Hmm.. i realise one thing. During Qin dynasty, most infantry man carry swords. Qin army was very strong.I suppose even if they did not build the great wall, those tribes nations would never have a chance to invade Qin. During song?ming dynasty, majority of the infantry/footman carry sabres i instead of sword.This was the fact that sabre is easier to use for a person who has no or little knowledge on fighting. However, song and ming army when compare to Qin, han and tang was as powerful. (we take away the "advance technology like seige weapon or we assume the army was on defending war,whereby seige weapon cannot be used) So here the question. Do u guys think that chinese army arm with swords will fight better and more powerful then army wielding sabres?

Think about armor the enemy wore and the existance of running horse around you....you get the idea.

You just cannot compare because the battle conditions in each era is different.

yeap.. i understand u cant have the entire army armed with sword. i mean, let say if a army make up of squad like ,footman,spearman and bow. spearman got fighting against horse. Footman as basic infantry unit. Would u guys think arming with sword is better or sabres?

well, the trend seems to go that around Song/Jin/Yuan times, they started using dao more than jian.

I've heard that jian are harder to learn than dao, so that could be one reason.

off the top of my head...
jian's advantage in it's straight blade is good for thrusting, which is good against fighting heavy armor
dao's advantage is the curving blade allows for slashing hits that would be relatively easy to aim. Also better for use on horseback.

Then there are those awesome Chinese sabers which have the handle curve in the reverse direction, so they can be used for thrusting (the tip aligns with the curved handle)


if you don't know Thomas Chen's website, here it is

http://thomaschen.freewebspace.com/photo2.html

*do you guys know if Chinese sabers were draw-cut blades or more for hacking? My guess is that the rarely used ox-tail is a hacker, while something like the willow-leaf looks like draw-cut.

The ox-tail saber first appeared in the 18th century, and quickly became popular in peasant rebellions because of it's ease of use as compared the the Goose quill, and willow leaf sabers.

Dude...
Swords and sabers do not determine the victor.
Essentially they are the same thing- military side arms. Like pistols today.

Whether you use a single action or double action pistol that determines the victor.

It's strategy. Swords or sabers don't have anything to do with how victorious an army is.

The crossbow and bow were actually more important than the swords or sabers I'd say, and maybe even the spear.

But overall, its quality of the generals that count.

In Chinese martial arts, the straight sword (jian) is a finese weapon.

Anthr words, requires an abundant of training.

Sabre (dao) is used for chopping and slashing.
This type of movement requires very little skill and more brutal strength than [the jian].

Not sure of this, but this Cardinal believes that it takes more work (craftsmanship) to build & construct a good a good [jian] than it is to build a sabre. Believe Thomas Chen is more qualified than I am on this specific point.

Do not know any of you ever learned martial arts.

My experience tells me that the skill requirements to use a [point and thrust] weapon is greater than a [slash and chop] weapon. And the jian is a deadly implement if used properly.

fyi- Most jians were not designed for combating against armored opposition.

Q: Any comments on this pov?

ximen_chuixue, I dont know where you heard most Qin soldiers carry swords.
When Qin was defeated many weapons were taken from the terracota warriors. The proportions by what weapons are left behind to me suggests the first weapons taken tended to be the polearms..as rather more swords were left behind. Of those that I know who carried them it was officer figures found with swords.
Such a small amount of spears and ge were found I feel it is likely these were taken first.
A very small amount of weapons were found in the pits according to the figures I have, something not made clear in all the fuss over the Qin bronze weapons.

The great wall of Qin to me is more a statement of unity of Empire and division between barabarians and Chinese than a way to simply end the tribes nations invading.
The wall features little in any talk of stategy against nomads in those times and into Han. The Nomads would be a problem for the entirity of Chinese history (including the times they were running the country).

It seems implied, and actually suggested by Yang Hong, that the Dao/sabre (at that time still a straight but double edged sword) came into favour over the double edged jian during Han. I personally dont understand why, but it emerged and was depicted in art as carried into battle.

A sabre is perhaps less demanding by attacking in an arc, as targeting is easier.

I agree with cardinal (my area however being Zhou to Han) that the jian is not made for attacking armour. Most weapons aren't. The last thing you want to do is strike armour, or even another blade. With the partial armour of the period there are better things to stick the balde into.
A straight sword is also more difficult to cast, in the ancient times, and the technology of making good thrusting jian over sabres in that way is puzzling.
The thrusting jian is a fine weapon however, and when needed has a double edge and can hack and slice also. My bronze jian shows a sharpened bevel all the way to the crossgaurd and would be fine for cutting even in gappling ranges. It is a versatile and functional weapon.
I would favour the long Han doble edged sword over a comparible dao...but it seems the Han didnt.
Quite why the single edged sword emerged isnt clear. Easier to produce? Simply viewed as a stronger hacking weapon? The ring pommeled dao is used in the period of disunity..but not after this.
Later Turkic influence led to the Chinese 'sabre' as we know it today.

In terms of advantage it wouldnt be clear cut. The formation, quality of steel, the battlefield application and the combined arms (missile fire/cavalry & polearms) as well as generalship are what determines victory.
In some situations a longsword would win out..in others a shortsword. In the same way a sabre or a straight sword itself will not win a battle.

Perhaps the saber is better for calvary? Since the nomads remained the biggest threat, it was a common tactic to chop the horse's leg off. I can see that happening with the Dao, but not the jian.

Look at jian as more of a [one on one] implement in the hands of an amateur.

In the case of a two-handed sword, it's a different situation.

Note- Not all two handed swords are made the same way.

Cool.......Do we have warriors armed with two jians in both hands?Talk about its high concentration of fighting skills....It was really cool..

i think dual wielding is impractical on the battlefield. Sword+shield is cheaper and safer and easier to train and requires less space I would think.

double swords I think is a more fancy martial arts and dueling thing.

For certain implement, there's a time and place for it.

If one were to apply a general purpose pov to their implement, that instrument must be of high quality. At the end, it's about the man that makes the weapon.

the Jian exitted from Chinese warfare arsenal due to the increasing importance of cavalry which would prefer single edged slashing weapons

and as a personal observation from using many swords is that since sanmei laminated double edged swords would use the same steel alloy (carbon levels indicating hardness of the metal) on both of the cutting edges (with the middle plate being of a softer alloy)causes annoying vibrations when struck against a hard object. normally, it wouldn't be a problem but used one hand on horseback,i could see where double edged weapons had their drawbacks while single edged laminated blade with the hardest alloy on the cutting edge and a softer spine backing it up would be optimal

besides, jian vs dao would hardly make a real difference in weaponry choice especially since the bow and polearm would be the most important weapons

The Jian did make a brief reappearance on the battlefield during the Sung dynasty. However, these Jian seem to be rather broad-bladed and robust compared to those used by martial artists and important military officials.

I did not know that. ... Did the martial artists-warriors and militart officials use two-handed jian? ... Was it something like what the Europeans used before?

Swords are more deadly then sabare if use one has the skill.. however many does not have enoug skill to use a sword.. in qin dynasty , swords are not so fine and balance yet.. they may act more like a sabre than a sword.

Well? Then it's really not a question on the weapon itself is it?
Bottom line- you can kill anyone with anything includind a dinner fork if you're skilled in its use.

Not to say you should arm your soldiers with a dinner fork. This is because the killing potential of swords and sabers is more obvious and comes easier, even if you don't really know the actual techniques, you just have to swing to kill someone.

No, I mean, remember the story about how during the Second Sino-Japanese War, a Jian master successfully defeated a Katana master? I believe the argument is that, when you have two highly skilled fighters, the guy with the Jian has an advantage over the Dao.

Probably the Jian is like the European Lance for Knights, that is, the Lance is a very effective weapon for cavalry to cavalry, whereas Jian is one of hte most effective weapons when well trained melee troops engage.

The original poster has a point - the Qin army used swords, and consequently their soldiers had to be highly trained in its use. Therefore they would be better all-round, than soldiers with training (or the lack of it) in sabres only. Thus a sword-using army would be a small, professional force, and a sabre-using one a large, unruly mob.

You're joking right ?

The Qin used jian not because they were train well, it was because daos wasn't invented yet. Everyone used jian back then. All of states during the spring & autumn and Warring States era, all of the armies from the elite to crappy at the time. No one used dao because it isn't exist.

When the dao was invented, it completely replaced the jian on the battlefield for soldiers because it was by far a much more efficient weapon to wield. As armour got more and more sophisticated, penetrating them became more and more difficuit which meant that only unarmed areas such as the joints could be targeted. These areas are best attacked using a slashing/hacking motion which the dao was perfect for. The ratio of chances of one to use hacking and thrusting was in the favor of hacking. Although thrusting is still needed for areas such as the armpits, the dao was still capable of delivering in these areas.

The jian took only a ceremonial role in the military after the invention of the dao. Although it did thrive among civilians as it was a great dualing weapon. The lack of armour meant that it could develop on more than just cut and thrust techniques. And scholars saw it as a great area of reserach as the techniques possible skyrockets when armour was not an issue.

On the battlefield, a decently equipped army with dao would have by far a much greater chance of victory again an army with jian. It isn't an issue of the level of training. It is an issue of the whether their potential can be exploited most

it's notable that in europe, with heavier armor coming around, soldiers/knights used falchions over their straight doubleedged swords.
and those were chopping swords.

The falchion was not designed for combat in plate armour, but rather, for causing blunt trauma on mail armoured men. The hand-and-a-half was to be preffered for fully armoured combat under almost all circumstances.

This is a very precise statement?

Such evidence as we have suggests a growing use of polearms in Western Europe through the 14th-16th C though sword and butler (small parrying shield) remained fairly common. There is also a fair amount of 'personal choice' and a distinct 'fashion' element. eg the majority of illustrations of falchions are English.

ps The term "hand and a half" sword didn't really become common till much later.

The knights (especially between 1100-1300) used the straight sword. Over the years it became longer (but not to long) making it easier for a knight to strike someone on the ground and a some what longer reach to another rider. A technique used in thrusting was to take the fore finger and extend it over the guard making it easier to thrust the sword, essentually making it an extension of the arm. Although there are depictions of knights cleaving the helms of other knights or "saracens" the thrust had a better chance of penetrating chain mail. Later (as Tom stated) the B******/hand and a half came out to help crush the armour by hacking/swinging instead of thrusting. The B****** sword would lead to the 2-handed sword.

cheers

Does that mean sword cant pierce armour????

It depends on the quality of the sword and the armor.