Zhan Ma Dao and Pu Dao? Zhanmadao and nodachi?

Thomas Yuan · (#1)

Why does it seem that people call the Pu Dao "Horse Chopper"? I thought that the Zhanmadao was a more saber type weapon, than the polearm pu dao?

As for Zhanmadao and Nodachi...

Which weapon was longer? Did they share similar application?

Thomas Chen · (#2)

Hi brother

There are some Praying Mantis schools teach a pudao form which they erroneously call zhanmadao. That is incorrect, based on historical fact....

The Song Dynasty zhanmadao in 1072 AD was around 1.2 - 1.4 meters long.

I am not sure of the lengths of the zhanmadao in the mid-Ming Dynasty, but the Japanese nodachi at the time was probably around 1.95 meters. General Qi had standardized his "changdao" at 1.95 meters and equipped his northern border soldiers with it; virtually every soldier armed with the musket was equipped with the changdao for close quarters fighting against the Mongols, where they utilized the technique of bending low and doing a broad sweep with their blades through the enemy's horses' legs, a technique that was first documented in the official history books as a combat-proven technique used successfully by famous Song General Yue Fei against proto-Manchu (known as the Jin) heavily armoured cavalry in the first half of the 12th century.

As for the Qing Dynasty zhanmadao, it was over 1.5 meters long. I have received helpful feedback from certain fellows from the Nihonto forum about the probable/possible use of the nodachi to cut horse legs, but would look forward to receiving more info from nihonto scholars on how the nodachi was used during the 13th-16th century, based on primary source historical records, war tales etc.....

Doug Mullane · (#3)

Geeeeeeeeez,

1.95 (dimensionless unit)
TO foot (length)
= 6.39763779527559 1 / meter (wave number)

That is one big sword; it's taller than I am.

Thomas, do you have the specifications for the Miao Dao (weight, length of specific proportions, balance point, etc.)? I am thinking about asking Kris Cutlery to make me one, but I don't want to be the cause of another inaccurate training piece (not that I am the result of any so far).

Thanks,

Doug M

Thomas Yuan · (#4)

this was prolly directed at the other thomas, but if it was directed to me, no.

Thomas Chen · (#5)

Hi Doug

General Qi specified the weight of the changdao to be Ming Dynasty dimensions, 2 jin and 8 liang. Philip Tom has mentioned that in Qing Dynasty dimensions, 1 jin is about 1.3 English pounds, 1 jin equals 16 liang.

Blade length was 5 Chinese feet; handle length 1.5 Chinese feet, for a total of 6.5 Chinese feet, where 1 feet is approximately 30-31 centimeters....

General Qi did not specify blade thickness but based what I see on Han and Tang swords, I would recommend a back thickness of at least 1 centimeter, with the ridge thickness slightly thicker, for an overall diamond-shaped ridged cross-section.....

The balance point was also not stated, so it really depends on your preference, coupled with requirements of the Miao Dao techniques used by your school....

You might also try contacting Hyakutake Colin for an alternative view on the balance point since he trains in the old school using the nodachi.......

When you obtain your custom-made changdao/miaodao, I will arrange for you, V.R. Mattheis and David Friedman, to hone and test your skills against these 2 gentleman shown below, in a couple of friendly matches.......

Cheers
Thomas Chen
(Super-Duper Miao Dao swordsman of all time)

Thomas Yuan · (#6)

hmm...I don't think I saw zhanmadao as a shaolin form, or used by shaolin monks...:/

Mark C. Luk · (#7)

Don't mess with Master Pan - he'll whip all of our butts

Thomas Chen · (#8)

" One must be glad to get his butt kicked by Master Pan and associates, for only when one gets his butt kicked will he learn to be the best swordsman in the world....." Philosophical quote found inside a fortune cookie bundled with fried rice takeaways from a New York Chinatown restaurant......

Another eminent martial artist who uses the shuangshoujian I think we should train with..... who will also kick our butts....

Doug Mullane · (#9)

Hey Thomas C.,

Here is the reply from Clin about his nodachi:

3 shaku 8 sun (45.4 inches)

Weight 3.25 kg. (7 pounds)

Tsuka is 2 shaku counterbalanced with lead to provide a correct balance.

Sori is ? a little bigger than normal.

A big sori makes a draw easier but takes away balance fron the kensaki.

A little thicker than normal. As metal objects become long they become more "bendy" I used a friend's 3.8 once and it was like trying to cut with a metal ribbon!

Two mekugi!

Hyakutake Colin

This helps some. I am appreciative of any help with this.

Hey, don't send Pan Qin-Fu my way! I can tell a story or two about him that hurts. He punches metal, which is a step beyond the fifty-pound sandbag I used to flatten every morning. Man, those digits on his hand are scary looking.

Doug M

Doug Mullane · (#10)

Thomas C.,

Perhaps you could help me a little further with dimensions of these Miao Dao from your website. I would like to base my version from Kris Cutlery from these (yet I would like to get as close to General Qi's requirements as possible).

Thanks,

Doug M

Scott M. Rodell · (#11)

Originally posted by Doug M
... dimensions of these Miao Dao from your website....

Just an historical note, the dao pictured above are "CHANG DAO" not Miaodao. The term Miaodao is apparently a modern one that is becoming a catch all term for all varities of shuangshoudao, two handed sabers. We'll avoid confusian later if we do our best to use the orginal historical terminology for each different sword.

Doug Mullane · (#12)

Oh...well, is there an accurate picture of one, or should one just assume that the nodachi and miao dao are identical?

About the above picture--my mistake. Am I missing the proper photo from Thomas' website?

Doug M

Thomas Chen · (#13)

Originally posted by Doug M
Thomas C.,

Perhaps you could help me a little further with dimensions of these Miao Dao from your website. I would like to base my version from Kris Cutlery from these (yet I would like to get as close to General Qi's requirements as possible).

Thanks,

Doug M

The picture above is from my website, and it was derived from a 1950s book by Chinese author Zhou Wei, who identified them as from the Ming Dynasty. However, he did not quote any specs for this weapon, and you can see that the handle vs blade ratio is not 1.5 Chinese feet vs 5 Chinese feet, as specified by General Qi. More like 1: 2.... Perhaps, there were some changdao manufactured which did not follow the specified lengths stipulated by General Qi.

As for H. Colin's nodachi, are you saying that his blade is 3 shaku 8 sun, plus a tsuka handle of 2 shaku, totalling 5 shaku 8 sun ?? Did he mention to you about the balance point??

Regards
Thomas Chen

Doug Mullane · (#14)

Hi Thomas C.,

The message I posted was taken as Colin posted it at this link:

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthr...199#post293199

I was kinda hoping you would help me out with the measurements he mentions. It seems as though I am too lazy to make use of the Japanese sword books I have...

Doug M

Thomas Chen · (#15)

Doug

I was hoping/waiting for H. Colin to answer with regards to his nodachi's ridge and back thickness plus balance point, on the Japanese swordsmanship forum..... Anyway, if I am reading him correctly, the overall blade is 5 shaku 8 sun, which works out to be 69.3 inches or 1.76 meters.

H. Colin's weapon:

Anyway, given a changdao of 1.95 meters or 76.77 inches, I would theoretically want a blade with a back thicknesss of 1 centimeter and a massive ridge thickness of 2 centimeters; plus a corresponding massive width of 4 centimeters. I think these dimensions are ok and sufficient to prevent the blade from warping/bending laterally under its own weight.

But one thing to be concerned with is the overall weight of such a monster...

Another thing to take note was that General Qi's changdao manual illustrates the soldier wielding it with both one and two-handed stances, so the balance point must be such that the weapon could be handled single-handed without much difficulty.

What are your thoughts ??

Doug Mullane · (#16)

Hey Thomas C.,

It will be funny when another Doug M starts to post here...

It sounds good--your explanation, that is. I thought that one centimeter was too thin until I measured it against some dao I have. Still, I wonder if a one-centimeter spine is enough for such a large sword. Is the four-centimeter width throughout, or does it taper at all to the end? (That might be a silly question.)

Weight is not much of a problem. You are talking to a guy who wants a ten-pound dao for practice. I would post a picture of me using heavy stuff, but...no. The only problem I would have is practicality: the only place I could use it without attracting attention would be my home, and I have no space to use it unless I do seated cuts, which is not a bad idea but is, for certain, not making effective use of it. I see midnight missions outside in my future.

Yes, the balance needs to be right on too. Such a weapon, when used with one hand, must require a strong grip to wield. That is why I use Captains of Crush grippers for a good part of the day. Perhaps I can find out if my smith friend can make me one of these for a lower price than Kris Cutlery...

Doug M

p.s.

Just to make sure:

If 1 Chinese foot is 30 centimeters, then
45 centimeter = 17.7165354330709 inch (for the handle)
150 centimeter = 59.0551181102362 inch (for the blade).

OR

If 1 Chinese foot is 31 centimeters, then
46.5 centimeter = 18.3070866141732 inch (for the handle)
155 centimeter = 61.0236220472441 inch (for the blade)

Is this correct?

Thomas Chen · (#17)

Doug

RE: I thought that one centimeter was too thin until I measured it against some dao I have. Still, I wonder if a one-centimeter spine is enough for such a large sword. Is the four-centimeter width throughout, or does it taper at all to the end?

I think 1 centimeter for the back thickness and 1.6 centimeter for the ridge thickness (I have reconsidered that 2 centimeters for the ridge thickness is too thick) should do the trick.....Maybe 1.4 cm back thickness vs 1.8 cm ridge thickness, just to be on the safe side...

As for the width, it is entirely up to your personal preference -- whether you want the blade width to taper and end in a smaller and narrower point or for the width to be consistent throughout its length......

The dimensions you have converted and calculated for the blade and handle length are CORRECT...

Thomas Chen · (#18)

Hi Doug

Mr Colin has replied with regards to the dimensions.

Compiling the various notes:

Overall length around: 174 cm (68.50 inches)
Blade length: 45.4 inches
handle length: around 23 inches

Width (widest part): 3.50 cm (1.38 inches)

Ridge thickness: around 8 mm

Balance with tsuka is around 22 cms (8.66 inches) from the tsuba

He says that the weight of 3.25 kg is unsheathed weight inclusive of handle and fittings (guard, pommel etc).

Regards
Thomas Chen

Thomas Chen · (#19)

Hi Doug

Check out this pic of good friend Alex holding a 2-handed dao. Alex says that this weapon has a ridged cross-section and if his opinion and appraisal is correct, it is likely from the late Ming Dynasty; in my personal opinion, this could possibly be an authentic changdao..... We need more experts to examine and evaluate this.

Look at the size of that thing.........I didn't lie to you and Bruce when I said that General Qi's changdao was 1.95 meters long....

ps: Let me get the exact dimensions from Alex. I will definitely urge him to do us a favor (even though he is very busy) by polishing a "window", just to evalulate the quality of the steel, and to gauge edge and spine Rockwell hardness......

Response to Tomi: I will ask Alex with regards to the weight...

Tomi K. · (#20)

That thing is huge, do you know the weight of that thing?

Doug Mullane · (#21)

Is the handle oval or more squared? What about the guard? From the two-handed dao I posted from your website, I cannot tell.

After this, I plan to go to Kris Cutlery with dimensions in order to get an estimate. I hope it all turns out favorably.

Doug M

Thomas Chen · (#22)

Dear Doug and Valin

The cross-section shape of the handle, if I understand correctly about late Ming single-handed saber handle profiles, would be square rather than oval. I am not sure of the shape of disk guards during the Ming, but the shape of the guard with reference to Qing sabers would be typically oval, not squarish nor round/circular like a typical Japanese tsuba...

Just to recap, Mr Colin's weapon is

Overall length around: 68.50 inches
Blade length: 45.4 inches
Handle length: around 23 inches

____________________________

I rechecked the book by Zhou Wei on these Ming sabers and the dimensions for the blades below are stated, very close to Mr Colin's dimensions:

Overall length around: 64.5 inches
Blade length: 42.5 inches
Handle length: 22 inches

I will update you as to the dimensions on Alex's piece....

Doug Mullane · (#23)

Hey Thomas C.,

See, because there are two of you on here, I always need to qualify the name--hence, the "C"...

What do you make of the discrepancy in handle length? The measurements you have for the Miao Dao are different from the handle lengths above, yes? Why do you think this is?

In the thread I posted on different Japanese wooden swords, I included a rather large sword that a friend made for me. I have no problem with that handle length (16-18"), noting full well the differences between a real sword and a practice one of different material. Still, the difference makes me wonder...

Doug M

Thomas Chen · (#24)

Hi Doug and V.R. Mattheis

There is an obvious discrepancy between these pieces and the dimensions given by General Qi.

I would agree with Valin's personal observation that 1.5 Chinese feet vs 5 Chinese feet seems a bit too top heavy (having measured and marked it out on a long bamboo pole) and that the handle might not long enough to exert useful leverage since the blade is so long, comparing 60 inches blade length vs 18 inches handle length for General Qi vs 42~45 inches blade length vs 22~23 inches handle length for Colin and the other Ming pieces.

The "Ji Xiao Xin Shu" text does not seem to have any typo errors with regards to this, the dimensions are reproduced exactly in the Korean "Muye Dongbo Tongji" and the "Wubeizhi".

Perhaps we could do a couple of tests with wooden poles of different dimensions, between 1.5 vs 5 and 2 vs 4.5, to determine our own preferences rather than sticking purely to General Qi's dimensions. But I would personally adhere still to the overall length of 1.95 meters....

Doug
This is an example of an oval-shaped Qing guard (with gold inlay) I was talking about:

Doug Mullane · (#25)

Hey,

I have this issue of World of Martial Arts but am unsure if I can scan pictures from it without violating copyright. I know that a certain percentage can be copied from a book for educational purposes, but I am unsure about this. If I can, I have many, many photos I would like to post here.

Anyway, the cover of this issue has what is supposed to be a nodachi:
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/martialartsmart/wm-603.html

I say "supposed to" because I nedd to cover myself in that respect. The pictures inside have more pictures like this.

Doug M