Dear Folks:

I have at least two resources in my library that refer to sword material that originates with the late General QI Ji-guang (1528-1587). Both resources cite either the JIN XIAO SHIN SHU or the LIAN BING SHI JI. I've been through both documents and have found only the sabre and shield material. I do not find any material for the JIAN nor for the MIAO DAO. In fact, I do not find either the JIAN or the MIAO DAO identified in his roster of weapons (See: LIAN BING JI SHU). Does anyone have an explanation, or better yet, a resource for sword material attributed to General Qi? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

I thought General Qi Jiguang only wrote JiXiao Shinshu and Lianbing Shiji, which are military manuals on training of generals and soldiers. He probably did not write anything works about chinese sword. I could wrong though..

Well, heres the thing.

Here in the States we have a WU DAN group that reports that they study this material based on an "oral tradition". However, there are also a number of bits that show-up, infrequently, showing prints of Asian figures in various postures with a MIAO DAO and being attributed to General Qi. There are always some vague references to these prints coming from a "sword book" written by the general. However, I can also state that one such reference referred to the Korean MUYE TOBO TONG JI as citing the Ssang Soo Do material being attributed to General Qi. Since I have some small knowlege of that work I am familiar with the passage and know that it mentions only that General Qi acknowleged the presence of Japanese Ko-Dachi among the Wa-Ko and attested to that weapons effectiveness on the battlefield. There is no further comment on the General choosing to train his men in its use, or in securing an understanding of its methods for captured Wa-Ko under torture which is another popular myth.

Another possible source is the WU BEI SHI by Mao but I understand that so far this weapon is not found in that work either.

Lastly, I was given to believe that the MIAO DAO identified under another name was distributed to Banner Troops during the 17th and 18th Century. However, I have found no arsenal records nor have I found any prints bearing witness to this.
Prints of the TAIPING Rebellion show government troups continuing to use items readily identifiable but the MIAO DAO is not seen there either.

Now, in fairness, I can report that some weapons were adopted less as military and more as civilian items and the Asian Martial arts are replete with these. If such is the case with the MIAO DAO I do not have a problem with this practice. However, I think its poor scholarship not to make this clear. In the meantime I am still working to follow-up on this item as a military weapons system. Thoughts?

BTW: Is it also possible that the use of this item may have been suggested and pursued by one of General Qi's partners the way that General Wu was made famous for his interest in Spear and staff? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Hi Bruce,
I know you've been working on this topic for quite a while now.
I was under the impression that Qi had equipped his troops in the North with the chang dao as their basic side arm. I am, I admit relying on material on the internet for this, but I would have thought that the decisiveness with which Thomas Chen has stated it in the past must mean that it is fairly clearly written there. (Not as Miao dao, of course, as that use of the name only dates from the Republican era). However, the pictures which show the one/2 handed sword (shouang shou dao or chang dao), together with the monkey pictures fom the Kage ryu scroll are from the 1582, re-edited, 14 chapter version of the JIN XIAO SHIN SHU, not the 1561/2, longer (18 chapter) original. It was this part that was included in the WU BEI SHI. I am fairly certain that these pictures are from these sources, but as I don't have either in front of me, I couldn't swear to it.

However, in the section mentioned above, there is brief reference to Qi equipping his forces with the chang dao - he mentions that his arquebus squad was virtually defenceless (against a pirate charge) after discharging their weapons, so arming them with the chang dao was the ideal solution.

Incidentally, I believe Qi edited out his 32 chapters long boxing from later editions, so it's possible that there was also an intermediate printing which didn't include the whole lot.

Hope this helps,

Graculus

Hi, I just noticed this post.

Actually, I believe I have also heard or read mentioning of Miao Dao associated with General Qi Ji-guang. However, I think the materials I have read might NOT be the official history records, and possibly those oral traditions (just recorded in some Martial Artists' own personal memoirs). I am not sure because I believe I have read about that in my teenage years, and that was about 30+ years ago, so I don't quite remember!!!

Qi Ji-guang was stationed in the South before he went to the North. Miao Dao, as the name said, was the style of Dao popular among the Miao or other Chinese ethnic minority groups in the South of China. Many Han Chinese also adopted these Miao Dao for personal uses, especially when they live/lived in the mountains or in some dense tropical or subtropical forests, like my father's hometown in South Zhejian area or in Fujian or Canton areas, and NOT to leave out the Guangxi, Guizhou, Yunnan, Sichuan areas for sure!!!

Most of Qi's army soldiers were from these areas and probably were familiar with the usage of Miao Dao, especially if they lived in the mountain or forest areas!!! Therefore, I believe that Miao Dao's inclusion in Qi's army was very logical with or without the official records!!! Sometimes, things were NOT mentioned simply because they were so common that everyone knew this fact, so this fact was NOT recorded -- I am encountering similar things nowadays with certain older Chinese terms (one gets to encounter such things when one lives longer and gets older in a fast changing world)!!! Anyway, Jian was in the same situation. Jian was always standard issue for a Han Chinese army all throughout the Chinese history, and I think some historians felt that they really did not need to mention Jian especially because it was common knowledge!!! All the other weapons were changed more and having more varied styles, etc., all throughout different eras, so they were mentioned more. At least, that is my theory, and I could be wrong also!

Chang Dao was a totally different weapon than Miao Dao!!! Miao Dao, I believe, was fairly similar to the short swords or long knives carried by many different ethnic groups in South China as well as South East Asia (like Thais), even the Pacific islanders, like Filipinos, Taiwanese Aborigines, etc. -- I think, but I could be wrong also -- This is the impression I got from what Miao Dao and other Dao of similar styles I have seen over the years in both museums and pictures and photos, etc.