I'm wondering if jian construction and techniques are similiar to European techniques for double edged straight swords.

I know there's many different kinds of such swords in Europe varying from time and place, so this quesiton is rather vague. Jian length also varies in Chinese history though, yes?

The most famous design for the European longsword is that of the 15th century, to generalise.

European
40-50 inches in length. Strong taper to the point, point of balance very close to the hand, spring tempered.

Chinese Jian
30-40 inches long, one handed, very little taper, point of balance quite far from the hand, differentially tempered.

As for techniques, their are only so many ways you can use a sword.

Ignoramus question: If the point of balance is far from the hilt (that is where you mean right?) wouldnt this mean when a user holds the sword he would not feel that it is well-balanced? (That is he will feel the sword is heavier above the hilt. Somehow that doesnt sound right but I am sure I am missing something.

It really depends on your individual definition of "well balanced", swords with balance further from the hilt(e.g, the katana) gain more power during the swing (like a baseball bat), and thus are able to cut better. The Jian, being fairly lightweight(1-2lbs) needed the balance far from the hand, or it would be unable to cut effectively.

Conan, I would recommend you don't take those crappy Longchuan swords or those sold on the market today as the standard of Chinese swords.

Historical pieces of Chinese jians made for can weigh anything up to 6lb. Only civilian swords tend to be lighter (but still no where near those longchuan rubbish) which I don't believe should be compared with war swords (different tool, different job). In addition, a well balanced Jian would ahve its balance point around 2-3 inches from the jianbei (guard).

I recommend that we at least set some kind of limit in terms of time. Because the only time when both the east and the west were using straight, double edge swords was during the Zhangou times.

I don't use longchuan swords. I buy either antiques or historically accurate replicas from Zhengwutang or Huanuosword.

The typical Jian had a balance point 5-6 inches from the guard, and weighed between 1.5-2lbs. Scott rodell of swordforum can back up this statement. Any Jian that weighed 6lbs would be simply impractical for the battlefield. In addition, a Jian that balanced 2 inches from the guard would be nothing more than a rapier, and would be completely unable to cut effectively.

The kind sword you are talking about are civilian swords. And the 2-3 in balance was talking about civilian swords. Of which I have noted should not be compared with war swords. War swords found in china that dates back to the Song dynasty did have the specification I stated.

so would European swords not be as strong in slashing if their balance is closer to the hilt? Then I imagine they'd be more nimble for stabbing?

Your average one, one-and-a-half ore two handed straight double edged sword like the ones used in the middle ages (about the time of the crusades) were cutting swords. They were used almost exclusively for slashing purpose only, as they had a very blunt almost round point. To deal with the weight of the blade they had a massive pommel serving as a counterweight.
There were some swords which could be used for stabbing. These had a heavily tapered point and were quite broad at the hilt (they roughly looked like a triangle). The reason for these swords to have a point like this was that only a very narrow point could penetrate the chain-mail the average knight was wearing. This is also the reason why the most swords were slashing swords. They were also not really sharp, but relied on giving your opponent a series of very heavy blows (you cannot cut through plate and/or chain-mail). In this way you just basically beat up your opponent, break bones etc. A nice way to deal with a fallen knight was to take a nice pointed knive and look for a gap in the armor. Preferably in the neck area or in the armpit.

It was only till later on (around the time of the Renaissance) when the rapier was introduced, that the techniques that were used shifted to stabbing. You still had heavy sabers for slashing purpose. These were often used by cavalry.

Hate to break it to you, but you are completely wrong on several counts.

There are plenty of European "knightly" swords that have functional points. They are cut-and-thrust weapons.

European swords were as sharp as any other swords (as things like the skeletons from the grave pit as Wisbey graphically show). European sword expert A.V.B. Norman has commented on the fallacy of the "dull" European sword that was used to "batter" opponents--it's a myth.

Nor should we assume that the use of the point was neglected prior to the introduction of the rapier. On the contrary, thrusting attacks are quite common in the German school of the langen schwert (long sword). We must also consider the estoc, a two-handed thrusting sword with no cutting edges at all, that pre-dated the rapier proper.



The biggest difference between the jian and European double-edged cut-and-thrust swords would be in the hilt. Earlier European blades featured a simple cross-hilt, and these are arguably most similar to Chinese models. Later European swords featured elaborate hand protection--"swept" and "basket" hilts. The former type concentrated most of the protection as a series of metal bars to protect the index finger, which was typically looped over the forward quillon to improve point control (this was a feature of Mediterranean methods of fencing). The latter, on the other hand, covered the entire sword-hand.

Can you elaborate this a little ? Are you saying that the Chinese sword's guards are used to hook the finger over as well ?

No, that is not what I'm saying.

On the contrary, to do such a thing on a Chinese sword would lead to a severed index finger (unless one was wearing a gauntlet, at least).

I'm simply saying that the Chinese jian is roughly akin to straight, double-edged European swords. It is arguably more similar to the older Medieval European types, due to the simple guard that both feature.

To better illustrate the differences between the "swept" and "basket" hilts, refer to the following pictures from Del Tin Armi Antiche:

http://www.deltin.it/5160.jpg

http://www.deltin.it/5164.jpg

The two swords above are Spanish espadas with early versions of the "swept" hilt. Note the finger rings and side rings, intended to protect the index finger when it is curled over the forward quillon (crossbar).

Compare the swords above with the spada Schiavona ("Slavonic sword") below:

http://www.deltin.it/5173.jpg

Note how the "basket-hilt" of the [i]Schiavona covers the entire sword-hand.

For the entire Del Tin website, check out:

http://www.deltin.it/swords6.htm



If you have any other questions about hilts, I'll do my best to answer them.

It strongly depends on which age of jian you are talking about. Tang and pre-tang swords doesn't have that kind of guard. Rather, their guards are much smaller. If you are talking about Song dynasty swords, yes, they would be similar in both looks and function.

If you are talking about Ming and Qing dynasty jian, you might want to bold out the 'roughly' part as well so we don't misunderstand you. As you may read from in another thread,, while the guard looks similar, the uses are can't be more different. While western swordplay does have its level of versatilty, it still 'grips' the sword for control. As I have explained before, Chinese swordplay from Ming and Qing onwards does not grip the sword from our understanding of the word. The sword actually slide around the hand and the fingers control what position the sword is in the palm depending on what techniques are used. The way to hold the sword when executing a Kan, Pi are very different from those used when executing the dian and same goes for tiao

I simply observed that both Chinese swords and Medieval European ones have rather minimal guards.



Your appraisal of how Western swordsmen approach the issue of proper weapon grip does not do justice to those men or their systems. I therefore will assume that Western swordfighting systems are not your specialty.

There is a great variety of grips used in European methods of fencing. With heavier military swords, the grip most commonly empolyed is the globular or "fist" grip. This is the best overall grip for those kinds of swords. However, grips can vary even with these weapons--for example, in Elizabethan English fencing, when one makes a thrust with a basket-hilted sword, one holds the weapon in the so-called "saber" grip (with the thumb along the back of the sword handle), because it allows one to keep the sword blade and arm in-line, and thus adds reach. When parrying or making cuts, however, the grip is shifted to the "fist" grip, in order to guard against being disarmed or suffering a sprain.

Lighter cut-and-thrust swords, like the English spadroon or the Italian sciabola di terreno (the loght "Radaellian" saber), may be held normally in the "saber" grip. The singlestick (a basket-hilted ash stick, used as a practice weapon) is also most commonly held with this grip.

Rapiers are typically held with one or two fingers hooked around the forward quillon. This aids in point control, while at the same time adding to one's retention of the weapon. The Italians would retain the above grip for the rapier with their later foils and epees, which still featured a crosspiece (unlike their French equivalents).

The French smallsword is held in a comparatively loose grip, what is commonly referred to as the "foil" grip these days. Finger control was everything in the French system of smallsword-play, which featured the use of such an ultra-light thrusting weapon.

The grip taken upon any weapon depends upon what type of weapon that is, and what school we are talking about.

The "Classical" European fencers of the 19th century were fond of describing one's grip on a sword as thus--"You must hold it like a bird--too hard, and you will kill it; too soft, and it will fly out of your hand."

I am familiar with all that you have said and I have taken them into account when I made my statement. Although I don't claim mastery, I have enough background in the area to comment on how a sword is held.

You often misinterpreted my comments based by assuming some kind of parallel between the chinese and the west. What I was trying to say is that no matter which grip is applied to that particular sword, that grip generally does not change during engagement. The thumb shift you talked about is an exteremly small variation compared to the Chinese's approach. Different swords having different grips is not the question here. It is the change of hand during use that is what seperatds chinese (jian) and western swordplay.

(ok, I can't seem to host image on imageshack so I can't illustrate what I am trying to say, can someone host them for me ? I'll send the images to you via E-mail)

Hello. I was wondering how wide are the blades on those two handed qin dynasty bronze swords?

Heard what the swordplayer like (in terms of favorite techniques and weight) determines the structural design of the straight sword (Chinese or European).

Is that correct?