How widespread is the belief that China made crappy weapons?

Today, I read a book titled "Arms and Armor" by Frederick Wilkinson, which is rather Eurocentric save a chapter at the end titled "The Third World"...charmingly...
Oh, that means- anyone not European. Yeah. You're a third world person.

Anyways...
It was a brief paragraph or so of the weapons and armor of other cultures. For most cultures, anyways. Then, there was the obligatory 5 page description on the uniqueness and quality of Japanese sword, mostly a description of the 'unique' laminated construction, folding, and differential heat treatment. Then came a bit on samurai, their very different armor, and Yumi.

Though the author apparently holds the Japanese in higher regard then the rest of "The Third World", I think a bit of my ethnic pride was stung on his paragraph following the Japanese section. It's not much to type really.

"Although comparatively speaking a near neighbour, China never developed the same skill in the manufacture of weapons and armour, and Chinese weapons were surprisingly clumsy or ineffective. Swords were either very large, two-handed execution swords with a slightly curved blade, or rather ineffective pairs of swords carried in one scabbard. One weapon which appears to have been peculiar to the Chinese, although copied by the Japanese, was a repeating crossbow, chu-ko-nu , which could be mounted on a wall and operated by a lever to maintain a steady flow of bolts. Chinese armour seems to have been mostly of the 'jack' or brigandine type with small plates riveted to the garment."

I felt quite angry upon reading "never developed the smae skill in the manufacture of weapons and armour" and "surprisingly clumsy or ineffective", and how the author seems to naively believe that Chinese swords were limited to "large, two-handed execution swords with a slightly curved blade, or rather ineffective pairs of swords carried in one scabbard".
And I also did not quite like the comment on Chinese armor being mostly of the Brigandine type, for there are infact over 20 types of armour used throughout Chinese History, including versions of Lamellar, Mail, Scales, and Plate.

I was just wondering- how widespread are misconceptions as these? How many people supposed to be experts really think this, and really write books for people trying to learn?
No doubt maybe his European, or shall we say "First World" sections are well researched, but if he really does not know much about the rest of the world...then he shouldn't even write about it. You can easily tell he was going by quite limited information on Chinese, however he made a sweeping Generalization about how skilled they were at the manufacture of weapons and armor. Thank god he didn't include a statement along the lines of "China was a loser in just about every war, possibly for these reasons though it may have been for a lack of able commanders, or a flawed conscription system of peasants".
Though I expect that is what the author would expect to see in a Chinese army anyways.

And again, I rather dislike how Japan is a model of 'exotic and unique' , being the foremost reference on Asian Weapons and Armor and Military history by many authors, who often fail to include other just as interesting cultures of Asia, or rather snub those cultures in a similar way as Frederick Wilkinson did the Chinese- making them seem to be quite poor when compared to the 'unique Japanese'.

I'm sorry everyone if I just seem ranting right now...
I've just been in somewhat of a bad mood upon reading that shortly after leaving my Highschool library.

---

Anyways, comments anyone? Any of you CHFers read similar stuff?
I think I'm just feeling rather snubbed following that, and smoldering.

This myth is no different from the popular misconception among 20th century historians that European swords were heavy and clumsy. I'm sure it will fade away in academic circles eventually.

Although it's not supposed to be, the academic circles are still heavily influenced by politics...

This obsession with anything-Japanese being "high-quality" did not exist around the WWII era... When Japanese cars were first imported into the U.S., they were seen as anything but "high-quality".

"Arms and Armor" by Frederick Wilkinson sounds like it should have neglected to mention anywhere past his own cultural back yard. Shame on him if he never bothered to take a look over the fence before opening his mouth.
I wouldnt say it is a problem of Western Historians in general to rate Chinese warfare poorly (bearing in mind the around 3,000 years plus of organised warfare, and its admittedly poor performance in certain periods).
I would say that is very unfair of him to make such comments on Chinese weapons & armour, and also untrue. Unless he is refering to a specific period I am at a loss to even picture what he is meaning by the weapons he describes. He obviously didnt bother to research in depth and just makes an academic a ss of himself.
Even titling a section as the 'Third World' shows him to be a fool from the onset in my own view, when he discusses history the same areas he calls 'third world' in modern economic understanding may have had higher cultures than other 'first world' countries in earlier periods.
That the Japanese 'borrowed' a lot of traditional Japanese culture from Tang dynasty China is clear enough...including the folding and quenching of steel blades.
Dont mistake a poor book as a general rule. You will find other Western authors make up for Frederick Wilkinson's deficiencies.
The guy just makes a fool of himself as an 'arms experts'.

It was a 1971 book aimed at schol children and, sadly, not particuarly good.

Going rate 2nd hand is 1 USD...

Well, I hope someone can write "Top 10 Myths believed by the West about Chinese Military, Arms and Armour" and have it published.

As a student, could you not report the inaccuracies of the book to the librarian/school master (and have your facts ready to back you up.) Escalate it to the school district if necessary.

And if they refuse to do anything, hey, perhaps a lawyer might be able to help ... you live in the USA, right?
Sue the school district.

If prayers in school and Intelligent Design can arouse legal proceedings, why not derigatory description based on falsehood on one's ethnic ancestry or something like that.

It's just a book, I don't think that there's really reason to sue.
But I can just say- it's downright wrong information.

I'm pretty sure the school district has nothing to do with it.

Heh heh heh, of course not. But since they get the flak for everything from prayers to Intelligent Design/Evolution, it seems that they are in the position to determine what should constitute as valid academic materials and what don't.
I'm sure if there's holocaust revisionist books found in the library, they'll be the authority to complain to.

Suing is not necessary, not a litigation happy person myself.

OTOH, that seems to be the method that most disputes in USA can resolved by - initiating litigation (though sometimes ending out-of-court). Sad to say that it seems some people won't take issues seriously unless it involves litigation. But that's just my impression.

Hi Yang Zongbao,

If anyone likes to ask about the quality of Chinese swords vs Japanese swords, pls direct them to my essay on this topic:

Question: The Chinese sword versus the Japanese sword, which is superior / inferior or are they equally-matched ???

ANSWER: Please allow me to give you a brief run-down on the technical development of the Chinese sword before I touch on the 64 million dollar question:

In the first thousand years after Christ was born, Chinese swordmaking techniques had steadily and gradually developed. Chinese swords of the Tang Dynasty were popular in Japan among the royalty.
_____________________________________

The Nihongi (together with the Kojiki, known as the 2 oldest classical histories in Japan) was complied in AD 720 (Tang Dynasty or the equivalent Japanese "Nara" period) and records a poem* by Empress Suiko (died AD 628):

"My good Soga** ! The sons of Soga !
Were they horses,
they would be the steeds of of Hiuga.
Were they swords,
they would be the good blades of Kure***.
............"

* From the "Nihongi", translator: W.G Aston, Charles E. Tuttle Company 1998

**Soga was a aristocratic clan of Korean decent and was very influential in the Japanese Imperial Court at that time.

***Kure was the Japanese pronunciation for "Wu", one of the 3 states of China during the 3 Kingdoms period (220AD - 280AD). In this case, the Empress used it to denote China.


During this period, Chinese and Korean swordsmiths were invited and recruited to Japan where they taught the native Japanese swordsmiths the respective Chinese swordmaking techniques of:
1) forge-welding / laminated construction
2) repeated forging and folding of sword blanks to enhance the quality of the steel
3) differential heat-treatment using clay
4) ridged cross-sections (consisting of 2 variants known to the Japanese as kiriha-zukuri and shinogi-zukuri)

______________________________________


In the Song, the Chinese military had to engage a couple of tough enemies, namely the Xixia (proto-Tibetans), Khitans, the Jins (proto-Manchus) and the Mongols....so one of the things they did to fight off these threats was to innovate new anti-cavalry weapons, ie new types of polearms and a new type of infantry sword called the zhanmadao (horse-chopping sword). This incident was recorded in the "Official History of the Song Dynasty" under Chapter 150 of the Records (zhi), sub-chapter 11 of the military (bing) section:

"In the 5th year of Xining (1072), the Emperor (Shenzong) showed the (newly-designed) zhanmadao to the Court Offical Cai Ting, who commented on its excellent workmanship and its ease of use. He thereby ordered the sword to be mass-produced in tens of thousands by the Imperial smiths to be presented to his subordinates and men. The handle's length was in excess of one (Chinese) foot, and the blade's length was in excess of 3 feet, and a ring was attached to the end of the handle........."

Under Emperor Shenzong, who had placed a heavy emphasis on weapons manufacture and design, this heavy two-handed sword, the zhanmadao, was devised to be used by the Song's infantry forces to cut through their enemies' heavily-armoured cavalry (armoured horses and riders).

The zhanmadao was perceived as an effective weapon, as was recorded in "Official History of the Song Dynasty" under Chapter 143 of the Records (zhi), sub-chapter 4 of the military (bing) section. It continued to be in use during the Ming and Qing dynasties.

However, as the Japanese and Chinese armies had never fought each other during this time, the question of whose sword is superior / inferior / or that both are equally-matched, during this period, remains unanswered, in my personal opinion.

__________________________________________


Just 5 years before the Mongols had finally conquered the Southern Song in 1279, Kublai Khan had sent a large naval fleet to conquer Japan in 1274. He had conquered the vast northern part of China by this time and I understand that he had used Northern Chinese and Koreans in this expedition. As the Mongols had a policy of making use of every available resource, they armed their troops with swords forged by smiths from among their subject peoples. It was highly likely that the Japanese sword had come into contact with the Chinese sword in this fight. Ditto for the 2nd invasion in 1281, when the Mongols had the resources of the whole of China at their disposal.

I am unable to find any primary historical sources in Chinese that comments on the quality of the continental swords versus the Japanese swords.

Kokan Nagayama, in the book "The Connoiseur's Book of Japanese Swords", Kodansha International 1997, states on page 21 that the "Japanese warriors had never before encountered such an enemy (the Mongols), who was protected by leather armor and wielded a very stout sword -- clearly superior to theirs -- in a unique style of fighting." He added that certain Japanese swordsmiths started to adopt thinner and simpler temper lines due to their belief that " blades with wide temper lines reaching near to the ridge line look gorgeous, but tend to break."

Unfortunately, Mr Nagayama did not quote the Japanese historical references that he derived his comments on the superiority of the Mongol (ie continental Chinese, Korean and other makes) sword over the Japanese sword.

Other Japanese scholars had also highlighted that certain Japanese swordsmiths of this period, began to make blades with thicker backs and bigger points, probably as a counter-response to the Mongol threat.

____________________________________________


After the Yuan, during the middle Ming (mid 1500s), General Qi Jiguang of the Ming Army had first encountered the large and long Japanese swords used by Japanese pirates raiding the south-eastern coast, and it had impressed and inspired him to make his own copies, later on, as a complement to the shorter single-handed Chinese saber used by his forces.

As a side-note, Chinese swordmaking skills in the northern part of China had also declined for a period. Due to low wages / incompetent administration by the Imperial authorities, certain northern Chinese swordsmiths started making blades with inferior workmanship, prompting General Qi Jiguang to specify and stipulate certain minimum standards with regards to this:


Translation on General Qi Jiguang's essay**** on the short sword:

"The following steps in the manufacturing process of the short sword are necessary:

1) The material of iron used must be forged many times (that is heated, hammered and folded numerous times).
2) The cutting edge must be made from the best steel, free of impurities.
3) The entire part of the blade where the back or ridge of the blade joins the cutting edge must be filed so that they appear seamlessly joined together. This process is necessary to enable the sword to cut well.

The sword smiths of the day had previously made swords in which they had not filed away the excess metal where the ridge joins the edge, resulting in an edge with protruding sides. This would create a sword that cannot cut as deeply as it should.........."

**** From chapter 4 of General Qi's military manual "Ji Xiao Xin Shu" (14 chapter edition published in 1588). General Qi also wrote saying that his reforms in weapons manufacture had succeeded and that the weapons (including swords) were manufactured to specified standards.


It is mostly likely true that the Japanese sword beat the single-handed Chinese saber at the initial period, given the numerous feedback by Ming scholar officials on the superb workmanship and combat effectiveness of Japanese swords used by the pirates. My personal opinion was that it had the several advantages:

1) a stouter cross-section
2) a greater reach due to its longer length.
3) excellent craftmanship

However, as mentioned earlier, the Chinese went on to make their own copies. We know that General Qi had specified strict standards for general sword manufacture, but as few Chinese-made copies of Japanese-style swords have survived from the period of mid-to-late Ming, we may have to suspend our judgement on the quality of these weapons vis-avis their Japanese counterparts until some are found/excavated and evaluated.


With regards to the 2 invasions of Korea by Japan, Stephen Turnbull, the respected author on Samurai warfare and tactics, states on page 247 of his book "The Samurai Sourcebook" Cassell and Co 1998, during the Battle of Byochekwan in 1593 that "the Japanese were victorious (over the Chinese army in this battle) largely owing to the superior quality of their swords." However, he did not specify the Japanese historical references that he drew from.

I am also unable to find any primary historical sources in Chinese that comments on the quality of the continental swords versus the Japanese swords during this war.

___________________________________________


In the Qing, which is my favourite period of all, under Emperor Qianlong, Chinese swordmaking went on to attain new and greatly improved levels of development. A document called "Weapons Workmanship Standards" (in 60 chapters), was compiled for Chinese sabers, polearms and other types of weapons, stipulating workmanship standards, quality control, work processes and type and quality of raw materials used.

Take a look at all the Imperial swords made in the Forbidden City forges still extant today and you will know what I mean. The swords and fittings were manufactured to strict standards and quality control.

Under Emperor Qianlong, the Chinese became the pre-eminent military superpower in the region; they defeated and occupied Mongolia, Tibet and Turkestan (present-day Xinjiang), whereas several other countries recognized Chinese dominance ..... resulting in them becoming the largest empire of all in Chinese history, the richest and most populous empire in the world at that time. However, even though Chinese swords were good (in my personal opinion) at this period, their battles were won through superior logistics and organization, plus a good armoury of quality artillery and muskets, using bows, arrows and swords only as complementary supporting arms.




FINALLY, the 64 million dollar question
I feel that actually, the best way to find out if the Qing Army under Emperor Qianlong had superior / inferior / equally-matched swords compared to the Japanese was for them to engage Japan's Tokugawa Shogunate's Army in battle. I believe that the best way to see how good the swords were was to see how they perform in combat or in war against each other. There must be blade-to-blade contact. Of course, the outcome of any war depends on many factors, not just on the quality of the weapons.

My opinion is that it remains to be seen whether the Japanese sword was superior to the Chinese sword during this time, as both had not seen battle against each other. My assessment is that should such an encounter occur, one of the most important criteria for the superior sword is one that cuts better / more deeply than the opposing sword and suffers lesser damage when cutting through flesh or armour or against the opponent's sword.


However, there are some scholars or collectors who claim that the Japanese sword is better than the Chinese sword. Period.

They say that the Japanese sword is better because of superior design through the use of:
1) forged and folded steel
2) forge-welded laminated construction
3) differential heat-treatment
4) the curvature of the blade that enhances cutting/slicing while minimizing stress/shock on the blade
5) a diamond-shaped ridged cross-section

My question is this: The Chinese had also made swords with the first 4 characteristics, and there are many Qing period Chinese sabers preserved today that also were made with all the 5 characteristics, including the diamond-shaped ridged cross-section. So, what is this about the superiority in Japanese design??

If they are talking about superior workmanship, then read what Philip Tom, a professional polisher and famous scholar on Chinese swords, has to say:


" Have you ever actually examined a Chinese version of a Japanese-style saber blade? I have handled a number of them over the years, and have restored the polish on a few. They vary somewhat in length, but are fairly similar, with stout shinogi-zukuri cross-sections (author's note -- shinogi-zukuri cross-sections refer to ridged cross-sections).........

The ones that I've polished date from the late 17th into the 18th century (author's note -- early and mid Qing period). Most are sanmei construction -- high carbon edge plate between two "cheeks" of well-forged lamellar steel, and the best one in my collection is of twist-core pattern weld (like the center of a Viking sword or Filipino kalis), with a stacked edge.

All are differentially heat treated, with edge hardness comparable to the range one would expect of something made in Japan. Resilience of the somewhat softer spine is quite good, also (keeping in mind that differentially hardened blades do not have the springlike temper that you come to expect on most European swords). These things compare quite favorably to the various Japanese blades which I've owned and restored. "



It is not my intention through writing this article to denigrate the Japanese sword. It was and is an excellent weapon, in my personal opinion, ranking together with the greatest pattern-welded Celtic/Viking swords, wootz damascus Arab and Indo-Persian sabers, Chinese swords, Indonesian/Malaysian Keris etc.

The softer spine is supposed to be an advantage right? It should be able to absorb the shock of combat better, and overall, extend the functional life of the sword.

Yes, the function is to absorb shock and prevent breakage... The Chinese had already accomplished this in bronze swords around 400-500 BC, for their high-end swords meant for kings and nobles, with harder bronze edges integrated with a softer bronze spine...

I think the widespread myth about superior quality of Japanese swords has a lot to do with the public image of Japanese swords in the minds of the uninformed people in the West.

1. Kendo - The kendo as a sports, with all its rigid rules and protocols, left a much deeper impression in the minds of the uninformed, especially when few Chinese martial arts as sports or exercise today emphasize much on the swords. Most Kendo students in the West probably never saw or owned a real Japanese sword, but the mysticism of the sword was already imparted through the lessons. The real sword occupied a practically sacred place, require respectful handling, very rare, antique, ancient yet maintain its edge etc.

Doesn't help when some of the Taiji practicioneers etc. who uses swords in their daily practices in the parks are elderly grandmothers. It makes the the Chinese swords look much more ... common.


2. Samurai movies - most of the time, these chaps are depicted as being very particular about their weapons, while in Chinese movies like CTHD, only really special weapons get respectful treatment but other warriors don't fuss much about their swords.


3. The whole Samurai armour, especially those with the monstrous masks - well if you wear one of those, your weapon got to be good, right?

In contrast, budget conscious Chinese movies don't always place sufficient significance on Chinese armour. In fact, most of the time, it's the villains who are in armour while the heroes are shown overcoming their disadvantage from lack of protection.


4. Today, there are still Japanese families who retain heirlooms of Japanese swords and put them on display and treat them with reverence. Many Westerners are suckers for heirlooms going back to times of nobility/royalty. Show them you got a Japanese sword carried by your ancestor during the Battle of Guadalcanal and they go "Ooooooh!"

It is very very rare for a Chinese family today to still possess Chinese swords as heirlooms. Even if you got one which your great great great great grandpa carried while fighting in the Eight Nations Alliance, they'll probably go "No wonder the Chinese lost, they were using swords against the rifles."


I am not intending to be insulting people from the West but I just want to highlight some myths still continue 'cos some of these people who don't use their brains are still around, and misconceptions take a long time to eradicate.

It seems a pity that myths perpetuated by movies almost always could only be corrected by more movies, not non-fiction books debunking the myths.

To add on to what you have said, I think another factor is say even if you are a westerner looking for more scholarly information, the most common reference is unfortunately Professor Stephen Turnbull. I first encountered Stephen Turnbull in Secondary school when we were doing research for our Oriental Adventures campaign. S. Turnbull was regarded by us as The Expert on medieval Japan, the Samurai and the armourment and weapons. Even today when you mention reference books on the subject S. Turnbull comes up more often than not.

I would like to say that there is a lot of good (in fact excellent) information and illustrations in his books. But he allowed his own misguided bias to mar an otherwise impressive set of works which for a whole generation of the English-speaking world introduced the Samurai and Japanese military history.

The fact that I single him out may seem harsh (especially since he isnt the only one promoting the misconceptions) but the fact is his books are the most visible and well-known.

Check out the review page for Turnbulls "Samurai invasion"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-...eviews.start=11

I can see the massive hordes of disorganised Chinese peasants equipped with rakes and pitchforks charging to towards the highly disciplined, organised, and well trained Japanese. Brandishing their folded steel swords and wiping through the Chinese forces like butter. While the stealthy Korean guerillas ambush the Japanese from the rear.

Unfortunately Turnbull forgot to mention that the Chinese used multi-arrow launchers, cannons mounted on wagons, folded steel swords, and muskets.

BTW, I just added my own review.

Eck, Yun, you gave that a a favorable review?
x_X
I thought we were all against human waves here on CHF D:
Oh well.

Anyways, I highly agree with Snowybeagle's analysis...especially the part on the Eight Nations Alliance.

I bought 'weapons and armor' for the pictures

his writing is crap though. he even praises Japanese chain armor as the best in the world (when it was one of the worst). A real Japanophile, and the same time down right racist against Chinese.

The very nice looking two handed dao he labels as an 'executioner's sword' and goes on about how crude and clumsy it is.

I'm going to blot out all the crap he wrote, and just use sticky notes with correct information.

Great pictures though, and I think his stuff on western armor is reliable (not entirely sure)

The funniest part of Turnbulls book is on page 199, where he describes the Ming army as "An immense Chinese horde"

Check this out, from the Pocket Aniques Fact File

Japanese armour is of excellent quality and highly sought after. Chinese armour was usually of inferior quality. Beware of attempts to pass it off as something more valuable.

Absolutely disgusting.

What a big generalization.

Luckily, modern scholarship has disproven such generalizations about Chinese weaponry.

You know, this is ironic becuase Japanese accounts of the Imjin wars indicates that it was the Chinese armour that was sought after by the Japanese. In addition, Ming records show that the Chinese chain mail at the time were highly resistant against Japanese swords.

Hmm, Chain Mail, eh?

Could you tell me how much chain mail was used in addition to the brigandines?

And- is there any more information on the quality of the armor during this period?

Wujiang is right--the armour of Ming officers was sought after by Japanese samurai. Judging by illustrations, Ming cavalry made wide use of mail and brigandine. Sometimes both at the same time FWIW.

As for the quality, Kenneth Swope mentions Chinese brigs resisiting Japanese musket volleys. So I imagine the armour was rather well made.