4

Essentially:

Ming era jian have a rounded guard, with the arc towards the wielder's hand:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_swords#/media/File:Sword_with_Scabbard_MET_DP119025_brightened_2x3.jpg][2]

The later, Qing era jian are reversed:

50" Qing longsword, ~4.5lbs; 30" in Qing straight sword, ~1.8lbs

I'm also linking to little Raven for validation because they're reliable, and there's a lot of bad information out there. This can also be validated in Iron and Steel Swords of China (Jiang Huangfu, 2007). It's not an strict design rule, but it's how we discuss the two distinct guards today. Note: Qing can also be spelled "Ching".

  • What are the function of these two basic guard types?

Why would a fencer prefer one over the other?

DukeZhou
  • 3,149
  • 10
  • 23
  • I feel the second one looks superior in that it might somewhat catch a striking blade when parrying. Furthermore the increased clearance towards the wrist would allow for more wrist flexibility. – Vorac Oct 06 '21 at 08:22

3 Answers3

1

Here's the basic answer:

  • Qing guard if you want to lock guards with an opponent

There are applications for disarming an opponent with a sword from the guard lock position, often utilizing the handle in a form of chin na.

(Be careful with videos showing this. I don't consider the application show here reliable—the demonstrator in this video is not controlling the opponent's blade and can be cut.)

The problem with this is, if you're facing someone more skilled at joint locking, like my si hings, you'd be at a disadvantage. Therefore, some may prefer:

  • Ming guard disallows locking guards

It allows the bearer to better ensure a pure fencing engagement.

There are some caveats, of course—you can still be struck with shoulder or hand, or have your leg swept, but at least you don't have to worry about your guard getting locked up!

DukeZhou
  • 3,149
  • 10
  • 23
1

I practice a lot of jian, and based on experience, the swept back guards prevent snagging on clothing during "flowers" or thrusts. The forward Qing guards have better hand ergonomics due to how the fingers fit against the hilt. Stuff like trapping or even hand protection is a non-issue because of how Chinese jian technique works. It's not like Western fencing, and if the other blade comes anywhere near your hand, you've already screwed up.

Interesting to note that the clothing styles in China changed from the Ming to Qing dynasties as the people were forced to adopt the more "buttoned up" Manchurian dress. This may be why hilt snagging ceased to be an issue, and the guards favored ergonomics over streamlining.

Raul Jocson
  • 11
  • 1
0

In sword terms, the guards on Chinese swords are rather narrow. Neither of which is very good for conventional locking in sword fights. Chinese never developed complicated hilts on their swords. The swept back design may allow the fingers to keep from going up ANY further than needed.

  • Shields: Since swords were often used with shields, rear swept guard did not snag a shield during a thrust. Also unlike Europe: Chinese never developed plate armour and continued to used bows and arrows As such shields remained in their arsenal much longer

As for why sweep back, unlike European swords, Chinese jian did not have much distal tapering (narrowing closer to the tip) compared to conventional swords, its weight was more further upward, and hand guards played a less prevalent role, unlike European swords where diversity and "Typology" constant change was apparent. When a weapon does not evolve with changing styles of warfare and newly emerging weaponry, it is often the scenario that the weapon has more of a adhered cultural value beyond utilitarian purpose.

Macaco Branco
  • 11,995
  • 2
  • 23
  • 53
LazyReader
  • 295
  • 1
  • 4
  • I disagree with the idea that the jian were not functional, b/c they were used in battlefields by officers up to the Sino-Japanese war. In fact, they don't taper because we have use for the flat—more area to control the opponent's blade. Basket hilts like never developed b/c they limit versatility of the weapon. Modern Chinese fencing (Li Jinglin, Wang Zi-Ping, etc) seems clearly influenced by characteristics and demands of modern European fencing. Unlike Historical European fencing reconstruction, Chinese fencing is an extant art, passed down fro the last generation of soldiers&duellists. – DukeZhou Oct 29 '21 at 22:37
  • Richard F. Burton wrote about calvary sabers being used in the West beyond their time of utility, for the intimidation factor—pistols were already more effective for mounted soldiers. Like Li and Wang, Burton was influential in the formation of the modern sport of fencing—these masters understood that the age of the sword was over and looked to preserve the art. – DukeZhou Oct 29 '21 at 22:39
  • @DukeZhou I never said it wasn't functional.... – LazyReader Nov 01 '21 at 17:20