Jian Sword Buddha

[Philip]

Originally Posted by kronckew

Another thought on context; I've read that the Jian was a 'scholars' sword, for their self-defence. Presumably this was a subject they also studied to be effective with it.

...But what else did 'Scholars' study, aside from learning the tens of thousands of characters and combinations of them.

The Chinese Government was based on Confucianism. The system required testing, written and oral exams, not only for entry, but for advancement to the next higher level. If you didn't pass the exam, you stayed at your current level. No rising to your level of incompetence, you stayed at your last level of competence. The study of the Jian was considered to take a lifetime. The Military preferred the Dao, which you learned fast, or died in battle. The Dao was also part of a weapons system with shields, armour, pole arms, artillery, missile weapons, strategy and tactics, not needed by civilians who liked to dance in well regulated patterns, the Dao was for killing, the Jian for showing off.

Well, the foray into Confucious and the Chinese civil service is quite a stretch, isn't it? What the examination system had to do with the jian and its use isn't exactly clear, but let me think about it.

What this does sound like is the sort of thing I've heard over many years of gun shows, collectors' meetings, and auction previews. Folks taking a bit of knowledge and extrapolating willy-nilly. Have heard earfuls regarding European swords and swordsmanship. People whose only exposure to traditional Western armed combat is Olympic fencing and Hollywood costume dramas expounding on eight centuries of swordplay in Europe. And how the sword in Europe essentially became irrelevant with the steady improvement of firearms. Irrelevant? I would recommend J. C. Amberger's The Secret History of the Sword for its analysis of how the use of cold steel has remained a vital and serious field of study and training down to the 20th cent.

Another case is the understanding of the small-sword in relation to its predecessor, the rapier. It is true that small-swords as part of a diplomat's formal dress and the regalia of the Académie Française are symbolic props, but to dismiss these weapons as fashion statements or "all for show" misses the point that they originated well back into the 17th cent. when swordsmanship was an important skill for civilians of a certain class. And that it is the result of a few decades' worth of transition from the true rapier, which would imply that functional parameters connected with fighting styles were at play. Funny thing, I remember a heated discussion I had with a gent who claimed that the smallsword was not a real weapon, it was only a piece of male attire like cufflinks or a tie-clip. And that European swordfighting techniques couldn't hold a candle to Japanese since in the West, it was mainly a sport and not real combat. Oh, I should mention that the "expert" who was lecturing me was a kendo practitioner (and a weekend duffer, at that). Last I checked, these guys do their thing with fasciculated strips of bamboo, not steel blades. Sport or combat?