associated with these stories for the set phrases as well.
It was a fairly usual practice for some of the more sensible Chinese armies and Chinese generals to have a group of soldiers acting as executioners behind the lines of common soldiers, especially when the common soldiers were ill trained with low morale. When the common soldiers' line colapsed and they turned tails to run, the common soldiers would be face to face with these executioners. Sometimes, with some killings, the line would hold again and save the whole battle. The executioners were most likely the Commanding Generals' personal guards and much better trained and equiped. When they could not hold the common soldiers' lines, these personal guards would also help their lords to escape the battle fields. These situations happened a lot in battles of Ming armies versus Manchu armies.
Some Chinese Generals and armies would also do the same things, but not necessarily all of the Chinese Generals and armies would be so smart -- It was really not the armies' or the soldiers' faults if they happened to have bad commanders!!! I usually got really upset and mad when I am reading some of the really idiotic ideas from certain Chinese Generals (or Emperors or their eunuchs or non-military officials). That is why I usually avoid reading any battles after the early Ming dynasty.
I agree.
I agree. Good Chinese Commanders would do the same. Actually, that was the fundamental principle of training soldiers since before the Art of War in China.
I agree.
My elder brother made sure that I made Art of War and famous battles in Chinese history as one of my self study curriculums. He also made sure I would join him and his friends when they discussed battle strategies used in these battles. In addition, when I was learning my traditional Chinese set phrases in elementary school, a lot of the phrases came from stories of such battles and my father as well as many of ancient Chinese scholars discussed in Classical texts about such tactics associated with these stories for the set phrases as well.It was a fairly usual practice for some of the more sensible Chinese armies and Chinese generals to have a group of soldiers acting as executioners behind the lines of common soldiers, especially when the common soldiers were ill trained with low morale. When the common soldiers' line colapsed and they turned tails to run, the common soldiers would be face to face with these executioners. Sometimes, with some killings, the line would hold again and save the whole battle. The executioners were most likely the Commanding Generals' personal guards and much better trained and equiped. When they could not hold the common soldiers' lines, these personal guards would also help their lords to escape the battle fields. These situations happened a lot in battles of Ming armies versus Manchu armies.
Some Chinese Generals and armies would also do the same things, but not necessarily all of the Chinese Generals and armies would be so smart -- It was really not the armies' or the soldiers' faults if they happened to have bad commanders!!! I usually got really upset and mad when I am reading some of the really idiotic ideas from certain Chinese Generals (or Emperors or their eunuchs or non-military officials). That is why I usually avoid reading any battles after the early Ming dynasty.
I agree.
I agree. Good Chinese Commanders would do the same. Actually, that was the fundamental principle of training soldiers since before the Art of War in China.
I agree.
I am actually quite curious of where you get the description of Chinese armies being a mix of peasants and executioners. Could you name a source and some examples? This description seems very feudal, more a product of exigency rather than "sensibility", and does not seem to be very consistent with the armies of Han, Tang, or Song.
QUOTE (Yang Zongbao @ Mar 4 2008, 04:08 PM)
I am actually quite curious of where you get the description of Chinese armies being a mix of peasants and executioners. Could you name a source and some examples? This description seems very feudal, more a product of exigency rather than "sensibility", and does not seem to be very consistent with the armies of Han, Tang, or Song.
If you read the Ming Shi (the formal history of Ming dynasty), especially toward the middle to the end of the Ming dynasty, I believe you would see more mentioning of such types of formations. The executioners were not called "executioners. They were just the personal guards (also soldiers) of the commanders and being used for such actions. Qing dyansty armies also had similar formations: The commanders would have their own personal soldiers/guards that were better equiped and dressed and much more loyal and better trained than the common soldiers. They were generally called "親兵" (qin1 bing1 -- close soldiers). In some of the earlier dynasties, there were also similar organizations. In the Imperial China, the commoners, especially the farmers needed to offer x number of days of work for the government every year as part of their taxes. Sometimes, they had to work in the public works, but sometimes, they might get put into the army for some hasty defenses against invaders. These farmers were generally very ill trained and totally not professional at all. Even in the dynasties when the government had some professional soldiers (like in the Ming and Qing dynasties, and I believe some of the Song dynasty armies), the soldiers became more focused in farming than training for wars like in the later part of the Ming dynasty or worse that the soldiers became totally gang members that were only useful to black mail local businesses and NOT for the real fighting in actual wars!!! In the formal Qing Shi, there should be a lot of mentioning about such problems by various Qing dynasty Emperors as well as high officials!!! They actually tried to do a few reforms during the Qing dynasties or just organized new types of armies.
Anyway, I would like to go through those books to get you the exact battles and incidences. However, I still owe kaiselin some of the stuff she needs for our CHF newsletter and Han Lin Journal, so I could not spend time to do that -- Not to mention, due to my other personal problems, I have been lacking sleep lately, so going through any books now are really not as desirable for me than going to bed!!!
However, I think such examples were fairly common in the Imperial Chinese histories because I remembered reading them all over the places. I think you could find them fairly easily.
Yang Zongbao, the book Weapons of Ancient China mentions daggers or short stabbing swords as common side-arms throughout Chinese history. Shows examples from pre-Qin and such. I guess they base this statement off of daggers and such being commonly unearthed with other weapons.
this isn't entirely related but, you know, china is just so d**** big, and what's considered Chinese history is so long. Something like say Japan, a collection of islands with little habitable land... it just seems odd to use the words in comparison. 'in Japan, this... but in China, this...' The amount of time and space compared, it's like a dog and an elephant.
Say with the example of the low quality weapons from the Ming at certain times, comparing it to the quality of Japanese swords. Was production of weapons in the whole of the gigantic Ming empire as standardized as the smaller, more homogeneous Japanese islands? Here's a hypothetical example: If the Ming made 100,000 bad swords but 10,000 good, while Japan in total makes 8,000 good, can you then say "Japanese swords were higher quality than Chinese"?
It's certainly easier to say that than get specific with what workshop in what province did what all the time, but that seems more 'fair' by size comparison.
just something that bugs me, the limitations of common terminology.
this isn't entirely related but, you know, china is just so d**** big, and what's considered Chinese history is so long. Something like say Japan, a collection of islands with little habitable land... it just seems odd to use the words in comparison. 'in Japan, this... but in China, this...' The amount of time and space compared, it's like a dog and an elephant.
Say with the example of the low quality weapons from the Ming at certain times, comparing it to the quality of Japanese swords. Was production of weapons in the whole of the gigantic Ming empire as standardized as the smaller, more homogeneous Japanese islands? Here's a hypothetical example: If the Ming made 100,000 bad swords but 10,000 good, while Japan in total makes 8,000 good, can you then say "Japanese swords were higher quality than Chinese"?
It's certainly easier to say that than get specific with what workshop in what province did what all the time, but that seems more 'fair' by size comparison.
just something that bugs me, the limitations of common terminology.
I have something to say about peasant army.
In Han, 卫［e.g. 南,北］are the basic fundamental of military. They are professional armies. You don't see peasants running around until the end of West Han, with peasant rebellions. Then, even by the end of East Han, you won't see peasant armies and mostly they are the Yellow Turban. Cao Cao's main force came from the Yellow Turban, however, but he only picked able bodied man.
In Tang, at least in early Tang, 府兵 is the closest to peasant army. But they are not exactly poorly trained. They spent one season per year drilling. So in that sense they are far more trained then the armies of middle East and far vast then the armies of the West. I mean, you don't exactly grab peasants from the field, stick some weapons in their hand and put them on the field, they already know the basic training, the sound of horn and can tell the differences b/w standards.
In Song army, 禁军 doesn't do any of the farming. [In principles, there are corrupted times where officers would hire hand craft man into military to do work and sell...] Most 厢军do not farm. So they are also professional army.
In Ming, you have 卫所 again, they are also professional army.
Qing is different and I do not know too much about the organization of Qi army.
I think military recruit are only among military families in several dynasty. I believe in Han, Song, and Ming.
I do not include in dire times when fighting a total war, as total wars cannot and should not be included in generalizations.
QUOTE (TMPikachu @ Mar 10 2008, 07:16 PM)
Yang Zongbao, the book Weapons of Ancient China mentions daggers or short stabbing swords as common side-arms throughout Chinese history. Shows examples from pre-Qin and such. I guess they base this statement off of daggers and such being commonly unearthed with other weapons.
this isn't entirely related but, you know, china is just so d**** big, and what's considered Chinese history is so long. Something like say Japan, a collection of islands with little habitable land... it just seems odd to use the words in comparison. 'in Japan, this... but in China, this...' The amount of time and space compared, it's like a dog and an elephant.
Say with the example of the low quality weapons from the Ming at certain times, comparing it to the quality of Japanese swords. Was production of weapons in the whole of the gigantic Ming empire as standardized as the smaller, more homogeneous Japanese islands? Here's a hypothetical example: If the Ming made 100,000 bad swords but 10,000 good, while Japan in total makes 8,000 good, can you then say "Japanese swords were higher quality than Chinese"?
It's certainly easier to say that than get specific with what workshop in what province did what all the time, but that seems more 'fair' by size comparison.
just something that bugs me, the limitations of common terminology.
this isn't entirely related but, you know, china is just so d**** big, and what's considered Chinese history is so long. Something like say Japan, a collection of islands with little habitable land... it just seems odd to use the words in comparison. 'in Japan, this... but in China, this...' The amount of time and space compared, it's like a dog and an elephant.
Say with the example of the low quality weapons from the Ming at certain times, comparing it to the quality of Japanese swords. Was production of weapons in the whole of the gigantic Ming empire as standardized as the smaller, more homogeneous Japanese islands? Here's a hypothetical example: If the Ming made 100,000 bad swords but 10,000 good, while Japan in total makes 8,000 good, can you then say "Japanese swords were higher quality than Chinese"?
It's certainly easier to say that than get specific with what workshop in what province did what all the time, but that seems more 'fair' by size comparison.
just something that bugs me, the limitations of common terminology.
Well, I think Chinese military are mainly armed with spears and bows. [Or is that my fault conception?]
Japanese samurai sword do have better quality due to oxidation [I either watch this on History Channel or read it in a book, but I forgot the details...] I don't think Samurai sword are standardized as in assembly line standardized in Civil War, they are all made by different blacksmith with different concept in mind, [. . . in a game I play, there are 4 ways to make samurai sword in Japan during middle Ming]
I think Chinese weapons are standardized in the sense of they are collectively made by 军器监 . . . at least in Song.
Hi mariusj,
What you have stated are the text book examples. However, if you start digging into the classical texts deeper, you will find the situations were not as clean cut as you have read in the usual modern school text books. I know because I also studied the similar modern Chinese text books in Taiwan as well as my grandnieces are studying the modern Chinese text book in mainland China. These re-edited history text books in modern time don't really tell you in those facts in details. Sometimes, they do, but they usually just touch on it a little. I did not read my grandnieces' history books too closely when I was in Hangzhou, but I still remember that I needed to be able to write down the reasons why the armies of the Song or Ming or Qing dynasties became so weak for my essay questions in my history classes and for my High School Entrance exam and for my mock College Entrance Exams 30+ years ago in Taiwan. I don't know whether they still give essay questions nowadays, but I assume they would still ask such questions. What I am trying to say is that even in the modern Chinese history text books (that is NOT the real and undisputed history sources for Chinese history) in both Taiwan and mainland China, I believe they did mentioned a bit of the problems I am trying to describe in my previous posts.
Btw, Ming dynasty's 卫所 on the surface were professional armies, and the 兵戶 (family of soldiers) were supposed to be professional soldiers, but they were peasants in fact!!! Please read carefully in Ming Shi and other Chinese history texts (the original sources, NOT the edited versions) as well as research papers and books published by credible scholars who had studies and researched on Ming dynasty military organizations, etc. These materials will tell you what were the exact duties of these so-call "professional soldiers".
The first Emperor of Ming dynasty, Zhu Yuanzhang decided it would be a good idea to set up these farmer-soldiers in various places 卫所 so that they could be "professional soldiers" at the war time, but farmers at the peace time. However, it was NOT to be so. Most of the times, these soldiers were used as slave-farmers by their commanding officers, and they and their descendents could NOT become anything other than the soldiers even though they were half-starved towards the later part of the Ming dynasty. They were NOT really trained militarily too much because the commanders would need them to farm the lands of the 卫所 and took most the produces from them for the officers' own use.
In addition, the commanding officers would also report more soldiers in their armies than there really were in order to get more soldiers' salaries and food from the central government. These money and food also went into the commanders' own pockets, and NOT the slave-farmer-soldiers!!! What should be rightfully going to these soldiers, about half or maybe more also went into these commanders or officers' pockets. Oh, the scholar bureacrates and the eunuchs that monitored these armies also got their own share of money.
Towards the middle part of Ming dynasty, the government corruption became so bad that the standard army's weapon production became worse and worse. Many of these so-called "professional soldiers", but actually slave-farmers, had no actual swords or spears that could be called "real" swords or spears!!! However, it did not mean the Chinese weapon producing technologies were worse than Japan or other countries. On the contrary, the Chinese craftsmen at the time were producing weapons that were pretty much the leader of the world (or as one of the leaders of the world -- equal to any Western nations as well as Japan). However, if the government officials would not allow these craftsmen to build good weapons for the armies by giving them minimun good iron or steels or money and expecting them to create the same quantity of weapons -- well, the quality really suffered because of these corruptions!!!
Many of these slave-farmer-soldiers were starved and malnutritioned from long time starvations. They were ill trained in any military skills. When they were going into the battle fields, they were either having NO weapons at all or holding toy weapons that looked good (painted or coated with silver powered paints to make them looking like metal from afar) but really were wood or bamboo sticks!!! With these kind of soldiers, that was why there were documents in Ming dynasty (from the middle of the Ming dynasty on probably) that very few (10 to 15 or at most 50) Japanese Pirates could cause hundreds Ming's so-called "professional" soldiers to turn tail and run into the cities and closed the city gates in broad day light!!! Towards the end of the Ming dynasty, these Ming's "professional" soldiers' defeats became totally laughable when facing the Manchurian soldiers -- Please look at the numbers of soldiers in both armies in some of those famously shameful defeats of Ming soldiers and the actual actions of those Ming soldiers. Please think about whether these Ming's "professional" soldiers behaved like the real, well-trained professional soldiers!?
Regarding the Song dynasty soldiers and other Chinese soldiers in previous dynasties, please consider what happened in Ming dynasty and read carefully and in more details of the original sources of those dynasties about what really happened, and NOT what should be. In China, what really happened usually is/was NOT what should be. It was that way in ancient China, and it was the same now. It does not really matter whether it is in mainland China or Taiwan or Hong Kong. I don't know about Singapore, so I would not include it.
The questions about having the drafted soldiers (from China's great peasant population) or having the professional soldiers (by hiring or installing of the soldiers' families) were always hotly debated in many of the Chinese dynasties and in many of the Chinese Emperors' courts. It is NOT really settled even today. Mainland China used the methods of professional soldiers, but Taiwan used the methods of drafted soldiers (from general populations). Both methods had its own good points and bad points. Even within one Chinese dynasty, this issue would waver back and forth many times. Sometimes, one emperor and his ministers would decide to go for the drafting methods (from the peasant population). Sometimes, another emperor would say, "No, no, no!!! This method is no good, I want to change it to professional soldiers!!!" I remember, even Han dynasty had changed a few times, as well as Tang dynasty. Song dynasty used the mixed methods. The central government's soldiers and the other soldiers were a bit different. One was drafted, and the other was professional. I forgot which was which. Anyway, Song dynasty's soldiers still had the same problems even with both methods!!!
Qing dynasty soldiers were professional soldiers, and they don't need to do anything, but that made them corrupt and became totally useless even faster than earlier dynasties -- It was noted thus by Kangxi when it was in the later years of Kangxi's reign. Fortunately for Kangxi and Yongzhen and Qianlong, they had a few very good commanders and some of the armies were still good enough under these good commanders. When it got to the later Qing Emperors, most of the Qing armies were just plain waste of government money!!! That was why the Qing Emperors needed to rely on the Mongolian armies. Then, when the Taiping Rebellion started, the Qing Emperors had to rely on the privately organized armies by Han scholars, like Zen Guofan, Zhuo Zongtang, Li Hongzhang, etc. Their armies were really peasant armies, and totally private and NOT government's professional armies at all!!! They were the forerunners of the later Chinese warlord armies in the early Republic era!
The corruptions and methods of corruptions lasted from Ming dynasty all the way to the early Republican's armies, including KMT's armies (many of them were actually warlords' armies that became allies with Chiang Kai-Shek and NOT Chiang's own real and really professional modern armies at all!!! Many people always get confused about this fact!!!) It was NOT that Chiang's own professional army officers did not have corruptions.
My mother was in Chiang's own professional army during WWII. Her army was under the command of Chiang's trusted commander, Chen Cheng 陳誠, in Zhejiang area fighting Japanese. However, this so-called "hero of fighting Japanese" (抗日英雄 -- his own son's words when the son, Chen Lu-an 陳履安, was a Presidential Candidate in Taiwan in 1996) seemed to have a corruption problem according to my mother and her army friends. My mom and her army friends were starving, so they went to Chen Cheng's ancestral home in Qingtian 青田縣 (in Zhejiang province) and ate all of Chen Cheng's live stock and took away all his stored food and farm produces!!! His wife (who had bind feet) came out jumping up and down, cursing and crying and yelling at my mom and her army friends, "My husband is a commander, and he would shoot you all!!!" My mother was about 16 years old, and she stood in front of her and yelled back, "Could your husband fight without soldiers? We are starving to death, and your husband has given us no food nor money. Therefore, we are here to eat his own food!" Therefore, I was when I was listening to Chen Lu-an's campaign speeches in 1996!!!
Anyway, the only way for a Chinese soldier in the old time to have good knives, good weapons, good armors, good food, and good military trainings had always been DIY (Do-It-Yourself)!!! I believe this situation becomes much better after 1950's or so at both mainland China and Taiwan.
What you have stated are the text book examples. However, if you start digging into the classical texts deeper, you will find the situations were not as clean cut as you have read in the usual modern school text books.
I know because I also studied the similar modern Chinese text books in Taiwan as well as my grandnieces are studying the modern Chinese text book in mainland China. These re-edited history text books in modern time don't really tell you in those facts in details. Sometimes, they do, but they usually just touch on it a little. I did not read my grandnieces' history books too closely when I was in Hangzhou, but I still remember that I needed to be able to write down the reasons why the armies of the Song or Ming or Qing dynasties became so weak for my essay questions in my history classes and for my High School Entrance exam and for my mock College Entrance Exams 30+ years ago in Taiwan. I don't know whether they still give essay questions nowadays, but I assume they would still ask such questions. What I am trying to say is that even in the modern Chinese history text books (that is NOT the real and undisputed history sources for Chinese history) in both Taiwan and mainland China, I believe they did mentioned a bit of the problems I am trying to describe in my previous posts.Btw, Ming dynasty's 卫所 on the surface were professional armies, and the 兵戶 (family of soldiers) were supposed to be professional soldiers, but they were peasants in fact!!! Please read carefully in Ming Shi and other Chinese history texts (the original sources, NOT the edited versions) as well as research papers and books published by credible scholars who had studies and researched on Ming dynasty military organizations, etc. These materials will tell you what were the exact duties of these so-call "professional soldiers".
The first Emperor of Ming dynasty, Zhu Yuanzhang decided it would be a good idea to set up these farmer-soldiers in various places 卫所 so that they could be "professional soldiers" at the war time, but farmers at the peace time. However, it was NOT to be so. Most of the times, these soldiers were used as slave-farmers by their commanding officers, and they and their descendents could NOT become anything other than the soldiers even though they were half-starved towards the later part of the Ming dynasty. They were NOT really trained militarily too much because the commanders would need them to farm the lands of the 卫所 and took most the produces from them for the officers' own use.
In addition, the commanding officers would also report more soldiers in their armies than there really were in order to get more soldiers' salaries and food from the central government. These money and food also went into the commanders' own pockets, and NOT the slave-farmer-soldiers!!! What should be rightfully going to these soldiers, about half or maybe more also went into these commanders or officers' pockets. Oh, the scholar bureacrates and the eunuchs that monitored these armies also got their own share of money.
Towards the middle part of Ming dynasty, the government corruption became so bad that the standard army's weapon production became worse and worse. Many of these so-called "professional soldiers", but actually slave-farmers, had no actual swords or spears that could be called "real" swords or spears!!! However, it did not mean the Chinese weapon producing technologies were worse than Japan or other countries. On the contrary, the Chinese craftsmen at the time were producing weapons that were pretty much the leader of the world (or as one of the leaders of the world -- equal to any Western nations as well as Japan). However, if the government officials would not allow these craftsmen to build good weapons for the armies by giving them minimun good iron or steels or money and expecting them to create the same quantity of weapons -- well, the quality really suffered because of these corruptions!!!
Many of these slave-farmer-soldiers were starved and malnutritioned from long time starvations. They were ill trained in any military skills. When they were going into the battle fields, they were either having NO weapons at all or holding toy weapons that looked good (painted or coated with silver powered paints to make them looking like metal from afar) but really were wood or bamboo sticks!!! With these kind of soldiers, that was why there were documents in Ming dynasty (from the middle of the Ming dynasty on probably) that very few (10 to 15 or at most 50) Japanese Pirates could cause hundreds Ming's so-called "professional" soldiers to turn tail and run into the cities and closed the city gates in broad day light!!! Towards the end of the Ming dynasty, these Ming's "professional" soldiers' defeats became totally laughable when facing the Manchurian soldiers -- Please look at the numbers of soldiers in both armies in some of those famously shameful defeats of Ming soldiers and the actual actions of those Ming soldiers. Please think about whether these Ming's "professional" soldiers behaved like the real, well-trained professional soldiers!?
Regarding the Song dynasty soldiers and other Chinese soldiers in previous dynasties, please consider what happened in Ming dynasty and read carefully and in more details of the original sources of those dynasties about what really happened, and NOT what should be. In China, what really happened usually is/was NOT what should be. It was that way in ancient China, and it was the same now. It does not really matter whether it is in mainland China or Taiwan or Hong Kong. I don't know about Singapore, so I would not include it.
The questions about having the drafted soldiers (from China's great peasant population) or having the professional soldiers (by hiring or installing of the soldiers' families) were always hotly debated in many of the Chinese dynasties and in many of the Chinese Emperors' courts. It is NOT really settled even today. Mainland China used the methods of professional soldiers, but Taiwan used the methods of drafted soldiers (from general populations). Both methods had its own good points and bad points. Even within one Chinese dynasty, this issue would waver back and forth many times. Sometimes, one emperor and his ministers would decide to go for the drafting methods (from the peasant population). Sometimes, another emperor would say, "No, no, no!!! This method is no good, I want to change it to professional soldiers!!!" I remember, even Han dynasty had changed a few times, as well as Tang dynasty. Song dynasty used the mixed methods. The central government's soldiers and the other soldiers were a bit different. One was drafted, and the other was professional. I forgot which was which. Anyway, Song dynasty's soldiers still had the same problems even with both methods!!!
Qing dynasty soldiers were professional soldiers, and they don't need to do anything, but that made them corrupt and became totally useless even faster than earlier dynasties -- It was noted thus by Kangxi when it was in the later years of Kangxi's reign. Fortunately for Kangxi and Yongzhen and Qianlong, they had a few very good commanders and some of the armies were still good enough under these good commanders. When it got to the later Qing Emperors, most of the Qing armies were just plain waste of government money!!! That was why the Qing Emperors needed to rely on the Mongolian armies. Then, when the Taiping Rebellion started, the Qing Emperors had to rely on the privately organized armies by Han scholars, like Zen Guofan, Zhuo Zongtang, Li Hongzhang, etc. Their armies were really peasant armies, and totally private and NOT government's professional armies at all!!! They were the forerunners of the later Chinese warlord armies in the early Republic era!
The corruptions and methods of corruptions lasted from Ming dynasty all the way to the early Republican's armies, including KMT's armies (many of them were actually warlords' armies that became allies with Chiang Kai-Shek and NOT Chiang's own real and really professional modern armies at all!!! Many people always get confused about this fact!!!) It was NOT that Chiang's own professional army officers did not have corruptions.
My mother was in Chiang's own professional army during WWII. Her army was under the command of Chiang's trusted commander, Chen Cheng 陳誠, in Zhejiang area fighting Japanese. However, this so-called "hero of fighting Japanese" (抗日英雄 -- his own son's words when the son, Chen Lu-an 陳履安, was a Presidential Candidate in Taiwan in 1996) seemed to have a corruption problem according to my mother and her army friends. My mom and her army friends were starving, so they went to Chen Cheng's ancestral home in Qingtian 青田縣 (in Zhejiang province) and ate all of Chen Cheng's live stock and took away all his stored food and farm produces!!! His wife (who had bind feet) came out jumping up and down, cursing and crying and yelling at my mom and her army friends, "My husband is a commander, and he would shoot you all!!!" My mother was about 16 years old, and she stood in front of her and yelled back, "Could your husband fight without soldiers? We are starving to death, and your husband has given us no food nor money. Therefore, we are here to eat his own food!" Therefore, I was
when I was listening to Chen Lu-an's campaign speeches in 1996!!! Anyway, the only way for a Chinese soldier in the old time to have good knives, good weapons, good armors, good food, and good military trainings had always been DIY (Do-It-Yourself)!!! I believe this situation becomes much better after 1950's or so at both mainland China and Taiwan.
QUOTE
Japanese samurai sword do have better quality due to oxidation [I either watch this on History Channel or read it in a book, but I forgot the details...]
But what is considered Japanese sword making techniques, the folding steel and differential heat treatment, wavy blade patterns and all, originate from the mainland.
and again, Japanese, Chinese, what does that mean? What era of Japan? Japan was not always unified, different divided powers with their own quality of craftsmen and weapons, same with China. China's history is long, and disputed, China's borders are large and unclear. What part of China and when, compared to what part of Japan and when?
I figure a big issue is just the reputation of Chinese military being weak, Chinese being poor soldiers, due to events in recent history and even attitudes of the Chinese themselves. Say with modern history, when Chinese have to fight against superior American firepower, they call it a human wave, but when allied forces storm a heavily fortified German beach, it is a brilliant strategy.
Especially when the knight and legionnaire are held in such high esteem in western culture, to have China represented by the peasant horde is unfortunate.
Then Japan is curiously exalted as the great warriors of Asia, the elite Samurai warriors and the mythical properties of their mighty katanas.
well, what reason did people have to respect the Chinese military? Their modern one was dated, they were outgunned by the west, they were even bloodied badly by the small island nation of Japan. If they were so weak in the present, so must they be in the past.
Even when the Chinese win, it can be a loss. When the Jin defeat the Song, it is not Chinese fighting Chinese, but barbarians conquering the effete Chinese. But when the Mongols fight the Jin, it is not barbarians fighting barbarians, but the barbarians conquering the militarily inferior Chinese.
I wondered this in another thread, and got an excellent eye opening response from our Josh Stout
QUOTE
These accounts are embarrassingly imperialist and racist in general, but particularly so in relation to anything to do with Chinese martial prowess. The Japanese are described as heroic midgets courageously defeating cowardly Chinese rebels. In the imperialist narrative it was quite important that the people whose country was being cut to pieces be seen as needing the help of the Western powers, while the Japanese were seen as examples of an Asian people who had successfully aped Western know how. This served the purpose of showing how imperialism helped the people it was imposed upon.
This may have been over 100 years ago, but I don't think cultures change so quickly. I figure the current situation of Chinese peasant horde and Japanese elite Samurai can be traced to this attitude.
Westerners even do it to their own history. When armor was obsolete and swords specialized for unarmored fencing, contemporary sword makers and fencers spread the idea that medieval swords were crude lumps of heavy iron, for surely their modern weapons were more sophisticated and their techniques more refined, yeah? Or say the French, who have a reputation of surrender and failure due to WWII and Vietnam.
Things are changing though, the better modern China looks, the more favorable its past looks. Entertainment media is a big part. One of the reasons the Samurai and the katana are still held in high esteem is in Japanese entertainment, Kurosawa films, anime warriors. There's a slew of big war epic films coming out, and kung fu is always popular in America. It seems kinda stupid, but I figure that's how these things work. Like having a pretty girl to sell product in a commercial.
With kids today exposed to Chinese military through Dynasty Warriors and wuxia, the reputation could probably turn to Chinese being invincible battle masters, hahah.
QUOTE (TMPikachu @ Mar 13 2008, 02:35 AM)
But what is considered Japanese sword making techniques, the folding steel and differential heat treatment, wavy blade patterns and all, originate from the mainland.
and again, Japanese, Chinese, what does that mean? What era of Japan? Japan was not always unified, different divided powers with their own quality of craftsmen and weapons, same with China. China's history is long, and disputed, China's borders are large and unclear. What part of China and when, compared to what part of Japan and when?
I figure a big issue is just the reputation of Chinese military being weak, Chinese being poor soldiers, due to events in recent history and even attitudes of the Chinese themselves. Say with modern history, when Chinese have to fight against superior American firepower, they call it a human wave, but when allied forces storm a heavily fortified German beach, it is a brilliant strategy.
Especially when the knight and legionnaire are held in such high esteem in western culture, to have China represented by the peasant horde is unfortunate.
Then Japan is curiously exalted as the great warriors of Asia, the elite Samurai warriors and the mythical properties of their mighty katanas.
well, what reason did people have to respect the Chinese military? Their modern one was dated, they were outgunned by the west, they were even bloodied badly by the small island nation of Japan. If they were so weak in the present, so must they be in the past.
Even when the Chinese win, it can be a loss. When the Jin defeat the Song, it is not Chinese fighting Chinese, but barbarians conquering the effete Chinese. But when the Mongols fight the Jin, it is not barbarians fighting barbarians, but the barbarians conquering the militarily inferior Chinese.
I wondered this in another thread, and got an excellent eye opening response from our Josh Stout
This may have been over 100 years ago, but I don't think cultures change so quickly. I figure the current situation of Chinese peasant horde and Japanese elite Samurai can be traced to this attitude.
Westerners even do it to their own history. When armor was obsolete and swords specialized for unarmored fencing, contemporary sword makers and fencers spread the idea that medieval swords were crude lumps of heavy iron, for surely their modern weapons were more sophisticated and their techniques more refined, yeah? Or say the French, who have a reputation of surrender and failure due to WWII and Vietnam.
Things are changing though, the better modern China looks, the more favorable its past looks. Entertainment media is a big part. One of the reasons the Samurai and the katana are still held in high esteem is in Japanese entertainment, Kurosawa films, anime warriors. There's a slew of big war epic films coming out, and kung fu is always popular in America. It seems kinda stupid, but I figure that's how these things work. Like having a pretty girl to sell product in a commercial.
With kids today exposed to Chinese military through Dynasty Warriors and wuxia, the reputation could probably turn to Chinese being invincible battle masters, hahah.
and again, Japanese, Chinese, what does that mean? What era of Japan? Japan was not always unified, different divided powers with their own quality of craftsmen and weapons, same with China. China's history is long, and disputed, China's borders are large and unclear. What part of China and when, compared to what part of Japan and when?
I figure a big issue is just the reputation of Chinese military being weak, Chinese being poor soldiers, due to events in recent history and even attitudes of the Chinese themselves. Say with modern history, when Chinese have to fight against superior American firepower, they call it a human wave, but when allied forces storm a heavily fortified German beach, it is a brilliant strategy.
Especially when the knight and legionnaire are held in such high esteem in western culture, to have China represented by the peasant horde is unfortunate.
Then Japan is curiously exalted as the great warriors of Asia, the elite Samurai warriors and the mythical properties of their mighty katanas.
well, what reason did people have to respect the Chinese military? Their modern one was dated, they were outgunned by the west, they were even bloodied badly by the small island nation of Japan. If they were so weak in the present, so must they be in the past.
Even when the Chinese win, it can be a loss. When the Jin defeat the Song, it is not Chinese fighting Chinese, but barbarians conquering the effete Chinese. But when the Mongols fight the Jin, it is not barbarians fighting barbarians, but the barbarians conquering the militarily inferior Chinese.
I wondered this in another thread, and got an excellent eye opening response from our Josh Stout
This may have been over 100 years ago, but I don't think cultures change so quickly. I figure the current situation of Chinese peasant horde and Japanese elite Samurai can be traced to this attitude.
Westerners even do it to their own history. When armor was obsolete and swords specialized for unarmored fencing, contemporary sword makers and fencers spread the idea that medieval swords were crude lumps of heavy iron, for surely their modern weapons were more sophisticated and their techniques more refined, yeah? Or say the French, who have a reputation of surrender and failure due to WWII and Vietnam.
Things are changing though, the better modern China looks, the more favorable its past looks. Entertainment media is a big part. One of the reasons the Samurai and the katana are still held in high esteem is in Japanese entertainment, Kurosawa films, anime warriors. There's a slew of big war epic films coming out, and kung fu is always popular in America. It seems kinda stupid, but I figure that's how these things work. Like having a pretty girl to sell product in a commercial.
With kids today exposed to Chinese military through Dynasty Warriors and wuxia, the reputation could probably turn to Chinese being invincible battle masters, hahah.
Those are some good points, and your prediction may well come true. Colonialist propaganda, particularly the 19c. stuff that matched self serving practices with "scientific" theories of race and cultural development has had a long lasting effect on our perceptions. On the other hand, it is good to remember that almost everyone has been a colony of someone. Here is my favorite take on the mixed legacy of colonialism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaE3EaQte78
Josh
Japanese samurai sword do have better quality due to oxidation [I either watch this on History Channel or read it in a book, but I forgot the details...]
I'm not sure that is correct. Japanese swords rust very easily and care of them is a big part of the training in martial arts that use them. Rusting is a real issue with the blades. Chinese swords that are true antiques are harder to find in the US but I can't imagine how either process would change the fundamental properties of steel. I'd bet folded blades of any period - say Japanese, Saxon, and Chinese are going to have similar rusting properties. Now if culturally you make a big deal of the blade, rather than stick it in a closet until you need it again, well, the cared for blade would be better.
Don't know about the discussion of the image of the peasant or farmer and China. My image of China is always the scholar, like the Greeks, and I think that's better than some guy with a sword.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.