To me it seems like there's been a ton less publicised research done on Chinese arms than Japanese or European. Or at the very least, less available in America/English :/

The extensive coverage of Japanese arms is interesting though, anyone know particularly why that came to be, but not Chinese? In some old books I have with documents from the 10's and 20's, it's quite common to praise Japanese craftsmanship while dismiss Chinese as being the poorest in the world.

Now for those of you who are fluent in Chinese, do you notice a significant amount of Chinese only sources compared to those in english? Is there just a treasure trove waiting to be translated, or is it also relatively bare?

very good question TMPikachu,
I have noticed that myself.
It could be that it is because Japan has not been cloistered away for the last 50 years and had a chance to forge ( no pun intended, but it works well there) ahead or china in that aspect.

even before isolation in the 20th century though, there seemed to be more documentation on Japanese equipment by Europeans than Chinese

At least information that survives.

There seemed to be a reputation of Chinese arms and armor to be poor quality, especially compared to Japan's reputation of masterful quality. In a book I have with passages from the 1920's, a Chinese 'executioner sword' is described as very poor quality and crude, lumped in a general "Asian swords" category, while there are many long articles about different kinds of Japanese swords, their different parts, and technique.


Now, this was also the time that China was the 'sick man' of Asia, and Japan saw its opportunity to surpass them as leader of Asia.
Could there be a propaganda angle too? Japan was industrializing, China was being carved up. Like how Europeans in the time of fencing and rapiers wrote off medieval swords as being crude lumps in comparison.

There are quite a few Google Books ("Things Chinese" is a good example) that give first person accounts of nineteenth century China. 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.

On the non-racist side of things, remember that Japan had not used its swords in war for quite some time. What the West saw was works of art made for an elite class. Of course they were quite impressive. The blade of a village made dao may be the equal of a katana in terms of finely worked steel, but when the fittings were made to a rough tool grade finish, such pieces would not appear as anything more than crude and rustic. These were tools being used by low class fighters who the Western powers had every reason to look down on. It served to reinforce the Westerners own beliefs, while making the Chinese seem to be calling out to be conquered.

There is still a huge supply of village made Chinese weapons out there while the worst katanas available are factory produced WWII weapons. In terms of something pretty to bring back and put on your wall, there is no comparison.
Josh